U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

81–725PDF 2013

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY SCIENCE 

AND TECHNOLOGY PRIORITIES 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND 

TECHNOLOGY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

TUESDAY, JUNE 18, 2013 

Serial No. 113–36 

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 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia 

STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

STEVE STOCKMAN, Texas 

BILL POSEY, Florida 

CYNTHIA LUMMIS, Wyoming 

DAVID SCHWEIKERT, Arizona 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota 

JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma 

RANDY WEBER, Texas 

CHRIS STEWART, Utah 

VACANCY 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida 

SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon 

ERIC SWALWELL, California 

DAN MAFFEI, New York 

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida 

JOSEPH KENNEDY III, Massachusetts 

SCOTT PETERS, California 

DEREK KILMER, Washington 

AMI BERA, California 

ELIZABETH ESTY, Connecticut 

MARC VEASEY, Texas 

JULIA BROWNLEY, California 

MARK TAKANO, California 

ROBIN KELLY, Illinois 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Tuesday, June 18, 2013 

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 ..................... 10 

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

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

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

Witnesses: 

The Honorable Ernest Moniz, Secretary, U.S. Department of Energy 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 13 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 17 

Discussion ................................................................................................................. 27 

Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions 

The Honorable Ernest Moniz, Secretary, U.S. Department of Energy ............... 68 

(1) 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY SCIENCE 

AND TECHNOLOGY PRIORITIES 

TUESDAY, JUNE 18, 2013 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY, 

Washington, D.C. 

The Committee met, pursuant to other business, at 10:18 a.m., 

in Room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Lamar 

Smith [Chairman of the Committee] presiding. 
2 

lAMAR S. SMITH, Texas 

CHAIRMAN 

[ongress of the tinited ~tates 

~ousc of lRcprcscntatiDCS COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

2321 RAVSURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING 

WASHINGTON, DC 20515-6301 

225-6371 

EDDIE BERNICE JOH~SON, T\'Ixas 

flANKINGMEt>l.3ER 

Department of Energy Science and Technology Priorities 

Tuesday, June 18,2013 

10:00 a,m, - 12:00 p,m. 

2318 Rayburn House Office Building 

Dr. Ernest Moniz, Secretary of Energy, US Department of Energy 
3 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

HEARING CHARTER 

Department of Energy Science alld Techllology Priorities 

Tuesday, June 18,2013 

10:15 a.m.-12:15 p.m. 

2318 Rayburn House Office Building 

PURPOSE 

The Committee on Science, Space, and Technology will hold a hearing entitled 

Department of Energy Science and Technology Priorities on Tuesday, June 18. at 10:00 a.m. in 

Room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building. The purpose of the hearing is to examine the 

Department of Energy's (DOE) science and technology priorities and related managemcnt and 

policy challenges. with an emphasis on how these factors int1uence research, development, 

demonstration and commercialization activities within the overall mission of the Department. 

WITNESS LIST 

DI'. Ernest Moniz, Secretary of Energy, Us. Department of Energy. Dr. Moniz was 

unanimously confirmed as the 13 til Secretary of Energy by thc Senate on May 16, 2013. Prior to 

his appointment. Dr. Moniz was a Professor of Physics and Engineering Systems at the 

Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), and served as founding Director of the MIT 

Energy Initiative. 

BACKGROUNn 

The Depmimcnt of Energy (DOE) funds a wide range of research. developmcnt, 

demonstration, and commercial application activities. DOE's primary mission is to "advance the 

national economic, and energy security of the United States; to promote scientific and 

technological innovation in suppoli of that mission; and to ensure the environmental cleanup of 

the national nuclear weapons complex."t In order to fulfill its mission, DOE operations are 

guided by five strategic themes: energy, nuclear safety and security, scientific discovery and 

innovation, environmental responsibility, and management and operational excellence. 

1 All DOE mission statements arc cited from that office's website. 
4 

Department of Energy (DO!!.] Science and Technology Spending 

(do/lars ill millionl~ 

FY 2014 Request 

FY 2013 versus 

FY 2012 Annualized FY 2014 FY 2012 Enacted 

Program Current CR Request $ % 

Office of Science 

Advanced Scientific 

Computing Research 428.3 443.6 465.6 37.3 8.7 

Basic Energy Sciences 1644.8 1698.4 1862.4 217.6 13.2 

Biological and 

Environmental Research 592.4 613.3 625.3 32.9 56 

Fusion Energy Sciences 393.0. 40.3.5 458.3 65.3 16.6 

High Energy Physics 770..5 795.7 776.5 60. 0..8 

Nuclear Physics 534.6 550.7 569.9 35.3 6.6 

Office of Science* 4873.6 4903.5 5152.8 279.2 5.7 

Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy (EERE) 

Hydrogen and Fuel Ceff 

Technologies 10.1.3 1043 100..0. (13) (1.3) 

Bioenergy Technology 195.0. 20.0..5 282.0. 81.5 40..6 

Solar Energy 284.7 290.7 356.5 71.8 25.2 

Wind Energy 91.8 93.8 144.0. 52.2 56.9 

Geothennal Technology 37.0. 38.1 60..0. 23.0. 62.2 

WaterPower 58.1 59.1 55.0. (3.1) (53) 

Vehicle Technologies 321.0. 330..8 575.0. 254.0. 79.1 

Building Technologies 214.7 220..5 30.0..0. 85.3 39.7 

Advanced Manufacturing*** 112.7 116.3 365.0. 248.7 213.9 

Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy (EERE)* 1780.1 1820.7 2775.7 995.6 55.9 

Race to the Top for Energy 

EfficiencylGrid Modernization 0 0 200.0 200.0 nfa 

Energy Security Trust 0 0 200.0 200.0 nla 

Nuclear Energy" 760.5 770.1 735.5 (25.0) (3.3) 

Electricity Delivery and Energy 

Reliability R&D 136.2 140.0 169.0 32.8 24.1 

Fossil Energy R&D 337.1 495.0 420.6 83.5 24.8 

ARPA-E 275.0 276.7 379.0 104.0 37.8 

Loan Guarantee Program Office 38.0 0 48.0 10.0 26.3 

Totals: 8418.2 8625.0 10298.0 1879.8 22.3 

* fotal program tundmg. 1111 nor and flon-S&T Jccounts at S( " and FERE nrc not shO\\11 

** Total Olliec of Nuclear Energy: includes Facility Management and Idaho Saf~gllards and Security 

2 
5 

DOE's Fiscal Year (FY) 2014 budget request seeks funding to achieve the 

Administration's energy policy goals: reducing oil dependency by 2 million barrels a day by 

2025 and cutting oil imports in half by 2020; doubling renewable electricity production from 

wind, solar, and geothermal by 2020; and doubling energy productivity by 2030.2 In support of 

these goals, the request includes investments in the research, development, demonstration, and 

deployment (RDD&D) or clean energy technologies, as well as investments that lead to a 

reduction in dependence in oil and mitigate the impact of climate change.] 

The overall FY 2014 budget request for DOE is $28.4 billion, which represents a $2.1 

billion or 6.2 percent increase over PY 20121evels.4 Approximately one third of this amount is 

dedicated to programs within the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology's jurisdiction. 

The balance of DOE's funding is primarily allocated to the National Nuclear Security 

Administration (NNSA), to maintain our stockpile of nuclear materials, and Defense and NonDefense Environmental Management (EM) programs, to manage the cleanup of nuclear weapons 

production and government-sponsored nuclear energy research. 

DOE R&D PROGRAMS AND OFFICES 

Offiee of Science (sq 

The mission of the Office of Science is the delivery of scientific discoveries, capabilities, 

and major scientific tools to transform the understanding of nature and to advance the energy, 

economic, and national security of the United States. The FY 2014 budget request for the Oflice 

of Science (SC) is $5.2 billion, a $218 million or 4.4 percent increase over the FY 2012 levels. 

Funding for SC is spread across four priority goal areas: 44% for research; 40% for facility 

operations; 15% for future facilities; and I % for workforce development. 

The Oflice of Science is the largest Pederal sponso~ of basic research in the physical 

sciences, and supports 31 national scientific user facilities.) SC supports research programs and 

user facilities that include support for three Bioenergy Research Centers (SRCs), 46 Energy 

Frontier Research Centers (EPRCs), and two Energy Innovation Hubs. 

SC also supports several ongoing interagency initiatives such as the Networking and 

Infonnation Technology Research and Development program: the National Networking 

Initiative; the United States Global Change Research Program; and the Climate Change 

Technology Program. SC provides approximately 45 percent of Federal support of basic 

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

and high-end computing. 

2 Department of Energy, FJ" 2014 Budget Request. Budget Highlights. P. I, April 2013, Accessible at: 

http://energy.gov/sites/prodlfiles/2013/04/fD/Highli ghts. pdf 

] Ibid. 

, Ibid. 

5 For a list ofSC-supporled National User Facilities see: U.S. Department of Energy. Office of Science liser 

Facilities. FY 2013. Accessible at: http://science.energy.gov/-/media! Ipdf/userfacilities/Office of Science User Facilities FY 2013.pdf 

3 
6 

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

• Basic Energy Sciences (BES) supports fundamental research to understand, predict, and 

ultimately control matter and energy at the electronic, atomic, and molecular levels and 

maintains world-class research facilities to develop facilitate advances in material science 

and chemistry, 

• Biological and Environmental Research (BER) supports fundamental research locused on 

biological systems, climate, and environmental sciences, including work in gcnomics, 

climate change, and advanced environmental issues. The request also includes support for the 

three DOE Bioenergy Research Centers, the Joint Genome Institute, and Environmental 

Molecular Sciences Laboratory. 

• Advanced Scientific Computing Research (ASCR) supports research to discover, develop. 

and deploy computational and networking capabilities. Funding is requested to position the 

Depal1ment to address scientific challenges that require 1,000 fold increases in computing 

capability and scientific data. 

• Fusion Energy Sciences (FES) suppol1s research to improve fundamental understanding of 

matter at very high temperatures and densities needed to develop fusion energy. 

• High Energy Physics (HEP) probes the basic relationship between space and time. the 

elementary constituents of matter and energy. and the interactions betwecn them. This effort 

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

frontier. 

• Nuclear Physics (NP) supports research to discover and understand various forms of nuclear 

matter, as well as the production and dcvelopment of techniques to make isotopes needed for 

medical, national security, environmental. and other research applications. 

Energv Efficiencv and Renewable Energy (EERE) 

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

"strengthen the United States' energy security, cnvironmental quality, and economic vitality in 

public-private partnerships." In FY 2014, EERE requests $2.8 billion. an increase of$995 

million or 56 percent above FY 2012 levels. 

EERE seeks to ensure American leadership in the transition to a clean energy economy, 

which the Office attempts to achieve through focused RDD&D investments on activities in the 

following areas: sustainable transportation ($957 million), renewable electricity ($616 million), 

and end-usc energy efficiency in buildings and factories ($949 million). 

EERE programs also emphasize cross-cutting initiatives, including: the EV6 Everywhere 

Grand Challenge, Clean Energy Manufacturing Initiative, SunShot Grand Challenge, EERE Grid 

Integration Initiative. and Wide Bandgap Semiconductors for Clean Energy Initiative. Specific 

EERE sub-programs include: 

• Bioenergy Technologies aims to develop and transform domestic, renewable. and 

abundant biomass resources into cost-competitive, high performance biofuels, biopowcr. 

and bioproducts through targeted planning, research, development and demonstration. 

6 EV stands for Electric Vehicles 

4 
7 

Solar Energy suppOlis the Department's SunS hot Initiative's mission to make solar 

energy technologies cost-competitive without subsidies with fossil fuels by 2020. 

• Wind Enel'gy supports the widespread deployment of wind energy by investing in wind 

energy research. development. demonstration, and deployment for offshore, onshore, and 

distributed wind generation. The program goal is to make wind energy cost-competitive 

with other sources of electricity without subsidies. 

• Water Power supports development of new water power technologies and accelerates 

deployment of ex isting hydropower technologies. The program supports both 

hydropower resources and marine and hydrokinetic resources. 

• Hydrogen and Fnel Cell Technologies mission is to enable the widespread 

commercialization of hydrogen and fuel cell technologies. 

• Vehicle Technologies Program (VTP) supports research to improve transportation 

efficiency, develop advanced batteries, and improve electric vehicle technology. VTP 

suppOlis the EV Everywhere Grand Challenge; the Workplace Charging Challenge, 

which aims for a tenfold increase in employers offering workplace charging options; and 

the Alternative Fuel Community Partner Projects, which aims to encourage the use of 

alternative fuels, such as natural gas, through the leveraging of community-based 

government-industry partnerships. 

• Geothermal Technologies addresscs technical challenges that affect the development of 

undiscovered hydrothermal resources and Enhanced Geothermal Systems through 

targeted RDD&D. 

• Advanced Manufacturing Office (AMO) supports the mission to "develop and 

demonstrate new, energy-efficiency processing and materials technologies and a scale 

adequate to prove their value to manufacturers and spur investment." AMO develops 

broadly applicable manufacturing processes and new pervasive materials technologies. 

AMO supports the Clean Energy Manufacturing Initiative (CEMI), a new cross-cutting 

activity anchored in AMO and will include involvement and dedicated funding across 

several EERE programs. 

• Building Technologies supports the development and promotion of efficient, 

cnvironmentally friendly, and affordable technologies, systems, and practices for 

residential and commercial buildings, with the long-term goal of reducing buildingrelated energy usage 50% by 2030. The program also administers the Energy Efficient 

Buildings Systems Design Hub, and supports the ENERGY STAR program. 

In his FYI4 budget request, the Administration also proposed creation of two major ncw 

initiatives related to energy efficiency and renewable energy: (I) $200 million for the Race to the 

Top for Energy Efficiency and Grid Modernization; and (2) $200 million in FY 14 ($2 billion 

over ten years) for an "Energy Security Trust" that would support research on transportation 

alternatives, including "advanced vehicles that run on electricity, homegrown biofuels, and 

domestically produced natural gas.,,7 While the Administration has not specified which DOE 

office would administer these programs, the proposed activities appear most aligned with EERE 

programs and activities. 

7 http://www . whitehouse.gov/the-press-o ffice/20 131031 15 Ifact-sheet-pres ident -obama·s-blueprint -c lean-and-secureenergy-future 

5 
8 

The Advanccd Resem-ch Projects Agency -Energy (ARPA-E) 

ARPA-E was established in 2007 by the America COMPETES Act (P.L.II 0-69), and 

charged with developing energy technologies that result in "(i) reductions of imports of energy 

from foreign sources; (ii) reductions of energy-related emissions, including greenhouse gascs: 

and (iii) improvcment in the energy efficiency orall economic scctors:' The mission of ARPAE is to support innovations in energy technology that enhance economic and energy security, 

reduce energy imports, improve energy efficiency, and ensure the U.S. leads in technological 

innovation. The program focuses exclusively on high-impact innovations that aim to translate 

science into breakthrough technologies. In FY 2014, ARPA-E requests $379 million, an increase 

of $1 04 million or 38 percent above FY 2012 levels. 

Fossil Energv R&D (FE) 

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

coal technologies), gas, and petroleum, and supports the Federal Government's Strategic 

Petroleum Reserve. FE R&D activities request $421 million for FY 2014, an increase of $83 

million or 25 percent over FY 2012 levels. 

DOE coal initiatives consist of Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) demonstration 

programs, which were funded primarily through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act 

and carbon capture and storage and power systems R&D activities. The DOE CCS 

demonstration program includes a total of eight projects administered by the Clean Coal Power 

Initiative (four projects), the Industrial Carbon Capture and Storage program (three projects), and 

FutureGen 2.0. 

fE's Natural Gas Technologies R&D program suppolis an new interagency R&D 

initiative started in FY 2013 between DOE, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the U.S. 

Geological Survey to "understand and minimize the potential environmental, health, and safety 

impacts of shale gas development through hydraulic fracturing" including the key research 

recommendations received from the Subcommittee of the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board. R 

Nuclear Energy (NE) 

The primary mission of the Otllce of Nuclear Energy (NE) is to "advance nuclear power 

as a resource capable of meeting the Nation's energy, environmental, and national security needs 

by resolving technical, cost safety, proliferation resistance, and security barriers through 

research, development, and demonstration as appropriate." NE requests a total of$735.5 million 

for FY 2014, a decrease of $118.4 million or 14 percent below FY 2012 levels. 

Nuclear energy R&D activities arc primarily divided into four programs: SMR Licensing 

Technical Support, Reactor Concepts Research, Development and Demonstration, Fuel Cycle 

Research and Development, and Nuclear Energy Enabling Technologies, which funds 

8 DOE Budget Highlights. p. 34. 

6 
9 

crosscutting nuclear research initiatives. NE also provides significant funding for nuclear 

research conducted at Idaho National Laboratory, NC's primary research facility. 

Electricity J)elivery and Energy Reliability (OE) 

The mission oCthe Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability (OE) is to "lead 

national efforts to modernize the electric grid; enhance security and reliability of the energy 

infrastructure; and facilitate recovery from disruptions to energy supply." Research and 

Development within OE includes Clean Energy Transmission and Reliability, Smart Grid, 

Energy Storage, Cybersecurity for Energy Delivery Systems, and the Electricity Systems Hub. 

Total funding requested for these activities is $119.4 million, an increase of$23.2 million or 24.1 

percent over FY 2012. OE concentrates R&D activities on addressing potential strains on the 

electric system as electric generation shifts towards low-carbon energy sources, specifically 

associated intermittency problems from wind and solar generation. 

Loan Guarantee Program Office (LPO) 

Title 17 of the Energy Policy Act of2005 authorizes DOE to make loan guarantees to 

encourage early commercial use of new or significantly improved technologies in energy 

projects. Projects supported must avoid, reduce, or sequester air pollutants or anthropogenic 

emissions of greenhouse gases; employ new or significantly improved technologies; and offer a 

reasonable prospect of repayment of the principal and interest on the guaranteed obligation. 

The mission of the LPO is to "accelerate the domestic commercial deployment of 

innovative and advanced clean energy technologies at a scale meaningful to contribute 

meaningfully to our national clean energy objectives:,9 The LPO executes this mission by 

guaranteeing loans to eligible clean energy projects and providing direct loans (0 eligible 

manufacturers of advanced technology vehicles and components. Recipients of DOE loan 

guarantees include the Caithness Shepherds Flat wind projectlO (the world's largest wind farm), 

NRG's Agua Caliente solar farm II , a 290 MW commercial-scale photovoltaic solar plant, and 

Abengoa's Bioenergy Biomass 12

, a commercial-scale biofuel plant, among others. 

LPO has closed, or awarded, over $16 billion in loan guarantees for 26 renewable energy 

projects, and has made additional conditional commitments totaling more than $10 billion \vhich 

have not yet closed. The FY 2014 budget request is $48 million for administrative expenses, 

which will "enablc LPO to continue active monitoring of closed projects while increasing efforts 

to deploy the existing $34 billion in loan authority and $169 million in credit subsidy 

appropriations for clean energy technologies.,,1) 

9 Loan Program Office, Accessible at: http://lpo.energy.gov/about/our-mission/ 

10 http://lpo.energy.govi?proiects~caithness-shepherds-flat 

II http://lpo.energy.gov/?projects=agua-cali,,nte 

! 1 http://lpo.energy .govl?projects=abengoa-bioenergy-biomass-of-kansas-Ilc 

"Ibid, p. 49 

7 
10 

Chairman SMITH. The Committee on Science, Space, and Technology will reconvene. Welcome to today’s hearing entitled ‘‘Department of Energy Science and Technology Priorities.’’ I will recognize 

myself for an opening statement and then the Ranking Member. 

To many, the Department of Energy is typically not regarded as 

a ‘‘science agency,’’ but from its origins with the Manhattan Project 

to its current programs and mission, science has always served as 

DOE’s foundation. 

Approximately $8.5 billion, or 1/3 of the Department’s budget, is 

focused on civilian science and technology activities that fall under 

this Committee’s jurisdiction. Accordingly, I want to thank our witness, Dr. Ernie Moniz, for joining us today. His presence here continues our tradition of hearing from the DOE Secretary on a regular basis. 

Dr. Moniz has a deep knowledge of energy policy, particularly regarding the scientific and technical issues that are the focus of this 

Committee. 

Dr. Moniz’s tenure begins at an extraordinary time in our Nation’s energy history. We are now just a few years into an energy 

revolution driven by hydraulic fracturing that has enabled dramatic increases in oil and natural gas production. 

The notion of true American energy independence, long dismissed as unrealistic, is now attainable, perhaps even by the end 

of this decade. These developments will greatly benefit not only our 

economy but also geopolitics and our national security. 

The shale boom has been accompanied by important energy policy debates. These include whether the Federal Government should 

regulate fracking, whether the Keystone XL pipeline should be 

built, and how best to handle liquefied natural gas exports. These 

issues are all of critical importance and all connect to the scientific 

and technical jurisdiction of this Committee. 

Also of major importance is how we prioritize Federal efforts to 

advance development of alternative forms of energy. In an era of 

budget constraints, we need to set priorities. 

I believe that the best approach is to place a higher priority on 

fundamental research that will enable new energy technologies to 

become more cost-effective. This makes sense not only from a fiscal 

perspective but also from a global perspective. It is widely agreed 

that any effective solution to climate concerns must be global in nature. And while the United States has reduced carbon emissions in 

recent years, developing countries have shown little desire for voluntarily switching to more expensive forms of alternative energy. 

For example, China and India are expected to build a combined 

200 coal plants in the next three years. Global coal use is expected 

to increase 50 percent by 2035, which will dramatically increase 

carbon dioxide emissions. This won’t change unless alternative 

forms of energy become more cost-effective. So we should shift from 

costly subsidies to research and market-driven technological solutions that will be used around the world. To me, this is the only 

practical, long-term solution. 

That concludes my opening statement, and the Ranking Member, 

Ms. Johnson, is recognized for hers. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith follows:] 
11 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN LAMAR S. SMITH

To many, the Department of Energy (DOE) is typically not regarded as a ‘‘science 

agency.’’ But from its origins with the Manhattan Project to its current programs 

and mission, science has always served as DOE’s foundation. 

Approximately $8.5 billion, or one-third of the Department’s budget, is focused on 

civilian science and technology activities that fall under this Committee’s jurisdiction. 

Accordingly, I want to thank our witness, Dr. Ernie Moniz, for joining us today. 

His presence here continues our tradition of hearing from the DOE Secretary on a 

regular basis. 

Dr. Moniz has a deep knowledge of energy policy, particularly regarding the scientific and technical issues that are the focus of this Committee. 

Dr. Moniz’s tenure begins at an extraordinary time in our nation’s energy history. 

We are now just a few years into an energy revolution driven by hydraulic fracturing (fracking) that has enabled dramatic increases in oil and natural gas production. 

The notion of true American energy independence—long dismissed as unrealistic—is now attainable, perhaps even by the end of this decade. These developments will greatly benefit not only our economy but also geopolitics and our national 

security. 

The shale boom has been accompanied by important energy policy debates. These 

include whether the Federal government should regulate fracking, whether the Keystone XL Pipeline should be built and how best to handle liquefied natural gas exports. 

These issues are all of critical importance, and all connect to the scientific and 

technical jurisdiction of this Committee. 

Also of major importance is how we prioritize Federal efforts to advance development of alternative forms of energy. 

In an era of budget constraints, we need to set priorities. 

I believe a better approach is to place a higher priority on fundamental research 

that will enable new energy technologies to become more cost-effective. This makes 

sense not only from a fiscal perspective, but also from a global perspective. 

It is widely agreed that any effective solution to climate concerns must be global 

in nature. And while the U.S. has reduced carbon emissions in recent years, developing countries have shown little desire for voluntarily switching to more expensive 

forms of alternative energy. 

For example, China and India are expected to build a combined 200 coal plants 

in the next three years. Global coal use is expected to increase 50 percent by 2035, 

which will dramatically increase carbon dioxide emissions. 

This won’t change unless alternative forms of energy become more cost-effective. 

So, we should shift from costly subsidies to research and market-driven technological solutions that will be used around the world. To me, this is the only practical 

long term solution. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for holding 

the hearing today. 

And I would like to welcome Secretary Moniz and express my appreciation for his willingness to serve the Nation again, as he has 

several times before. 

Secretary Moniz, you are obviously extraordinarily well-qualified, 

and I believe that you are the right person to lead the Department 

of Energy at this critical time. 

Let me start by saying that, overall, I am pleased with the Department’s budget request this year. If approved, the Office of 

Science, ARPA–E, and the Office of Electricity, and the Office of 

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy would all receive a muchneeded boost to advance the development of clean energy technologies that will be vital to our national security, our economy, 

and our environment in the decades to come. 

It is worth reminding my colleagues here today that we have 

seen how government research can pay off when it comes to energy 

development. DOE-supported research was key to development of 
12 

higher-efficiency gas turbines for coal plants, nuclear reactors developed at the Federal labs, and the directional drilling and hydraulic fracturing practices that have led to the shale gas boom of 

today. But we should remember that those achievements required 

decades of Federal investment, the overwhelming majority of which 

were focused on fossil and nuclear energy. 

I continue to support research to make today’s technologies 

cleaner and more efficient, but I believe that it is time to level the 

playing field and introduce real competition to the markets. That 

is where the priorities set by this budget request come into play. 

We have to find the greatest value for our investment of the taxpayers’ dollar, and today, it is the emerging energy technologies 

sectors that will most benefit from our government’s support. 

I think it is also important to note that DOE’s Office of Science 

is actually the largest supporter of basic research in the physical 

sciences in the country, and it operates more than 30 national scientific user facilities whose applications go well beyond energy innovation. Our Nation’s top researchers from industry, academia, 

and other Federal agencies use these facilities to examine everything from new materials that will better meet our military needs 

to new pharmaceuticals that will better treat disease to even examining the fundamental building blocks of the universe. 

I believe this stewardship of unique scientific research, including 

the Nation’s major national user facilities is another important role 

that I hope the Department will continue to make one of its highest 

priorities. 

It is no secret that Congress’ inability to date to come to an 

agreement on a sensible budget plan has led to some devastating 

cuts to many of these important programs with serious impacts on 

our Nation’s future. I think this budget request is a step in the 

right direction, and I look forward to working with you, Mr. Secretary, and my colleagues across the aisle to provide you with the 

direction, the tools, and the resources that you need to get us back 

on track. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON

Chairman Smith for holding this hearing today. I would also like to welcome Secretary Moniz and express my appreciation for his willingness to serve the nation 

again, as he has many times before. Secretary Moniz, you are obviously extraordinarily well-qualified, and I believe you are the right person to lead the Department of Energy at this critical time. 

Let me start by saying that, overall, I am pleased with the Department’s budget 

request this year. If approved, the Office of Science, ARPA-E, the Office of Electricity, and the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy would all receive 

a much-needed boost to advance the development of clean energy technologies that 

will be vital to our national security, our economy, and our environment in the decades to come. 

It is worth reminding my colleagues here today that we have seen how government research can pay off when it comes to energy development. DOE-supported research was key to the development of high-efficiency gas turbines for coal plants, 

nuclear reactors developed at federal labs, and the directional drilling and hydraulic 

fracturing practices that have led to the shale gas boom of today. But we should 

remember that those achievements required decades of federal investment, the overwhelming majority of which was focused on fossil and nuclear energy. I continue to 

support research to make today’s technologies cleaner and more efficient, but I be-
13 

lieve that it is time to level the playing field and introduce real competition to the 

markets. That is where the priorities set by this budget request come into play. 

We have to find the greatest value for our investment of the taxpayer dollar, and 

today it is the emerging energy technology sectors that can most benefit from government support. 

I think it is also important to note that DOE’s Office of Science is actually the 

largest supporter of basic research in the physical sciences in the country, and it 

operates more than 30 national scientific user facilities whose applications go well 

beyond energy innovation. Our nation’s top researchers from industry, academia, 

and other federal agencies use these facilities to examine everything from new materials that will better meet our military’s needs, to new pharmaceuticals that will 

better treat disease, to even examining the fundamental building blocks of the universe. I believe that this stewardship of unique scientific research, including the nation’s major national user facilities, is another important role that I hope the Department will continue to make one of its highest priorities. 

It’s no secret that Congress’s inability to date to come to an agreement on a sensible budget plan has led to some devastating cuts to many of these important programs, with serious impacts to our nation’s future. I think this budget request is 

a step in the right direction, and I look forward to working with you, Secretary 

Moniz, and my colleagues across the aisle to provide you with the direction, the 

tools, and the resources you need to get us back on track. 

With that I yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Ms. Johnson. 

Our only witness today is Hon. Ernest Moniz, Secretary of the 

Department of Energy. Prior to his appointment, Dr. Moniz was a 

Professor of Physics and Engineering Systems at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology where he was a faculty member since 

1973. 

Previously, Dr. Moniz served as Under Secretary of the Department of Energy where he oversaw the Department’s Science and 

Energy Programs. From 1995 to 1997 he served as Associate Director for Science in the Office of Science and Technology Policy in the 

Executive Office of the President. 

Dr. Moniz received a bachelor of science degree in physics from 

Boston College and a doctorate in theoretical physics from Stanford 

University. He brings both impressive academic credentials and 

practical skills to a very demanding job. 

Dr. Moniz, we welcome you today and look forward to your testimony. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE ERNEST MONIZ, 

SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Secretary MONIZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member 

Johnson, Members of the Committee. I appreciate the opportunity 

to appear before you today for my first time and in this incarnation 

and to lay out my vision for the Department of Energy path forward over the next few years. And I certainly look forward to working with this Committee during that time. 

I am pleased to be back at the Department. As noted, I served 

as Under Secretary during the Clinton Administration as well as 

at OSTP. At MIT, I would just add to the Chairman’s description 

that I also served as head of the Department of Physics and, perhaps of direct relevance here, as Director of the Bates Linear Accelerator Center, which was, at that time, a Department of Energy 

user facility. So I have seen the Department from that end as well. 

More recently, I was the founding Director of the MIT Energy Initiative. 
14 

So today, again, I will lay out a bit of my vision for how the Department can meet some of the pressing challenges before us and 

touch on some of the initiatives in the President’s Fiscal Year 2014 

budget request for the Department. 

Clearly, I will start by discussing the science programs, and I 

want to thank, again, both—actually both the Chairman and the 

Ranking Member for pointing out the critical role that Department 

of Energy plays in the science enterprise of this country and also 

how science and technology really is the thread that runs through 

all the diverse missions of the Department. 

The science programs are crucial to fostering scientific and technological breakthroughs, especially in the physical sciences. The 

Department provides the national science community with unique 

research opportunities at major facilities for nuclear and particle 

physics, for energy science, for materials research and discovery, 

for large-scale computation, and other disciplines. And the President is committed to making investments in R&D that will grow 

the economy and enable our country to remain competitive. 

A couple of weeks ago I made my first trip as Secretary to Oak 

Ridge National Laboratory where I saw Titan, then, the world’s 

fastest supercomputer. I was told today that yesterday China has 

now fielded a machine that is now number one, and I might say 

this area of large-scale computation, modeling, and simulation, one 

in which the Department of Energy has helped this country in its 

leadership role for many, many decades, is fiercely competitive 

with China, the EU, Japan, others investing large resources, and, 

in fact, also of interest in China, a stated goal of training 1 million 

students in the use of high-performance computing for various applications. 

While at Oak Ridge, I also visited the Consortium for Advanced 

Simulation of Light Water Reactors along this theme of large-scale 

computation. This is the first of MIT—of MIT—of DOE’s, excuse 

me, existing energy innovation hubs. I made that slip because MIT 

is a partner in that hub. 

In its first three years, CASL has already released software that 

simulates a virtual operating physical reactor. And the President’s 

budget continues support for this and other hubs and proposes a 

new one in electricity systems following the recent awards to Argonne and Ames for batteries and energy-critical materials respectively. 

The President’s budget also continues support for DOE’s Energy 

Frontier Research Centers run out of the Basic Energy Sciences office, and these are working to solve specific scientific problems that 

are barriers to clean energy technology development. 

The budget request also supports the continuation of DOE’s three 

Bioenergy Research Centers, which are very successfully pursuing 

basic research underlying a range of high-risk, high-return biological solutions for energy applications. 

Within science, nuclear and particle physics continue to shed 

light on fundamental properties of matter at the subatomic level. 

In the nuclear program, we have a robust program operating the 

Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider, continuing the major upgrade of 

Jefferson Lab in Virginia, and initiating a new facility at Michigan 

State. 
15 

In particle physics, we clearly have to consider what is going to 

be our direction, particularly with Fermilab, our flagship facility, 

right now, pursuing the Intensity Frontier, and this will be an important development over the next three years, how we see the vector for high-energy physics. 

Let me turn, if I may, briefly, to energy technology and policy. 

As the Chairman noted, in the last four years since President 

Obama took office, the global energy landscape has undergone a 

profound change. The United States oil and gas production has increased each year, while oil imports have fallen to a 20-year low. 

At the same time, renewable electricity generation has doubled and 

should double again in the next several years, and carbon emissions have simultaneously fallen to the lowest level in the United 

States in nearly two decades. 

But even with the increase in domestic oil and gas production, 

high gasoline prices still impact American families and businesses 

every day and remind us that we are still too reliant on oil. The 

President has emphasized there is no silver bullet but we continue 

to pursue a multipronged approach in terms of efficient vehicles, 

alternative fuels, and vehicle electrification. 

Another important focus, one that I have emphasized quite 

strongly as well, is that on energy efficiency. The President’s goal 

is to double American energy productivity by 2030, saving consumers and businesses money and increasing competitiveness. Efficiency really is the fifth fuel. 

And of course, we will continue our cutting-edge science and 

technology research R&D to accelerate the transition to a low-carbon economy through cost reduction as the principal goal of innovation. 

Given the time, I will just say a few words about moving forward 

with programs like ARPA–E, which I consider to be a critical part 

of this country’s energy innovation system and also noting how it 

suggests that we continue to have an enormous amount of untapped innovation capacity that we should try to bring to bear. 

Finally, in discussing energy, I will note that I also served on 

President Obama’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, 

PCAST. And PCAST, at the end of 2010, recommended a new process called the Quadrennial Energy Review for weaving together the 

many strands that must go into a coherent energy policy. This will 

require much stronger analytical capabilities which will be a focus 

for me in these years, and I look forward to working with others 

in the Administration, the Congress, industry, NGOs, and others to 

advance this new approach to Quadrennial Energy Review. 

In concluding, I would just say that in addition to these mission 

areas—and of course we also have the nuclear security and environmental remediation areas—but I want to say that improving the 

management and performance of the Department is one of my top 

priorities as Secretary. I intend to pursue this in at least four 

areas: better integrating science and energy programs; elevating 

the focus on management and performance as an enterprise-wide 

requirement; increasing the analytical capability, as I said, as an 

essential underpinning for energy technology and policy; and creating clear lines of authority and responsibility for security across 

the Department. 
16 

So in summary, Mr. Chairman, the Department has significant 

responsibilities that bear on America’s economic, energy, environmental, and nuclear security future, and I am fully committed to 

working with the Congress in search for solutions. I look forward 

to our discussion. 

[The prepared statement of Hon. Moniz follows:] 
17 

Testimony of Secretary Ernest Moniz 

U.S. Department of Energy 

Before the 

House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

Junc 18,2013 

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

opportunity to appear before you today to layout my vision for the Department of Energy. 

I have had the opportunity to mcet with several members of the Committee during my first four 

weeks on the job and I look forward to meeting with and working with this Committee in the 

coming weeks. months, and years. Indeed. I look forward to continuing my engagement with 

memhers of Congress from both pat1ies and both chambers to constructively illuminate our 

perspectives on important national challenges and to seek solutions in a collaborative fashion. 

I am very pleased to be back at the Depa11mcnt of Energy (DOE). even if some have 

characterized my return as a '·triumph of hope over experience." I served as DOE Under 

Secretary during the Clinton Administration, after working as Associate Director for Science of 

the Office ofSciencc and Technology Policy in the Executive Officc of the President. In fact, 

my experience at the Department was that we could indeed accomplish much and I do have hope 

and expectations for doing the same in collaboration with Congress. 

I have been working on energy. science. and security issues for most of my professional career. I 

served on the MIT faculty beginning in 1973, including as Head of the Dep311mcnt of Physics 

and as Director of the William II. Bates Linear Accelerator Center, a DOE facility operated by 

MIT. Since 2001, when I returned to MIT from DOE, my principal focus has been at the 

intersection of energy technology and policy, especially on research and education aimed at a 

future low-carbon economy. I was the Founding Director of the MIT Energy Initiative in 2006, a 

campus wide initiative that aligns well with President Obama's "all-of-thc-abovc" approach to 

our cnergy future. 

The mission of the Department of Energy could not be more urgent or important. From our 

efforts to find affordable and clean sources of energy. to ensuring the security of our nuclear 

stockpile. to cleaning up the legacy oCthe Cold War - our work. which includes advancing the 

science that underpins these missions, is essential to our prosperity, environment. and security. 

Today, I will lay out my vision for how thc Department can be best positioned to address these 

challenges. Given the circllmstances and scheduling of this hearing, my presentation is not that 

of a conventional budget hearing. but I will touch on some of the initiatives in the President's 

Fiscal Y car 20 I 4 Budget Request for DOE and their relationship to priorities for the next few 

years. I will organize my remarks by DOE mission area. 
18 

Energy Technology and Policy 

As already noted, the President advocates an all-of-the-above energy strategy and I am very 

much in tunc with this. As the President said when he announced my nomination, "we can 

produce more energy and grow our economy while still taking care of our air. water, and 

climate." 

Since President Obama took office, the global energy landscape has undergone a profound 

change. In the United States, oil and gas production has increased each year, while oil imports 

have fallen to a 20 year low. At the same time. renewable electricity generation from wind. 

solar, and geothermal sources has doubled; and carbon emissions have fallen to the lowest level 

in the U.S. in nearly two decades. These changes have important implications for our economy, 

environment. and national security. Already we are seeing the effects of increased U.S. oil and 

natural gas production on global energy markets. 

Even with the increase in domestic oil and gas production and clean energy generation. there is 

more work to be done. High gasoline prices impact American families and businesses every day 

and remind us that we are still too reliant on oil as an energy source. As the President has 

emphasized, there is no quick fix to a challenge that has built up over decades, but the clements 

of a solution are in place - more efficient vehicles as supported by the President's CAFE 

standards; alternative fuels. such as potential increased use of natural gas and development of 

economic next generation biofuels; and vehicle electrification. Last week. the Department 

releascd cGallon, which describes the "fuel cost" for electric vehicles compared to the gasoline 

price when driving the same distance; the national avcrage cost offllcling a vchicle with 

electricity is the equivalent of about $1.14 a gallon compared to a similar vehicle that runs on 

gasoline. Together, these three advances efficiency, alternative fuels. and electric vehicleswill reduce fuel costs for American families. 

While we have made important progress in domestic production of fossil fuels and we are seeing 

progress in the small. but rapidly growing, electric vehicle market. we still need to support 

research into technological breakthroughs that will free us from the volatility of the oil market. 

An initiative in the FY 2014 President's Budget is a request for $2 billion over the next ten years. 

set aside from Federal oil and gas development revenue, to invest in a ncw Energy Security Trust 

that would provide a reliable strcam of mandatory funding for R&D on cost-effective 

transportation alternatives that reduce our dependence on oil. The President's plan builds on an 

idea that has bipartisan support 1"0111 energy experts, retired admirals and generals and CEOs of 

leading companies; it focuses on one goal: shifting America's cars and trucks off oil. 

The increase in domestic natural gas production over the past five years has helped contribute to 

market-led reductions in carbon dioxide emissions as well as an expansion of manufacturing and 

associated job opportunities. The increase in U.S. unconventional oil production, combined with 

increased vehicle efficiency and biofuels production will continue to reduce American oil 

imports and our trade deficit. 

The increase in domestic natural gas production is expected to continue. This May. the Energy 

Department announced that it has conditionally authorized the second proposed facility the 

2 
19 

Freeport LNG Terminal on Quintana Island. Texas to export domestically produced liquefied 

natural gas (LNG) to countries that do not have a Free Trade Agreement with the United States. 

And we will expeditiously work through the remaining applications. reviewing each one on a 

case-by-case basis to ensure that all approvals are in the public interest. 

The risks of global climate change threaten the health, security, and prosperity of future 

generations. DOE must continue to support a robust R&D pOlifolio of low-carbon options and 

key enablers: efficiency, renewables, nuclear, carbon capture and sequestration, energy storage, 

and smati and resilient grids. The President's FY 2014 Budget requests resources to invest in 

programs that support research, development, and deployment of the energy technologies of the 

future that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions and increase energy security. These investments 

will help us double American energy productivity by 2030, double renewable electricity 

generation again by 2020, cut net oil imp0l1s in half by the end of the decade, save consumers 

and businesses money by reducing energy use, and support ground breaking research and 

innovation to safely and responsibly leverage every domestic source of energy. For example the 

Administration has already committed about $6 billion to CCS demonstrations, and success of 

the forthcoming projects will be a critical step toward meeting the President's climate goals. 

The President's Budget increases investments in DOE's applied energy programs. These 

investments include funding for programs designed to help meet the President's goals of 

investing in the ncxt generation of renewable energy technologies, advanced vehicles and fuels, 

and energy efficiency measures that reduce energy use in Federal agencies and the industrial and 

building sectors. Among these efforts are the Department's successful SunShot Initiative, which 

aims to make solar energy cost-competitive vvith conventional sources of electrical energy. and 

cross-cutting initiatives such as the EV Everywhere Grand Challenge, which aims to reduce the 

overall cost of electric vehicles, and the Clean Energy Manutacturing Initiative. The Clean 

Energy Manufacturing Initiative focuses on strengthening U.S. competitiveness through both 

improved manufacturing of clean energy products and increased manufacturing energy 

productivity morc broadly. It will help enable U.S. companies to cut manufacturing costs, 

enhance the productivity of their investments and workforce, and reduce the life-cycle energy 

consumption of technologies. DOE is one of five Federal agencies contributing to the DOD-led 

National Additive Manufacturing Innovation Institute in Youngstown, Ohio, which focuses on 

additive manutacturing, often referred to as 3D printing. and a DOE solicitation is active for a 

new clean energy manufacturing innovation institute focused on wide bandgap semiconductors 

for power electronics. 

To encourage increased energy efficiency and a modernized electricity grid, the Department's 

Race to the Top for Energy Efficiency & Grid Modernization will incentivize states, local 

governments, co-operatives. and tribes to implement effective policies to cut energy waste and 

modernize the grid. The President's Budget requests $200 million in one-time funding for 

technical assistance and performance-based awards after the policies arc implemented and 

evaluated. 

The Race to the Top initiative is an important part of my larger focus on states, tribes, and local 

governments. States have been out in front with innovative policies that we want to support and, 

as appropriate, replicate on a national scale when they prove effective. Different regions of our 

3 
20 

country have very different energy opportunities and needs, and we need to build from those to a 

national policy. In this vein, our national labs have unique capabilities and expertise to provide 

technical assistance to regional partners. I look forward to expanding our cooperation and 

collaboration with governments. tribal governments, and other partners across the country. 

We need to support cutting edge research across the board that will help create the clean energy 

economy of tomorrow. The President's Fiscal Year 2014 budget also requests continued support 

for the Advanced Research Projects Agency - Energy (ARPA-E), to support high-impact energyrelated research projects with the potential to transform the energy sector. 

ARPA-E has invested in roughly 285 high-risk, high-reward research projects that, if successful, 

could create the foundation for entirely new industries. Seventeen of these projects. which 

received an initial investment from ARPA-E of approximately $70 million in total, have attracted 

over $450 million in publicly-announced private sector follow-on funding. ARPA-E funded 

companies and research teams have produced a battery that doubled the energy density of any 

previous design, successfully engineered microbes that use carbon dioxide and hydrogen to make 

fuel for cars, and developed a one megawatt silicon carbide transistor the size of a fingernail. 

The Loan Programs Office at DOE has been a critical force suppOliing large-scale clean and 

renewable energy projects and advanced technology vehicle manufacturing here in America. 

Building on work of the previous administration, the Department of Energy has made a number 

of investments to support these innovative technologies. When you are talking about cuttingedge clean energy technologies, not every investment will succeed - but the latest indications 

show that the Energy Department's portfolio of more than 30 loan projects is delivering big 

results for the American economy. 

The portfolio includes 19 new clean energy power plants that are adding enough solar, wind and 

geothermal capacity to power a million homes and displace 7 million metric tons of carbon 

dioxide every year- roughly equal to taking a million cars oil' the road. And just this month. 

Tesla Motors repaid the entire remaining balance on a $465 million loan fl'om the Department of 

Energy, nine years carlier than required. 

An important part oftbe President's all-of-the-above approach is nuclear energy. Addressing the 

disposition of used nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste is essential to the long-term 

viability of the industry. I was pleased to be part of the Blue Ribbon Commission on America's 

Nuclear Future (BRC) and we submitted our findings to Congress and the White House. The 

BRC report recommended a consent based approach focused on the dual tracks of interim 

storage and geologic disposal capacity. The Administration has issued a strategy that embraces 

the core findings of the BRC, but the path forward requires Congressional action. I look forward 

to working with Congress on expeditiously implementing policies that ensure that our nation can 

continue to rely on carbon-free nuclear power. 

During my time at MIT, I had the pleasure of serving on President Obama's Council of Advisors 

on Science and Technology (PCAST). At the end of2010. PCAST issued a report to the 

President on Accelerating the Pace (){Change in Energv Technologies through an Integrated 

4 
21 

Federal Energy Policy. It specifically recommended an Administration-wide Quadrennial 

Energy Review (QER) with DOE in the executive secretariat role. 

The Quadrennial Technology Review 01'2011 was the first installment in the QER process. 

plan to build on this foundation by working with colleagues across the Administration. garnering 

strong input from the Congress and private sector stakeholders. and enhancing the Department's 

analytical and policy planning capabilities. 

Science 

DOE's science programs provide the technical undel1Jinnings to accomplish the Department's 

missions and fonn part of the backbone of basic research in the physical sciences in the United 

States. The Department provides the national research community with unique research 

opportunities at major facilities for nuclear and particle physics, energy science, materials 

research and discovery, large-scale computation, and other disciplines. More than a hundred 

Nobel Prizes have resulted from DOE-associated research. 

Competing in the new energy economy will require us to harness the expertise of our scientists, 

engineers, and entrepreneurs. As the President said, "the world is shifting to an innovation 

economy, and nobody does innovation better than America." The President is committed to 

making investments in research and development that will grow our economy and enable 

America to remain competitive, and has requested significant resources to ensure America leads 

the world in the innovations of the future. The President believes in a robust scientific research 

infrastructure, strong support for research, and a buildup in human capacity. 

Energy Frontier Research Centers (EFRCs) provide an important example of the Department's 

focus on supporting new and emerging research areas. These centers support scientists and 

engineers as they work to solve specific scientific problems to help unleash new clean energy 

technology development. Importantly, the EFRCs followed an outstanding process organized by 

the previous Administration, engaging about 1,500 scientists from across the country who 

identified key basic energy science challenges. So far, the EFRCs have generated some 3,400 

peer-reviewed papers, 60 invention disclosures, and 200 patents: and the Centers repol·t 

numerous instances of technology transfer. In their three-plus years of existence, the EFRCs 

have achieved scientific breakthroughs in ll1ultiple areas, from sola!' power and batteries to new 

catalysts for refining petroleum and powering fuel cells. In FY 2014, we plan to hold an open recompetition to select new EFRCs and consider renewals of some existing EFRCs. This process is 

not reinventing the wheel but ensuring that our research dollars are supporting projects with the 

highest possible impact across the energy landscape. 

Earlier this 1110nth, I made my first trip as Secretary to Oak Ridge, Tennessee to visit the Oak 

Ridge National Lab (ORNL) and the Y-12 National Security Complex. During my visit, I toured 

the Spallation Neutron Source, a facility that is helping us better understand the properties of 

the advanced materials needed to harness and store energy, and which isjust one example of the 

cutting edge facilities across our national labs that are critical for our economic competitiveness 

and our national security. 

5 
22 

While at ORi\L, I also had the opportunity to see Titan, the world's fastest supercomputer and 

Everest, a state-or the-art facility for data exploration and visualization, These tools are helping 

us with a variety of scientific solutions, sllch as better prediction of climate change today by 

modeling the climatic changes at the end of the last ice age, 20,000 years ago, to improving the 

production of biofuels by visualizing how cellulosic plant materials are broken down into sugars. 

We have long been the global leaders in supercomputing and DOE and its predecessors have 

long been key drivers. In 1954 a group of researchers at ORNL created one of the world's first 

supercomputers - built from vacuum tubes, transistors, and diodes. The Oak Ridge Automatic 

Computer and Logical Engine helped in the early research of nuclear physics and the biological 

elTects of radiation. 

Currently, the U.S. has three orthe live most powerful computers in the world, but our global 

competitors are not far behind. Maintaining a cutting-edge, domestic advanced computing 

capability, however, is a crucial component to achieving our mission and furthering the science 

that underpins advances in energy technology, environmental remediation, and nuclear 

stewardship. This capability requires both advanced hardware and, equally important, the 

advanced software, algorithms, and operating systems that are optimized to take full advantage 

of our investments in new machines. These advanced computing capabilities allow us to model 

complex systems such as the climate and also enable us to analyze and interpret the 

unprecedented data streams that we are generating through our environmental sensor networks 

and our world-class scientitic facilities. By pursuing the research necessary to enable and build 

the next -generation of supercomputers, exascale machines with 50-100 times more capabi lity 

than the current generation, we can help ensure continued U.S. leadership in this impol1ant area. 

While I was at Oak Ridge, I also visited our ConSOl1ium for Advanced Simulation of Light 

Water Reactors (CASL). CASL is the first of DOE's five existing Energy Innovation Hubs. 

Through the Hubs, we are bringing together our nation's top scientists and engineers to make 

game-changing progress in energy technologies. For example, CASL has released software that 

support simulating a virtual model of an operating physical reactor. I had the pleasure of serving 

as the tirst Chairman as CASt's Board of Directors and saw firsthand how the flub was making 

a real ditTerence on critical issues for nuclear power. The President's budget continues support 

for our Hubs and proposes a new Hub in electricity systems. 

Nuclear Security 

The President, beginning with his speech in Prague in 2009, has laid out a clear vision of nuclear 

security. This strategy includes stcp-by-step reductions in nuclear weapons, while ensuring the 

safcty, security and effectivcness of our stockpile as long as we have nuclear weapons; 

strengthened efforts to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons; and measures to prevent nuclear 

terrorism. DOE has signiticant responsibilities spanning much of this agenda. 

Last week the Department released its Stockpile Stewardship Management Plan, which lays out 

the Administration'S plan to cnsure that our nuclear arsenal remains an etTective deterrent so 

long as we should need it. 

6 
23 

The President's Budget requests resources to strengthen our national security with investments in 

the Department's National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) as described in the 

Administration's Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) of2010. This funding proposal is the result of 

an unprecedented cooperative analysis and planning process jointly conducted by NNSA and the 

Department of Defense. The Budget meets the goals of the NPR by funding cost increases for 

nuclear weapon life extension programs, such as upgrades to the W76 and B61 nuclear weapons; 

initiating new upgrades for the W78 and W88 nuclear weapons; improving or replacing aging 

facilities, such as the Uranium Processing Facility; adding funds for tritium production and 

plutonium manufacturing and experimentation; and sustaining the existing stockpile hy 

maintaining the underlying science, surveillance, and othcr SUppOlt programs. 

This national security investment provides a strong basis for transitioning to a smaller yet still 

safe, secure and effective nuclear stockpile. It also strengthens the science, technology and 

engineering base of our enterprise. 

NNSA plays a vital role in achieving President Obama's other nuclear security objectives, 

including in the prevention of nuclear terrorism and the grave and urgent threat it presents to 

our nation and the world. The Budget requests SUppOlt for NNSA's effOlts to detect, secure, and 

dispose of dangerous nuclear and radiological material around the world. helping the Depatiment 

to fulfill its role in completing the President's four-year plan to secure all vulnerable nuclear 

materials worldwide. 

The Department of Energy's enterprise-wide intelligence and counter intelligence capability is 

also critical to our national defense and nuclear security. And I intend to make sure that these 

assets continue to sustain our national security. 

Environmental Remediation 

Environmental remediation at the many sites involved in decades of nuclear weapons production 

during the Cold War remains a major mission for the Depalimcnt. This is a legal and moral 

imperative. DOE has made substantial progress in cleaning up this legacy waste but, as you 

know, the hardest challenges remain as long-term, expensive, complex projects in several states. 

The President's budget requests the resources necessary to SUppOlt the environmental 

remediation effort, led by the Office of Environmental Management. I pledge to work with 

members of Congress, and the affected communities and other stakeholders openly and 

transparently as we confront the many challenges involved in remediation efforts. As P31t of that 

cHait, I will renew the Department's emphasis on the management and performance of its major 

projects. 

One of our most challenging Environmental Management projects remains the Hanford Site in 

Washington. I have committed to a plan to address the serious issues at hand, and I look forward 

to visiting Hanford tomorrow and determining the path forward on the project. 

7 
24 

Management and Performance 

The Department of Energy has a broad range of responsibilities that stretch across cutting edge 

science and technology programs, national security priorities, and complex environmental 

cleanup projects. Responsibility for taxpayers' money demands that we manage our resources in 

the most efficient manner possible. Improving the management and performance of the 

Department is one of my top priorities as Secretary. 

I have been carefully reviewing the organization and management practices within the 

Department and am working with my staff to develop options to reorganize. r see this as a 

sustained effort for continuous improvement and I look forward to working with members of this 

committee and others in Congress and the Administration to elevate the focus on management 

and performance at DOE. 

As pmi of this process, I have identitied several areas where I plan to make improvements: 

• To better support the President's all-of-the-above energy strategy, we need to improve 

the Department's systems approach to energy policy analysis. DOE has analysis 

capabilities housed in each major program area, but to strengthen our integrated policy 

assessment capability to provide the Secretary, the President, and the Congress with 

comprehensive assessments of key cnergy policy issues, I am considering plans to 

consolidate and strengthen policy and systems analysis, to make bettcr use of existing 

resources. 

• A key factor in successful technology innovation programs is the ability to closely 

integrate and move quickly from basic science, to applied research, to technology 

demonstration. The Department has made impOliant strides to foster communication 

between its science and energy programs, but wc must do more organizationally to drive 

this process. I am considering ways to more closely integrate the management of science 

and energy programs to improve the dexterity and effectiveness ofthc innovation 

process. 

The security breach at the Y -12 facility revealed unacceptable shortcomings in the 

Department's oversight of its security programs and systems. I plan to revamp the 

security oversight apparatus, including a stronger independent oversight function that will 

report directly to the Secretary. A culture of safety and environmental compliance go 

hand-in-hand with good security, and I believe that all of these functions should be given 

greater attention 

• We need to build consistency and accountability across the entire Department. The 

various mission support functions of DOE require greater day-to-day oversight, 

coordination and integration. I am considering means of strengthening the lines of 

authority and management of these functions. 

• Finally, I am examining the organization of the Office of the Secretary. I look forward to 

building councils of advisors that will provide enterprise-wide advice and analysis on 

8 
25 

issues ranging from cyber security to the management of the National Labs. I also plan to 

engage the Directors of the National Laboratories regarding the Department's mission 

and to appoint new members to and work closely with the Secretary of Energy Advisory 

Board. Bringing together these measures to improve internal coordination and reaching 

out for expert outside advice will provide me with a broader base of information and 

analysis to make informed decisions. 

Conclusion: 

In summary. the Department of Energy has significant responsibilities that bear on America's 

economic, energy, environmental and nuclear security future. I have appreciated the opportunity 

to collaborate with members of this Committee and with other members of Congress both during 

my previous tenure at DOE and in the years since. I am committed to working with the Congress 

in a search for the solutions to the country's energy and nuclear security challenges. 

As President Obama has said, "Today, no area holds more promise than our investments in 

American energy. After years of talking about it, we're finally poised to control our own energy 

future." The investments included in the Administration's Energy Department budget request 

are vital to ensuring America's energy security and securing America's place as the world leader 

in the clean energy economy. 

Thank you, and now I am pleased to answer your questions. 

9 
26 

Dr. Ernest Moniz - Secretary of Energy 

As United States Secretary of Energy. Dr. Emcst Moniz is tasked 

with implementing critical Department of Energy missions in 

support of President Obama's goals of growing the economy. 

enhancing sccurity and protecting the environment. This 

encompasses advancing the President's all-of-the-above energy 

strategy, maintaining the nuclear detelTent and reducing the 

nuclear danger. promoting American leadership in science and 

clean energy technology innovation, cleaning up the legacy of the 

cold war, and strengthening management and performance. 

Prior to his appointment, Dr. Moniz was the Cecil and Ida Green Professor of Physics and 

Engineering Systems at the Massachusetts Institute of Tcchnology (MIT), where he was a faculty 

mcmber since 1973. At MIT, he headed the Department of Physics and the Bates Linear 

Accelerator Center. Most recently, Dr. Moniz served as the tounding Director of the MIT Energy 

Initiative and of the MIT Laboratory lor Energy and the Environment and was a leader of 

multidisciplinary technology and policy studies on the future of nuclear power, coal, nuclear fuel 

cycles. natural gas. and solar energy in a low-carbon world. 

From 1997 until January 200 I, Dr. Moniz served as Under Secretary of the Department of 

Energy. He was responsible for overseeing the Department's science and energy programs. 

leading a comprehensive review of nuclear weapons stockpile stewardship, and serving as the 

Secretary's special negotiator for the disposition of Russian nuclear materials. From 1995 to 

1997, he served as Associate Director for Science in the Office of Science and Technology 

Policy in the Executive Office of the President. 

In addition to his work at MIT, the White House, and the Department of Energy, Dr. Moniz has 

served on a number of boards of directors and commissions involving science, energy and 

security. These include President Obama's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, the 

Department of Defense Threat Reduction Advisory Committec, and the Blue Ribbon 

Commission on America's Nuclear Fllture. 

A member of the Council on Foreign Relations, Dr. Moniz is a Fellow of the American 

Association for the Advancement of Science, the Humboldt Foundation. and the American 

Physical Society. 

Dr. Moniz received a Bachelor of Science degree summa cum laude in Physics from Boston 

College, a Doctorate in Theoretical Physics from Stanford Univcrsity, and honorary degrees 

from the University of Athcns, the University of Erlangen-Nurcnberg, and Michigan State 

University. 
27 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Secretary Moniz. 

Let me recognize myself for questions. 

And my first one goes to the loan guarantee programs. The Government Accounting Office says that there are eight new loan guarantee programs under consideration at a total cost of about $2 billion. Is that accurate, and if not, what is the right figure as far as 

the loan guarantee programs that might be announced, say, this 

year? 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, I am not quite sure what that figure refers to specifically. 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. 

Secretary MONIZ. But there is the 1703 program, which I think 

is probably being referred to, the one that has a conditional agreement for a loan for the nuclear reactors in Georgia at about $8 billion, so that still remains to be seen where that goes. And there 

is consideration as authorized for developing a potential program 

in the fossil fuel area. 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. And those are the only loan guarantee 

programs you are aware of that might be under consideration? 

Secretary MONIZ. To my knowledge, that is what the—what are 

being considered. The other area where there is additional authority is in the Advanced Vehicle program, but currently, there is 

no—— 

Chairman SMITH. What about alternative forms of energy, wind, 

solar, and so forth? 

Secretary MONIZ. Again, I will go back and check, Mr. Chairman, 

for sure, but what I am aware of right now that is active is the 

conditional loan on the nuclear reactors and considerations about 

a fossil program. 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. No imminent announcements on any of 

these? 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, I had better check that to be sure—— 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. 

Secretary MONIZ. —but that is my knowledge of it. 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. Fair enough. The other question relating 

to that is that will the loan guarantee programs put the interest 

of taxpayers ahead of the interest of others? 

Secretary MONIZ. Absolutely. I believe the program has always 

striven to do that. 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. So if the company fails, the taxpayers 

would be paid back first? 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, yes, sir. I mean the overall judgment will 

be to protect taxpayer dollars. 

Chairman SMITH. The reason I ask that was Solyndra, you had 

the situation that before bankruptcy was actually declared, the 

loan was restructured and the taxpayers were put second instead 

of first, but you don’t envision that happening again? 

Secretary MONIZ. We have no such plans for that—— 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. 

Secretary MONIZ. —but I can guarantee always putting taxpayers’ interests—— 

Chairman SMITH. Great. Thank you. 
28 

Let me move on to the subject of climate change and ask you 

what percentage of climate change do you think is attributable to 

human activity and what percentage to other causes? 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, sir, I wouldn’t know how to put a percentage on it but I believe the science is clear that manmade activity—— 

Chairman SMITH. Right. 

Secretary MONIZ. —is a major contributor to the global warming 

that we are seeing. 

Chairman SMITH. Right. Assuming that, though, is there any 

way to estimate what percent? Is it over half, you know, 50 percent, 75 percent, 90 percent is attributable to human activity or is 

that not—— 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, what I would say is that in my scientific 

view the—what we are seeing is consistent with being driven by 

manmade activities. Clearly, there are background variabilities—— 

Chairman SMITH. Would the natural cycles—you have solar influence and so forth—— 

Secretary MONIZ. Correct, but the—basically, my statement is 

based on the fact that if one simply looks at the amount of what 

one knows as one has known for over a century how CO2 in particular drives global warming through the greenhouse effects, we 

know how much CO2 we emit from combustion, and we know how 

much CO2 is accumulating in the atmosphere, and we know that 

time trajectory of those—— 

Chairman SMITH. Right. But still no way to know what percentage is attributable to human activity? 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, I don’t know how to make a percentage, 

but again, I think there is no doubt in my mind that the anthropogenic causes are major—— 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. 

Secretary MONIZ. —probably the major driver of climate change. 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. Thank you. And then the last question 

is this—and this is asking you to speculate and be creative, I guess. 

Secretary MONIZ. Uh-oh. 

Chairman SMITH. And it is for this reason—suppose we were 

looking at possible breakthrough technologies that would reduce 

carbon emissions, and we were looking for breakthroughs that did 

not involve increase in taxes or subsidies. What are some possible 

breakthroughs that we might see in the next five to ten years that 

would allow us to reduce carbon emissions without raising taxes 

and without subsidies? Do you have any idea on that? I am thinking about batteries or maybe more efficient buildings, things like 

that, but any other ideas that you might have? 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, certainly, in the area of efficiency I think 

there remains enormous opportunity, and buildings, as you have 

said, are a major focus area. Seventy percent of electricity goes into 

our buildings. On the supply side—well, in about ten years we hope 

to have the first small modular nuclear reactor deployed, which 

could be the beginning of an interesting new industry for us. Solar 

energy has come down enormously in cost, and I believe that within ten years we will be surprised at its level of deployment. And 

very critically, battery as energy storage, which you also mentioned, is critical. Costs have come down very dramatically. 
29 

There remains a significant way to go to get what I would call 

mass-market vehicle technology there. But it has been tremendous 

progress. In fact, I just mentioned the Tesla as—for example, has 

dropped its base cost by nearly a factor of two in about 4 years. 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. Thank you, Secretary Moniz. And let me 

apologize to you. I am on another committee that is having an allday markup that has already begun, so I am going to need to excuse myself. I hope to be back in about an hour. And Dana Rohrabacher, I think, is going to take the Chairmanship. And I will look 

forward to seeing you later. 

Secretary MONIZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. [Presiding] I finally got it in my hands. 

Ms. JOHNSON. This is frightening. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, even with that, you are recognized for 

your five minutes. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much. This is a gentleman that 

I have served on this Committee with now in the 21st year, so I 

do know him pretty well. 

Secretary Moniz, I understand that in your previous job as Director of MIT Energy Initiative you played a major role in examining 

the impacts of energy development on water use and vice versa, so 

I am sure you already know that this is a significant issue for my 

State. And I appreciate your responsiveness to my recent letter to 

you on the subject. 

Can you briefly describe the Department’s current activities to 

address the critical link between energy and water and are there 

further actions you plan to take in this area, now that you are the 

boss? 

Secretary MONIZ. Thank you, Congresswoman. 

The energy-water nexus is clearly one of greatly increased attention, and rightly so, because this is a very, very challenging problem. In fact, it is often not recognized that approximately half of 

the United States’ water withdrawals are just for thermal power 

plants alone. And, of course, water issues have become very prominent in hydrocarbon production. 

So at the Department we have a task force that has been put together on the—on energy and water. They have been developing 

ideas. There are some collaborations, for example, with EPA and 

DOI specifically on the water issues with hydrofracking. The issues 

of addressing lower water use, particularly as drought comes across 

much of our country, are critical. 

I have asked our task force to develop a draft program plan for 

this fall that would give us an idea what might be a new direction 

that we could then discuss with the Members and of course in the 

Administration to see how we might shape a program more forcefully aimed at energy and water. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you. 

As one of the Nation’s most respected physicists, can you briefly 

describe how greenhouse gas emissions trap heat in Earth’s atmosphere? 

Secretary MONIZ. Okay. I could use a blackboard then. But, no, 

I mean, quite briefly, the issue is that incoming sunlight, especially, let’s say, in the visible range, obviously we see the sun, so 

that sunlight comes through to the earth; it is absorbed. It is then 
30 

re-radiated as infrared and then certain molecules like carbon dioxide trap that infrared radiation and that creates the greenhouse effect which then leads to warming. And this has been—I might say 

this has been known since the nineteenth century. 

Ms. JOHNSON. What are the major risks to our Nation if we don’t 

reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, and are there any increased 

risks if we delay action? 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, certainly, I think, the risks of global 

warming are very, very considerable. Of course, this does—it is an 

issue in the end of I should—of global greenhouse gas emissions. 

With an increase and continued warming, we will—we are seeing 

of course already indicators such as the dramatic effects on sea ice, 

but also I think here in this country we are seeing statistically the 

expectations written down 20 years ago playing out such as 

droughts, wildfires, storm intensity increases. Again, one can never 

assign any specific event to the warming, but statistically, it seems 

to be there. So—and the problem is it is happening very rapidly 

compared to historical natural cycles. 

Also, I should have talked about sea level rise, which then couples with storms to have storm surges, the kind of thing that we 

saw with Sandy. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. And the Chair now recognizes me. 

First of all, welcome aboard. 

Secretary MONIZ. Thank you. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. And I am sure we are going to enjoy our kibitzing, as I have enjoyed it with your predecessor as well. 

Let’s—we are talking about global warming. Let me get this 

straight. You don’t know what the natural production of CO2 is 

compared to the human production? Is that what your answer to 

the Chairman was? 

Secretary MONIZ. No, sir, I said to the—I know how much CO2

we are producing—— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Yes. 

Secretary MONIZ. —from anthropogenic causes. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. But you don’t know the percentage of what 

is in the atmosphere is caused by human beings versus the natural 

production? 

Secretary MONIZ. So the amount of CO2 from anthropogenic 

sources actually significantly exceeds, in fact, the amount that is 

not remaining in the atmosphere, as the oceans reabsorb some of 

it. So actually one could argue that—I mean anthropogenic sources 

really is a very, very major driver. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. So the ocean doesn’t absorb the CO2 that is 

produced by man, but it does absorb what is produced by nature, 

and you don’t know—— 

Secretary MONIZ. No, you can’t—— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. —how much is produced by nature? 

Secretary MONIZ. No, I mean the CO2 molecule is a CO2 molecule—— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Correct. 

Secretary MONIZ. —and there is a carbon cycle, and in that carbon cycle there is a net—at least today there is a net absorption 

in the oceans and in the land masses. 
31 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay. I would appreciate if you could, when 

you go back and check—I mean it is surprising you don’t have the 

answer on top of your head exactly what percentage of the CO2

that we are talking about with greenhouse effect here, what percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere is caused by human activity and 

what is caused by a natural activity? 

Secretary MONIZ. Again, we know the overall fluxes because—— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. But what is it? 

Secretary MONIZ. —in the carbon cycle—I would have to go back 

and really get my numbers straight. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay. All right. 

Secretary MONIZ. But—— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Go back and get that. 

Secretary MONIZ. The—okay. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. That’s fine. Now, let me ask you this. Now, 

I am from Long Beach State and you are from MIT. But I have—— 

Secretary MONIZ. Good at basketball. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. But there are other people with credentials, 

like Richard Lindzen from MIT, who are very skeptical of some of 

the research that has been going on and have articulated that, yet 

we have just a few weeks ago, an offshoot of President Obama’s reelection campaign listed climate deniers. The only other use of that 

term is a Holocaust denier. Do you use the term denier for those 

people who disagree with you on climate science, and do you think 

that term is appropriate in engaging in a civil discourse over a scientific issue? 

Secretary MONIZ. I much prefer a civil discourse and that is what 

I hope we are engaging in. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. All right. Thank you very much. 

Now, I certainly am very pleased to hear your commitment to 

small modular nuclear reactors. I am rather concerned in the development of those small modular reactors that new technology is 

being focused on rather than light water technology, which is not 

new technology. Is there some way we are going to meet that challenge that these new small modular reactors are going to be based 

on a new concept, which I think is much safer and—to the public 

by going with—not going with the old light water reactor system? 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, of course, the first award that was made, 

as you know, was for a light water reactor-based system, and that 

is the one that we anticipate being deployed about—by 2022 or so 

assuming the licensing goes well, et cetera. And, of course, light 

water reactors will have an advantage in terms of NRC familiarity 

with that technology—— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Right. 

Secretary MONIZ. —for licensing. In the call that is out now, 

there will be—I am sure, although I don’t actually know this; we 

are in the middle of it—but it is certainly open to both light water 

reactor and other technologies. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Now, let me note that I think if we are going 

to be moving forward with new technologies, shouldn’t that be 

based on old concepts when—if there are new ones available? And 

I am looking forward to working with you and seeing that we can 

try to develop this new type of small modular reactor that is going 

to serve our purposes decades into the future. 
32 

And one last note, one last question is that is we are spending 

billions of dollars in wind-related research, and this is—I mean 

across the board here. I think it is $4 billion in 82 different federal 

wind-related initiatives. For a small fraction of that cost, there are 

people who are—this Committee also receives NASA. There are 

people at NASA who suggest that we might be able to develop a 

space-based solar system that would again be clean energy coming 

from space and the—and be able to be unloaded on a grand receiver that is a lot less obtrusive than a refinery, et cetera. Do you 

have any inclinations toward—or do you know about this concept 

of space-based solar power and what are your—what is your reaction to it? 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, I was certainly aware of the concept, 

which has been around for quite a long, long time. I have not studied it. The last I knew that it was felt by many at least to be rather 

impractical in terms of the resource requirements, but I would be 

happy to look at that again if you think it is an area to look into. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Yes, I will be looking forward to going 

through that with you. 

And now, Mr. Lipinski. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, Secretary Moniz, for being here today. I think your 

confirmation 97 to 0 in the Senate is a great testament to you and 

your work. We rarely see anything like that up here on Capitol Hill 

these days, so I think that really shows a great respect for not only 

the work you do but how you do it. 

So the first thing I wanted to bring to your attention is a topic 

that I raise a lot in this Committee, which is the National Science 

Foundation’s Innovation Corps program. As you may know, the I– 

Corps program is an entrepreneurial education program developed 

by serial entrepreneurs in the Silicon Valley teaches scientists how 

to be entrepreneurial. And, as I am sure that you understand that 

this is something that does not come naturally or has been taught 

to a lot of scientists or some of our great researchers out there. 

Now, the program is already having an impact because, as we 

saw three months ago, a team that went through the I–Corps program founded a company called Neon that secured seed funding 

from a private venture capital group. And the founders of Neon 

have credited their current market strategy to the lessons that 

they learned, the connections that they made through the I–Corps 

program. 

In April, I wrote to the Department of Energy about this program and Dr. Holdren has testified before this Committee that the 

Administration sees a lot of promise in entrepreneurial education 

programs like I–Corps. I think researchers funded by the Office of 

Science and other areas of DOE will benefit from participating in 

this program as well. So this is more of a comment that a question, 

but I would urge you to take a look at the I–Corps program because I think entrepreneurial education for energy researchers can 

have a tremendous impact on getting new energy technologies to 

the market more efficiently. 

And that is I think a perfect lead-in to the—— 

Secretary MONIZ. Thank you. 
33 

Mr. LIPINSKI. —what I wanted to address next and ask you 

about. Argonne National Lab, which is in my district, is the proud 

home of an energy innovation hub on energy storage and battery 

technology, as you mentioned in your opening remarks. I supported 

strongly this application by Argonne and I am very proud of the 

work that they are doing because I think it has the potential to be 

transformative both for the transportation sector and for renewable 

energy. 

Now, at the same time, there is more to Argonne than just a battery hub. Resources like the Advanced Photon Source, the Mira 

supercomputer, and a nuclear energy program, among others, all 

have worldwide renown. 

So I would like to get your ideas, Dr. Moniz, for how the innovation hubs will work moving forward, and along the same lines, how 

can DOE ensure that the United States maintain the right level of 

commitment to national laboratories and all their world-leading 

scientific facilities, as well as the science and energy challenges in 

close cooperation with the industry? 

I think the energy hubs, innovation hubs are fantastic. We also 

face the challenge of how do we balance this with all of the great 

work that is being done at these facilities. I wanted to get your 

views on this. 

Secretary MONIZ. Thank you. There are several parts to the 

question. If I may just make a note that your discussion about storage for both vehicles and grids that actually I sent a letter just this 

week to Senator Wyden and his request looking—that lays out a 

schedule for us to develop a plan for grid-scale storage. So that is 

something you may be interested in as well. I would be happy to 

share that with you. 

With regard to hubs, I personally believe that the hubs are a 

very important way for the Department to do business. The assembly of multidisciplinary teams of scientists and engineers work 

across the innovation chain as it fits the mission purpose, and it 

is something I would like to support strongly. Of course, we have 

to make sure that they are also being managed well and heading 

to their goals, and I intend to carry out a review of the existing 

five hubs to see how we can strengthen them and strengthen future hubs. 

I might say that with the national labs—you mentioned the national labs broadly—frankly, I think this is the way the national 

labs in my view should do more of their business with significant 

teams focused for an extended time on an important problem. I 

think that is what the labs can do really uniquely much more easily than a typical university environment. 

And I have had the pleasure of now meeting twice with the lab 

directors, once by video, once in person, and I think they are on the 

same page as I am and that last statement. And very importantly, 

I think I have said that I would like to work with the leadership 

of the labs in a much more strategic way than I think has been 

the case for some time now. As my friend George Schultz likes to 

say, when you want people there on the landing, you should have 

them there on the takeoff, and I want the lab directors up front 

talking about our strategic directions. 
34 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you very much. I think it is important that, 

you know, we continue on and pursue these innovation hubs, but 

we can’t lose sight of what else is going on at the labs. I thank you 

very much. 

Secretary MONIZ. If I may just add a comment. I have said not 

only the labs but also the universities where the issue of a lot of 

smaller groups and single investigators is very, very important. We 

need to have the right balance. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you, Mr. Lipinski. 

And, Mr. Hall? 

Mr. HALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I thank you and the former Chairman of 15 minutes ago. 

And, Secretary Moniz, I thank you for appearing. You appeared 

before us last week, I believe, to discuss Department of Energy 

science and technology priorities. 

Mr. Secretary, as you are well aware, the process of hydraulic 

fracturing has revolutionized the energy industry helping really 

put our country America on the course for becoming the world’s 

largest producer of oil and gas by the end of the decade. I think 

those may be partially your words. And you have previously and 

consistently stated that the environmental impacts from fracking 

are ‘‘manageable.’’ I think that is too weak, and I want you to improve on that. And I’m going to try to give you a chance to. And 

that it ‘‘certainly was not clear to you’’ that there have been major 

consequences from fracking. That is positive, too, but it is not quite 

far enough. Can we go a step further? Let me help you. 

Last week, you concurred with earlier testimony from former 

EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson of all people that there had not 

been a single instance in which fracking has been found to contaminate drinking water. That ought to put to rest whether or not 

fracking has caused drinking water to be bad, shouldn’t it? That 

ought to be enough. 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, sir, I think, as I said last week as well, 

I mean that— 

Mr. HALL. Well, if you don’t think it ought to be enough, tell me 

and I will go on to another paragraph for you. 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, again, I think I need to clarify my statement. So what I said is the fracturing process, as far as I know, 

I know of no incidents. But, as I also said, it is the conventional 

activities like well completion, cement jobs where there have been 

problems. Water management on the surface, methane emissions, 

all of these are manageable in the sense that we know the solutions; we just have to put the solutions in place all the time. 

Mr. HALL. They are self-manageable because they are thousands 

of feet apart, aren’t they, normally? 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, no, but the real issue is in the penetration to the ground, the well, it is the first 200 feet as opposed to 

7,000 feet below in the fracturing. 

Mr. HALL. Okay. As you know, in the well-publicized instances, 

the EPA has claimed that fracking caused drinking water contamination in Pavillion, Wyoming; Parker County, Texas; in Pennsylvania, and all these claims turned out to be unfounded and almost 

dishonest. 
35 

Several experts have appeared before the Committee and confirmed that there had been no evidence or history of hydraulic fracturing affecting usable quality of water. Even Dana, the Chairman 

right here today, asked the last question of an administration 

member that came here to testify, left the President’s desk to come 

here and testify, and the last question Dana asked him was do you 

know of anywhere, anytime in the history of the United States of 

America that fracking has caused drinking water damage? And his 

answer was no. Are you aware of that? 

Secretary MONIZ. I wasn’t aware of that specific answer but it is 

very consistent with what I have said, yes. 

Mr. HALL. And given the EPA’s poor track record, how can the 

Federal Government repair its reputation on fracking? 

Now, we could work on that reputation if it had been a different 

president appointed and elected last year but it wasn’t. So we have 

a president that thinks different to what the president we offered 

I think would have had on fracking. I think we would have looked 

into some of the testimony that they came here and gave under 

oath. And will you work with the EPA to assure ‘‘good, objective 

measurements and analysis’’ that you have stated are needed? You 

are going to do that, aren’t you? We think you are and we hope you 

are. 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, sir, first, I have to say, I mean, the President in my view has been—is all-of-the-above energy policy and he 

has been very supportive of the developments of—in—of the gas industry. With regard to EPA—— 

Mr. HALL. Well, I don’t have enough time to go into it with you 

as to whether or not he has been supportive. I have a very 100 percent different opinion that you have about the President’s support 

of energy. 

Secretary MONIZ. Okay. Well, that could be a longer discussion. 

Mr. HALL. Yes. 

Secretary MONIZ. With regard to the EPA, as I said, clearly, they 

are the ones responsible for the regulatory arena, but we will certainly be happy to collaborate in technology and analysis. In fact, 

I mentioned earlier we are collaborating on the water issues involving fracking. 

Mr. HALL. Quickly, I want to ask you this: Do you agree that the 

funding mechanism creating the Royalty Trust Fund is an appropriate way to ensure a dedicated funding stream for unconventional and also deepwater natural gas? Yes or no? 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, I think the—— 

Mr. HALL. Yes or no, please. If you can’t say either, why, just tell 

me you—— 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, the Administration, as you know, is not 

supportive of that, but the Energy Security Trust proposed has a 

very, very similar mechanism. 

Mr. HALL. And you are familiar with Section 999? I know you 

are—— 

Secretary MONIZ. I am indeed. 

Mr. HALL. —according to your background. 

Secretary MONIZ. I am indeed. 

Mr. HALL. How does Section 999 program fit within an all-of-theabove energy strategy? 
36 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, I believe the program executed under 999 

has been very effective in looking at R&D and particularly on environmental impacts of unconventional production, ultra deep unconventional, onshore, and also helping with research for small producers. 

Mr. HALL. And I close with this: If our Nation wants to move 

closer to energy independence, shouldn’t the Federal Government 

be pursuing technology solutions to facilitate energy production 

rather than pursuing regulatory actions that restrict production? I 

hope you will say yes, and if you don’t, why, it is okay. I thank you, 

and I yield back my time. 

Secretary MONIZ. I think we should do both. 

Mr. HALL. Okay. And we have great hopes for you to tell us the 

truth. 

Secretary MONIZ. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. HALL. And we want to be supportive of you. 

Secretary MONIZ. Thank you, sir. And I would be happy to follow 

up with our longer discussion. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

And now, Ms. Edwards from Maryland. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being with us here today. 

Over the couple of years that I have been on this Committee, we 

have been round and round about climate change. Is there human 

causes to climate change and what do we do about it? And so I just 

want to get really clear for the record. Mr. Secretary, do you disagree with any of the scientific conclusions of the vast majority of 

climate—the climate science community that an increase in CO2 in 

the atmosphere leads to a warming of the Earth’s surface temperature? 

Secretary MONIZ. I certainly agree with that, yes. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you. 

Secretary MONIZ. Um-hum. 

Ms. EDWARDS. And, again, to be clear for our record, we have 

heard from economists, lobbyists, lawyers, lots of folks, not a lot of 

climate scientists, but I wonder what your response is to the argument that mankind cannot impact the climate or that several thousand scientists signed a letter indicating that climate change is not 

real? 

Secretary MONIZ. I think there is no dispute in my—as I said 

earlier, the anthropogenic activity has been a major contributor to 

the recent global warming. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Great. I hope we put that to rest so we don’t have 

to revisit it over and over again in this Committee. 

And then I want to ask you about renewables because in Maryland we just incentivized a program for offshore wind capacity, and 

I wonder how the Department is engaging with the States that 

have made these commitments to boosting solar, wind, and other 

renewable energy sources, and if you have a comment, if you will, 

about—I have a pet peeve about electric vehicles and it is that our 

Department of Energy and other departments haven’t actually 

worked with local planners and regional planners to develop the 

kind of infrastructure that we need to fully implement these new 

technologies. 
37 

And then I wonder if you could also comment on the impact— 

you know, as we see an increase in production of natural gas, the 

impact on our ability to commit the resources that we need in an 

environment where a lot of fuel costs are pretty stable and so we 

don’t have the anxiety about energy in the same way, and how that 

impacts your ability to drive an agenda that is, you know, results 

in us making the investment in technologies for energy efficiency? 

Secretary MONIZ. Thank you. There are several questions there, 

I think. 

Well, first of all, let me say that I think offshore wind is a very 

important, very important area to pursue. Costs are still significantly too high, but it is a great wind resource and especially if we 

can push out to deeper waters. And we do have work going on in 

that area. 

Secondly, you mentioned in the context of EVs, but more broadly 

I have been very clear, I think, in my confirmation process and 

more recently that one of my goals is to significantly upgrade our 

interaction with States and localities. In fact, I have—I feel that if 

you look at our country, different regions have very, very different 

energy opportunities and needs, and I think we need to do more 

recognition of that so that we can work with regions and develop 

the appropriate approaches to a future low-carbon economy. 

The third, natural gas and the implications of natural gas, again, 

I view the natural gas bounty that we have as a real opportunity 

and a plus. I believe it is an opportunity ultimately for getting that 

bridge to a low-carbon future. 

In fact, one of the things we, I think, have not done enough of 

is looking at the integration of renewables, wind and solar, with 

natural gas, which is a good way of balance, but, in the absence 

of affordable storage so far, a very, very good way of balancing supply and demand. 

So, clearly, I mean, the natural gas bounty and low-cost natural 

gas has very much changed the marketplace, and that is why, in 

fact, we have lower CO2 emissions. It is the substitution of gas for 

coal. It has also revitalized much of our manufacturing sector. So 

I think the issue is to integrate gas, recognize gas as part of the 

solution going forward. 

In the meantime, what is critical is continuing the investments 

in innovation because what we have to do, just like gas prices have 

come down, we have to lower the costs of alternative technologies. 

Ms. EDWARDS. All right. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you. 

Mr. Neugebauer? 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Secretary, it is good to have you here. 

In lobbying for his clean energy agenda, President Obama frequently states that the United States should follow the clean energy examples set by other countries such as Germany and Spain. 

However, in Germany the cost of electricity has risen nearly 40 

percent in the last five years, and electricity prices for industry are 

15 percent higher and the average for other countries in European—15 percent higher than the other—the average in other European countries. 
38 

And just last week, German Chancellor Angela Merkel announced at an energy conference in Berlin that spiraling costs of 

renewable energy are damaging the country’s economic competitiveness and need to be scaled back. 

Spain is expected to announce next week cuts between 10 and 20 

percent to its subsidies for wind and solar projects. The UK has already trimmed some of the low-energy subsidies. It is now saying 

that Europe’s European Union’s target of getting 20 percent of its 

energy from renewable sources by 2020 was a costly mistake. So 

what have we learned from the Europeans? 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, I think there are certainly some important areas that we can learn from, although clearly, I think the 

most important thing is what we do here at home in terms of our 

own energy policy. 

But, as one example, you mentioned Germany. I would give two 

examples from Germany. One is—and they are both driven in a 

certain sense by their approach to standards. Their building efficiency is certainly extremely good, and that saves them a lot of 

money, especially when the costs are high for electricity. 

Another area where they are frankly much better off than we are 

is in the so-called soft costs for things like installing solar, 40 percent of our costs. So I think there are lessons we can learn there 

as well. 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. But, you know, I think one of the issues is we 

are pursuing an agenda that is really being detrimental in many 

cases to the consumers of this. And so I think one of the things 

that we want to be extremely concerned about is making sure that 

we let the marketplace determine what are the best alternatives 

and not the government. 

I would like now to yield some additional time to the Chair, Mr. 

Rohrabacher from California. I think he wanted a follow-up question. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Yes, thank you very much. 

Just to note with your earlier statement about the intensity of 

weather conditions and how that reflects on the overall climate of 

the Earth, I heard a story about a week or so ago about the ship 

that they found in the Great Lakes, and it had disappeared, I 

think, in 1910. Do you remember that? 

Secretary MONIZ. No, I do not. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay. It was a big story—— 

Secretary MONIZ. Um-hum. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. —and that ship sank in 1910 in one of the 

great storms of 1910, and ships disappeared in Great Lakes and 

everything else where—— 

Secretary MONIZ. Um-hum. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. —and it was interesting that we had such a 

massive storm in 1910 which indicates that we are not now going 

through massive storms that are any different than massive storms 

that we had in the past. Roger Pielke, I think is how you pronounce his name—— 

Secretary MONIZ. Pielke. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Dr. Pielke, thank you very much—— 

Secretary MONIZ. Um-hum. 
39 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. —head of there at the Colorado State has 

done a study of the statistics and says, yes, floods have not increased, hurricane frequency in terms of their landfall or intensity 

have not increased, the tornadoes especially the strongest ones 

have not increased at least since the 1950s when we had many of 

these tornadoes, drought has not—drought has actually decreased 

since the middle of the century, since especially, the 1930s, East 

Coast storms, there is no trend there, and he said, quite frankly, 

that this idea that we are now—every time a heavy storm comes 

through and we get it—you see it on TV for someone to suggest 

that this is something new, that it is wrong, I mean that we are— 

we have always had these intense storms. That is part of living on 

the planet. 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, I would certainly agree that we have always had these intense storms. I think—and there is—certainly, 

here, there is more scientific discussion needed than in some of the 

other areas, but the issue is many very reputable scientists analyzing the data—— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Right. 

Secretary MONIZ. —not tornadoes but more—— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay. 

Secretary MONIZ. —it is in cyclones because of the water issue. 

The—that it is the statistics; it is not any individual—— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Right. And you are aware that the—we—my 

colleague, Ms. Edwards, unfortunately is gone, but when we heard 

this over and over again, oh, the vast—you know, the overwhelming number of scientists disagree that it is manmade activity 

that is causing this increase in temperature, which I believe the 

temperature has stayed steady for 16 years now, long after—— 

Secretary MONIZ. That is in dispute. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay. All right. But do you think the Russian Academy of Sciences is it to be taken seriously? 

Secretary MONIZ. I would not offer an opinion. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. All right. Well, I hope that while you are in 

your office that the Russian Academy of Sciences is someone that 

you would be conferring with. They totally reject this theory. And 

I was just over there recently, spent a day with the scientists over 

there and talking to them. 

And one last thing in terms of wind and the rest of them, people—aren’t there a lot of birds that are killed by these windmills 

as well? I mean I understand more birds are killed by these—by 

this wind power—this attempt to use wind power than we have 

polar bears in Alaska or in the Arctic. 

Secretary MONIZ. I wouldn’t know how to compare that but I 

must say, if I go back to the—what I tried to emphasize is that 

where I am coming from is actually much simpler. We know what 

the radiative forcing of carbon dioxide is and we have known that, 

again, for—since the 19th century. We know how that translates 

into average temperature increase. We know that—we know how 

much CO2 is emitted from anthropogenic sources. We know how 

much CO2 remains in the atmosphere. And this is all consistent 

with a track that would have us in the multiple degrees centigrade 

average global warming. The more one goes into localized expectations of consequences, the more scientific debate there is. 
40 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, thank you. 

Secretary MONIZ. But the macro is just clear by counting. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, with all those charts—you are looking 

at the charts, do they also juxtapose solar activity like solar flares 

and solar things that also may have an impact—— 

Secretary MONIZ. It is a long discussion. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. We will have a long discussion on that. 

Mr. Bera. 

Mr. BERA. Yes, thank you. And I thank my colleague from California for letting me jump ahead. 

Dr. Moniz, thank you for being here today. My questions are simple. You know, the public expects us to address issues and solve 

problems, so I will ask some simple questions. 

Dr. Moniz, do you believe that the climate is changing? 

Secretary MONIZ. Yes, I do. 

Mr. BERA. Okay. And do you believe that, regardless of percentages, that there are both natural causes of climate change as well 

as human causes of climate change? 

Secretary MONIZ. Certainly. 

Mr. BERA. And do you believe that, given the trajectory that we 

are on, that at some juncture the climate change is going to become 

irreversible or be very difficult to—— 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, yes, because basically carbon dioxide 

stays in the atmosphere for many, many centuries so it is cumulative. And yes, we have kind of set the agenda for decades in advance already. 

Mr. BERA. And the longer we delay in dealing with this, the more 

difficult it will be? 

Secretary MONIZ. Correct. 

Mr. BERA. So given that and given that all of us agree that you 

are one of the most qualified scientists, you know, the Senate overwhelmingly confirmed you, do you think our focus should be on 

those areas that we can actually impact climate change which 

would be the human causes of climate change? 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, yes, I think we should—I think prudence 

calls for us to take prudent steps today, and I might add that the 

difference of the—again, the anthropogenic over these last decades 

is the rapidity with which we are—it is not a natural timescale the 

way we are increasing CO2 emissions. 

Mr. BERA. Great. So this body can debate percentages, they can 

debate causes, but we all acknowledge that regardless of the percentage, there is a human factor here that leads to increased CO2

emissions—— 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, I certainly—and a very strong one in my 

opinion. 

Mr. BERA. —that impacts our ability. Giving us advice, what recommendations would you like to see this body enact and the Administration enact so we start to slow this down? 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, I think certainly from the Department of 

Energy and for this Committee’s jurisdiction I think a key is to 

really push hard on the science and technology that underpins a 

transition over time to a low-carbon economy. I mean I think that 

is the innovation agenda. And, as I have said, I think not all of my 
41 

entrepreneurial friends like this, but I think the fundamental goal 

of this innovation is cost-reduction of these technologies. 

Mr. BERA. And—— 

Secretary MONIZ. So that they will all be marketplace competitive and drive—the policy will be a lot easier with lower costs. 

Mr. BERA. And specific recommendations for how we actually reduce the cost, what you would like to see us do? 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, I mean, again, the targets I think are 

across-the-board efficiency. I mean efficiency is where today we still 

have many opportunities that are at least lifecycle-cost beneficial, 

whether that is vehicles, buildings of course are an enormous opportunity, industrial processes. 

Then, we need to go to low-carbon, carbon-free alternatives in the 

power sector, which is probably the leading sector for getting carbon out of the sector. We have three options: We have nuclear, we 

have renewables, and we have carbon capture and sequestration. 

And I believe we need a multipronged approach on all of these, and 

that is what, in fact, the President’s budget proposes. That is what 

we are doing. 

Mr. BERA. Great. As a scientist myself, a life scientist, certainly 

this is critical. 

Secretary MONIZ. Um-hum. 

Mr. BERA. You know, we certainly are seeing the changes that 

are occurring. Again, the vast majority of the public understands 

that the climate is changing. The vast majority of the science community understands that the climate is changing. And it is about 

time that we move past debating percentages and addressing the 

root cause issue where we can address that root cause issue. 

So, you know, we on this Committee look forward to working 

with you. We look forward to working with the Administration, and 

we look forward to working with the broader community to start 

addressing our children’s future. 

Secretary MONIZ. Yes, thank you. 

Mr. BERA. Thank you. 

Secretary MONIZ. And, again, as I think you are saying, sir, there 

is lots of debate in terms of how we address it. 

Mr. BERA. Absolutely. But, yes, we can have that debate on how 

we address it. 

Secretary MONIZ. Right. 

Mr. BERA. But let’s move past the debate of whether the climate 

is changing or not. We know the climate is changing. And let’s 

focus on those areas where we can have impact and we can actually, you know, ensure our children’s future and our grandchildren’s future. 

Secretary MONIZ. Um-hum. 

Mr. BERA. Thank you, and I yield back. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I thank you very much. 

Mr. Hultgren? 

Mr. HULTGREN. Thank you, Chairman. 

Thank you, Dr. Moniz. Very good to have you here, and I really 

am looking forward to working with you and do feel like this is a 

pivotal time for so many issues dealing with science in particular, 

and so I just want to say how much I am looking forward to that. 
42 

It has not been a secret that I had some strong disagreements 

with your predecessor and also with the President specifically with 

funding choices. And it is interesting even the discussion today and 

I appreciated your comments in your statement that the challenges 

we face, specifically some climate challenges, are not just our challenges; it is world challenges. And when you look at the impact, 

much of it is happening beyond our borders. 

And questions we have to ask is at what cost? There are things 

we can do but at what cost? And what other things suffer when we 

have limited resources? So that is the type of debate we need to 

be having, and I am looking forward to having that debate with 

you as well. 

I really have been frustrated where I feel like some important 

scientific work, specifically with our national laboratories, has been 

undercut under this Administration. And the opportunity to continue that funding and that priority and how it all fits in. I talk 

about really an ecosystem of science and how our laboratories and 

our universities and our commitment to STEM education all fit together with ultimately what type of nation are we going to be? Are 

we going to be an innovative nation, cutting-edge nation? That is 

what I want to make sure during my time here, whether that is 

short or long, and I hope to be able to work with you on that in 

finding areas where we can agree to move that forward. 

Secretary MONIZ. Me, too. 

Mr. HULTGREN. I do want to start questioning of really asking 

about DOE stewardship in discovery sciences. As you know, the 

DOE is responsible for things like particle physics, excuse me. My 

tongue isn’t working today—that are not immediately related to its 

energy mission but have a long history of successes in improving 

our understanding of the universe. How will you make sure that 

we maintain the vitality of these fields and remain among the 

world leaders in things like high-energy physics at a time when the 

overwhelming priority of the Department has been on subsidizing 

existing energy technologies and addressing climate change? 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, I believe these, as you call them, discovery sciences are an absolutely critical part of our stewardship. 

I think the—I mentioned—you mentioned, excuse me, particle 

physics. This is a place where—and this is also my approach— 

where frankly I think the community needs to come together and 

decide what is the next direction? 

Clearly, the center of high-energy physics right now is in Geneva, 

but Fermilab, for example, is emphasizing some precision physics 

and high-intensity physics. Is that the direction we go? 

So, Congressman, I think the community has a so-called 

Snowmass meeting this summer or—yes, summer, which happens 

to be in Minneapolis. 

Mr. HULTGREN. It is not quite Snowmass. 

Secretary MONIZ. But I think that that is a critical meeting because, frankly, I think the particle physics community has not had 

as clear a strategic plan in the last years as some of the other 

fields have had. 

Mr. HULTGREN. Well, I agree with you, and I really do appreciate 

what you had said earlier, too, with my colleague from Illinois, Mr. 

Lipinski, of the work that you are doing of bringing lab directors 
43 

together to make sure that we have a strategy, that we are not just 

floundering. And also there have been times where we have kind 

of pitted labs against other labs. I don’t believe it should ever be 

that way. It is one of the reasons we started up the National 

Science and Laboratories Caucus, just to help educate other members of how important these are and how each play an important 

role. 

We need to hold them accountable with the funds they have, but 

let’s make sure that we are committed to them and telling the 

story among ourselves and to the world of how important this is. 

You mentioned—and my time is going to run out, but you mentioned how the focus of physics really has changed and focused on 

Geneva, and that is part of the discussion we have to have as well 

is big projects, big science projects and how we are going to do that 

into the future. I want to have that discussion also and look forward to maybe a time where we can sit down, hopefully, and talk 

about that. 

In my last remaining seconds I do want to switch gears to something else you talked about in your opening statement, and that 

was recent news from China on the fastest computer coming out 

of China. I am currently working with several of my colleagues on 

this Committee on legislation that will reauthorize some of the Department’s high-speed computing research programs to push us towards the exascale of computing systems. 

With that news out of China, where do you think we—there are 

opportunities to shift funding at the DOE where we could get more 

bang for our buck with exascale computing instead of existing expenditures in other areas. And to what extent would you hope to 

coordinate the activities of the Office of Science with NASA on 

some of that work? 

Secretary MONIZ. That is a very interesting question. First of all, 

we are well along in putting together an exascale plan that we 

hope to bring to the Congress shortly. I think, by the way, a key 

direction for the United States in this kind of international competition is to lower the energy requirements dramatically. 

Mr. HULTGREN. I absolutely agree. 

Secretary MONIZ. I mean our target is like a 20 megawatt 

exascale machine and not a gigawatt exascale machine. So that is 

an example of a very important area. 

I think working with NASA could be very interesting. By the 

way, not only on that as an enabling technology, but another place 

is robotics. I think where we could have a lot more use of robotics 

in our difficult nuclear security and cleanup missions, and NASA, 

of course, is a pioneer there. 

Mr. HULTGREN. Good. Well, I wondered if maybe I could get a 

copy of the bill we are working on to get your thoughts on that, 

the exascale computing bill that we are going to be presenting here 

in the next couple of days. And you are right; there are some significant challenges. I know just the Chinese system, I think it has 

got over three million cores and about 18,000 kilowatts of power, 

so these are the challenges we are going to have to face to really 

get to exascale. But I know we can do it but I want to be intentional on that and strategic—— 

Secretary MONIZ. Right. 
44 

Mr. HULTGREN. —whether it is with the labs or whether it is 

with our computing. So thank you. I will look forward to working 

with you. 

Secretary MONIZ. Thank you. 

Mr. HULTGREN. I do hope it is positive. I think this is a pivotal 

time. 

With that, I yield back. Thank you for your generousness with 

the gavel. 

Secretary MONIZ. And if I may just comment, I wasn’t aware of 

this caucus with labs, and I would be happy to meet with that—— 

Mr. HULTGREN. We would love to have you. It is bipartisan and 

we are working together across the aisle seeing how this is important and how we really haven’t done as good of a job as we should 

have telling the stories of what our labs have done and continue 

to do and how important they are. So thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you. And I am going to have to unfortunately give up this gavel and—but Mrs. Lummis, who is the 

Chairman of the Energy Subcommittee here on Science and Technology, will be taking the Chair, but for—in the meantime, Ms. 

Bonamici from Oregon will have her time. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, Dr. Moniz, for your testimony today. I am going to 

ask about three issues: electric vehicles; solar energy, especially domestic manufacturing; and wave energy. And because my time is 

short, I am going to ask the three questions and then give you time 

to respond. 

I was pleased to see significant increases in the energy efficiency 

and renewable energy budget proposal, particularly in the area of 

vehicle technologies. Oregon is a national leader in this area. We 

have a high number of electric vehicles. In fact, your department 

recently found that in Oregon the cost to operate an electric vehicle 

is the equivalent of running on gasoline that costs 96 cents a gallon. I think many of my colleagues would appreciate that in their 

districts. 

So can you describe the Department’s plans to replicate this type 

of success in other communities that don’t yet have the same deployment levels as my State of Oregon? 

And then secondly, on solar energy, you highlight solar energy as 

a priority. I am glad to see this reflected in a proposed budget increase. In my district in Oregon we have SolarWorld, employing 

about 800 people, providing the installation industry with a highquality product while also supporting domestic manufacturing. But 

SolarWorld’s ability to compete domestically is being threatened. 

Last year, the International Trade Commission unanimously found 

that U.S. solar manufacturers had been injured by unfair trade 

practices. 

So will you please discuss the impact of such trade practices, especially on domestic solar manufacturing? And can the Department 

of Energy do more to support domestic manufacturing? 

Finally, Oregon has made a strategic decision to work with the 

Federal Government to become an international leader in wave energy. Many countries, especially in Europe, have already deployed 

viable operating electricity-generating projects using the emissionfree power of ocean waves and currents and tidal forces. In fact, 
45 

the U.K. has spent more than US$780 million on wave energy R&D 

over the past decade. I believe it is critical that the United States 

send a clear signal to the rest of the world that we are a strong 

competitor in and serious market for this emerging sector. 

There is a need for some investment related to development of 

an offshore testing center, which I of course hope will be in Oregon 

and wonder does the Department plan to pursue an increase for 

water and wave power in the Fiscal Year 2015 budget request to 

Congress? 

Thank you very much and please respond in the remaining time. 

Secretary MONIZ. Thank you. The—so first on the electric vehicles, let me actually first note that in the 2011 Department of Energy Quadrennial Technology Review, the lead recommendation 

was to shift emphasis relatively speaking more towards advanced 

vehicle technologies, and that is reflected now in the Fiscal Year 

2014 budget. That Quadrennial Technology Review is in the first 

step towards the Quadrennial Energy Review that I mentioned earlier, which I hope will have similar consequences on a broader 

playing field. 

In terms of the deployment of electric vehicles, clearly, today, the 

number of vehicles deployed is modest, but the rate of deployment 

is actually faster than it was for hybrids at this stage of their deployment. And partly it is because they are really high-performance 

vehicles, a little bit expensive at the moment, but very, very high 

performance. 

The eGallon you referred to in terms of the operating costs of such a vehicle in your State it was below $1; the national average 

is $1.14. And we have a tool now where somebody can find the 

price of operating a vehicle the same way they can at the local gas 

station seeing the price up there. 

So the goal here is A) get the capital costs down for the batteries; 

B) in programs like our Clean Cities and our strengthened emphasis on States and localities that I am bringing in. And I have—I 

can’t say right now but I think we will have—an excellent person 

will be coming in to head this. She is very, very—been very prominent in state energy issues that we will be looking to help localities 

in terms of the infrastructure development. 

Secondly, on solar, clearly, I mean many, many policy instruments are not in the realm of the Department of Energy, but what 

I would say is, of course, again, we come back to the cost reduction—— 

Ms. BONAMICI. Right. 

Secretary MONIZ. —not only in the, let’s say, a module per se but 

in the manufacturing processes, very, very important. The President’s Manufacturing Initiative, I think, is going to be very important here, advanced materials. The new one that is up for bid right 

now involves power electronics. That is part of a system for solar. 

And, again working with the States, we have got to find a way to 

get the soft costs down—— 

Ms. BONAMICI. Right. 

Secretary MONIZ. —which, right now, are driving things very, 

very heavily. 

On—what was the third? Wave energy, wave and tidal energy, 

that is a program that I have to say I have not yet gotten to re-
46 

view. I know it is a small program right now. I have received 

strong encouragement to look at the—what have been called the 

forgotten renewables beyond wind and solar and that would be 

waves, micro hydro, geothermal. So we will be looking at that in 

the Fiscal Year 2015 budget preparation. Clearly, I can’t make a 

commitment on any specific number now. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Terrific. Thank you very much. My time has expired. We look forward to working with you—— 

Secretary MONIZ. Thank you. 

Ms. BONAMICI. —and I yield back, Madam Chairwoman. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. [Presiding] I thank the gentlelady, and I wish to 

add my warm welcome to you—— 

Secretary MONIZ. Thank you. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. —Secretary Moniz. 

Next, you will be hearing from the gentleman from Indiana, Dr. 

Bucshon. 

Mr. BUCSHON. Thank you. And thanks for being here. A couple 

of questions that I have about worldwide CO2 emissions, what percentage of the world CO2 emissions from a human source come 

from the United States? Do you have any idea? 

Secretary MONIZ. Oh, it is—I would say approaching 20 percent. 

Mr. BUCSHON. About 20 percent? 

Secretary MONIZ. We are number two after China. 

Mr. BUCSHON. Right. Okay. So if we hypothetically eliminated all 

CO2 emission in the United States, would that have any effect on 

the world—on the global atmospheric CO2 situation? 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, I—it certainly would because I believe it 

would be in the context of others doing the same. 

Mr. BUCSHON. Okay. And you think—what is the likelihood, you 

think, that others would do the same as some of the things that 

are being proposed? 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, I think, you know, I am cautious about 

speculating. I think what we need to do is to take care of our business, lower the costs of low-carbon technologies and create industries, hopefully, that can be profitable in selling to the world as the 

world goes to low-carbon. So I think we have plenty of incentives, 

but clearly, in the end, we need to bring along all the major 

emitters. 

Mr. BUCSHON. Right. And so the question I have, I mean, first 

of all, I do believe the climate in the world is changing; I am just 

very skeptical about the role of human CO2 production in that 

based on historical climate change over the course of the history of 

the world. And so do you think that the United States should economically disadvantage itself with that end goal when it is pretty 

clear to me that it is very unlikely the rest of the world will do 

what you are proposing to do? 

Secretary MONIZ. I think we should advantage ourselves and 

then we may have a discussion about what it means—— 

Mr. BUCSHON. Sure. 

Secretary MONIZ. —to advantage ourselves today, ten years from 

now, 30 years from now. The energy scene, no matter what the 

drivers are, is not going to look the same as it does today, and I 

think we need to have a robust—— 
47 

Mr. BUCSHON. Now, is that your opinion or do you have—how do 

you know that that—— 

Secretary MONIZ. That is my opinion. 

Mr. BUCSHON. That is your opinion? Okay. 

Secretary MONIZ. And I would say, sir, if I may that—— 

Mr. BUCSHON. Yes. 

Secretary MONIZ. —I think when we look back in time ten years, 

20 years, we are always amazed at how the world looks so different. But when we look forward, we tend to think it is going to 

look just the same. 

Mr. BUCSHON. Yes, can I talk about Germany right now? What 

is Germany doing with their energy production? What is—currently, I mean what are they doing, for example? Do you have any 

idea? 

Secretary MONIZ. Germany has—of course, one thing is they are 

phasing out their nuclear power. 

Mr. BUCSHON. Right, which is what you are proposing that we 

use as a different source in the United States. So they are—why 

are they phasing that out? 

Secretary MONIZ. In my view it is their decision—— 

Mr. BUCSHON. And what are they phasing in? 

Secretary MONIZ. The issue is what they phase in, exactly. 

Mr. BUCSHON. Yes, they are phasing in coal-fired power 

plants—— 

Secretary MONIZ. And right now—— 

Mr. BUCSHON. Is that true or not true? 

Secretary MONIZ. There is some additional coal and a lot of additional gas. 

Mr. BUCSHON. Okay. 

Secretary MONIZ. Yes. 

Mr. BUCSHON. Do you know—— 

Secretary MONIZ. I am sorry. And wind also. 

Mr. BUCSHON. Yes, I understand. 

Secretary MONIZ. Yes. 

Mr. BUCSHON. Do you know—have any idea where venture capital is going when it comes to renewable energy sources? Do you 

know private investment, venture capital, because what they are 

doing as it relates to wind and solar right now, do you have any 

idea? 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, I think it has come down a bit from the 

peak but it is still a pretty large—— 

Mr. BUCSHON. And why would that—why wouldn’t then—why 

would private sector venture capital be leaving renewables? And I 

am not saying I am against renewables because I am for everything, okay—— 

Secretary MONIZ. Well—— 

Mr. BUCSHON. —but why would that be? 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, I don’t know in detail. I mean, certainly, 

one of the reasons has been the large uncertainties in the wind 

case around the tax. 

Mr. BUCSHON. And you would have to—you may or may not 

agree that it is because that at this point in our history, they are 

not economically viable and—without the Federal—massive Fed-
48 

eral Government infusion of cash into those industries, is that true 

or not true? 

Secretary MONIZ. Wind certainly in many cases is competitive. In 

fact, earlier, the gentleman from Texas raised an issue. Well, just 

recently, our site—DOE’s site Pantex signed a fixed power purchase agreement with Siemens from a wind farm and they are saving $30 million. 

Mr. BUCSHON. Okay. My point is—— 

Secretary MONIZ. I believe it is competitive. 

Mr. BUCSHON. I think that—you know, I—from an R&D standpoint, I would probably—you and I would probably agree that continued R&D in these areas is critically important going forward. 

Secretary MONIZ. Um-hum. 

Mr. BUCSHON. The question is is are we getting ahead of ourselves by—at this point without R&D showing that these are economically viable, getting ahead of ourselves essentially? When venture capital is leaving those areas of our economy, should the Federal Government, other than R&D in those areas, continue to put 

this kind of money into those when it is clear that the private sector and venture capital are leaving them because they are not economically viable? That is the bottom line. 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, as I have said, we clearly agree on the 

R&D. But, today, costs are dropping and in many instances are already competitive. That is not a universal statement but in many 

instances competitive. That is both wind; the Pantex example is 

one; and solar, particularly when solar is helping to shave piece at 

times of large—— 

Mr. BUCSHON. My time is expired. Thank you very much. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. I thank the gentleman. 

And now, you will have some questions from the Ranking Member of the Energy Subcommittee, the gentleman from California, 

Mr. Swalwell. 

Mr. SWALWELL. Thank you, Chairman Lummis. 

And welcome, Dr. Moniz. I am actually very glad you are here 

because I had a town hall in my district on Saturday back in the 

Bay Area of California, and a number of my constituents could not 

believe that in this Committee some of my friends on the other side 

still have questions and deny that humans play a role in climate 

change. 

So theire questions here today that illustrate that I am not 

crazy, that that is still a debate in this Committee. And I put up 

for you on the screen something from the NASA website called ‘‘Climate Change: How Do We Know?’’ And there is a graph there of 

CO2 parts per million on the left side of the graph and on the bottom side you see over the period of time starting at about 400,000 

years ago going up to about 25,000 years ago, you see a spike. And 

then, of course, it really spikes around where 1,700 would be. And 

I am wondering is there any correlation between the industrial revolution and the CO2 parts per million in that graph? 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, it is quite direct actually. 

Mr. SWALWELL. And what is the correlation, Dr. Moniz? 

Secretary MONIZ. It is a very positive correlation. 

Mr. SWALWELL. And what can we assume the cause of the CO2

parts per million going up? 
49 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, this is exactly what I was referring to 

earlier in terms of, roughly speaking, counting CO2 molecules. We 

know how many molecules are emitted. We know how many were 

in the atmosphere. It tracks quite closely. 

Mr. SWALWELL. And, Dr. Moniz, do 97 percent of scientists—climate scientists agree that climate warming trends over the past 

century are very likely due to human activities? 

Secretary MONIZ. Yes, I have seen 97, 98 percent, those numbers, 

yes. Um-hum. I am not sure how that number is arrived at, but 

yes. Um-hum. 

Mr. SWALWELL. Thank you. And, Dr. Moniz, are you familiar 

with the National Ignition Facility at Lawrence Livermore laboratory? 

Secretary MONIZ. Yes, in general terms. I have not had yet the 

chance to drill down into it since I have been in the office the last 

3 weeks but—— 

Mr. SWALWELL. Well, better than drill down I would like to invite 

you to come visit the facility. It is in my district. It is also in wine 

country so after the tour we would be happy to show you around. 

Secretary MONIZ. Before the tour? 

Mr. SWALWELL. Do you support the National Ignition Facility’s 

dual goal of maintaining our nuclear weapons stockpile and providing scientists with the physics understanding necessary to create fusion ignition and energy gain for future energy production? 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, I mean, I have to say I think clearly the 

principal purpose of the facility has been for stockpile stewardship, 

and even without ignition, which remains a goal for a few years 

from now, presumably, that has to be the major focus. Now, clearly, 

a lot of that work certainly getting to ignition will, by definition, 

be useful for the ICF purpose. 

Mr. SWALWELL. And you mentioned that just this past week Oak 

Ridge’s supercomputer is a no longer the world’s fastest, a mantle 

once again claimed by China. Does it trouble you that Russia and 

China are also beginning to outpace us when it comes to fusion ignition projects? 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, I think it is more of an across-the-board 

issue. I think, you know, we are in a different world, highly competitive in terms of technology innovation, and we have just got to 

keep out in front. 

Mr. SWALWELL. Would you agree, then, that the President’s Fiscal Year 2014 budget request for the National Ignition Facility, a 

cut of $110 million, will set us back in achieving ignition and will 

cede of leadership in the area of fusion ignition to Russia and 

China? 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, clearly, there were lots of difficult choices 

that needed to be made, and the Department of Defense, with the 

Department of Energy and OMB, just felt that the needs in stockpile stewardship and stockpile reliability just had to be met in a 

very tough budget environment. 

Mr. SWALWELL. And, Dr. Moniz, the Lawrence Livermore National Lab Director has told me and Congresswoman Lofgren, who 

has also been an advocate and champion for fusion ignition, that 

if the President’s budget for NIF stands, it will essentially either 

shut down NIF or set back all of its major goals by at least ten 
50 

years. Since NIF began operating in 2009, they were a factor of 

1,000 away from achieving ignition. Today, they are a factor of 10 

away, which would be equivalent of taking a road trip from Denver, driving to San Francisco, and then when you get to Oakland 

deciding to stop and turn around and go back to Denver. 

So my question is will you let NIF shut down on your watch or 

will we see it continue to march forward toward ignition? 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, I will have to talk with Mr. Albright 

about that statement. Certainly, the intent is to have NIF—we 

need it strongly engaged certainly in our Stockpile Stewardship 

Program. 

Mr. SWALWELL. Great. Thank you, Dr. Moniz. And thank you for 

interpreting that graph on the fly without any warning ahead of 

time. I appreciate it. 

Secretary MONIZ. Thank you. Right. 

Mr. SWALWELL. And I yield back the balance of my time. Thank 

you, Chair Lummis. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. I thank the gentleman and the Ranking Member, 

and I hope that you will include us on this tour that you were discussing with the Secretary. 

Next is the gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Schweikert. 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Madam Chairwoman, is it the tour or the wine 

country part? 

Mrs. LUMMIS. The former and the latter— 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Yes, yes. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. —yes. 

Secretary MONIZ. You know, it is an incredible machine. 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Secretary, first off, congratulations. You 

have actually one of the positions in government that, on a personal basis, I find absolutely fascinating because of the things you 

get to touch and influence. But you have actually seen some of the 

nature of the conversation here today, and I come with you—at you 

from a certain philosophy saying, you know, the arrogance of really 

smart people sometimes we think we know more than we do. 

If I were to hop in the literature right now and go back a dozen 

years ago, whether it be you or many of the smart people who you 

hang around with, what would you have written about peak oil? 

The fact of the matter is the next incremental barrel of oil, you 

know, much of the literature in the very late ’90s, very early 2000 

made it very clear that the next incremental barrel of oil or fossil 

fuels would be less. 

Small problem is we got it wrong. And we built tax codes here, 

we built environmental codes, we built regulatory codes, actually 

even foreign policy based on a premise that was absolutely wrong. 

I have been very pleased on a couple of your comments saying you 

are going to try to focus policy on a broad optionality—— 

Secretary MONIZ. Um-hum. 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. —because the arrogance that you and I know 

what tomorrow is is the great fault around here. And I know this 

is starting to sound more like a speech and I don’t mean it to. 2007 

around here we all knew that compact fluorescent bulbs were the 

future except for the fact they are not. As of, what was it, December LEDs crashed in price and now I can do LEDs for less money 
51 

than compact fluorescent. But we had the arrogance that we all 

knew what the future was. 

Can I beg of you, as you are doing your policy sets, as you visit 

with policymakers here, to maximize that discussion? I know you 

come from a physics background, which is often very linear in 

thinking and saying, policy-wise, who knows what is being developed in someone’s garage right now that you and I have never 

thought of that is tomorrow’s manufacturing technology breakthrough. Can I beg of you with this position you have in the next 

couple years you will maximize that optionality for the next great 

breakthrough? 

Secretary MONIZ. Sir, that is exactly along the lines of what I 

was trying to emphasize that I think we don’t know the future. We 

always think of the future, again, as a linear extrapolation of the 

present, and it is not. And it is those innovations that do so much 

to change the future. 

I will just say one thing, however, in terms of peak oil. I have 

witnesses; I was never a peak oil believer. 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. You will be happy to know, I really couldn’t— 

I Googled you and I did not see you pop up. I did see the guys just 

down the hallway from you at MIT writing huge articles about 

how, right now, we should be about $200 barrel in oil as of this 

month. 

Secretary MONIZ. Well—— 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. We didn’t even get close. 

Secretary MONIZ. —certainly predicting oil prices is a loser’s 

game—— 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Yes. 

Secretary MONIZ. —but on peak oil, I mean, our view was always 

that—— 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. But it is—— 

Secretary MONIZ. —it is not molecules you run out of; it is at 

what cost can you get the molecules? 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. But you have to agree it is a brilliant example 

of technology is faster-moving and smarter than we are because 

someone out there is coming up with it. It is—you know, when I 

hold up the book of—you know, the Population Bomb—— 

Secretary MONIZ. Right. 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. —from 1968, the only thing they got right was 

the author’s name. Everything in the book got wrong because the 

arrogance of not knowing what the next breakthrough is. 

Secretary MONIZ. And also just to reinforce your point, in natural 

gas, of course, it was—— 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Yes. 

Secretary MONIZ. —very recently when major heads of major corporations not only got it wrong—— 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Yes. 

Secretary MONIZ. —but put their money in the wrong place. 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Well, yes, but that should be in markets. 

Look—— 

Secretary MONIZ. Right. 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. —for just a bit of fun trivia before I bounce on 

my next really important thing, what is the only major industri-
52 

alized country not to sign the Kyoto Accords? What is the only 

major industrialized country to actually hit its allocation? 

Secretary MONIZ. Um-hum. Well—— 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Because we did not overregulate natural gas, 

we had massive adoption because we didn’t stop it. And all of a 

sudden, we have had our Kyoto Accords because of market pressures driving us there, not a command-and-control regulatory environment. 

There is one thing I will do very quickly. You actually have a lot 

of regulatory authority within your agency over things like 

showerheads. Believe it or not, I have a little constituent in my district that manufacturers froufrou showerheads. He had enforcement officers from the Department of Energy walk in his door, hit 

him with a $470,000 fine because the flow restrictor took too little 

pounds of pressure—and I hope I am describing that correctly—to 

yank out. 

Please be somewhat circumspect on the law enforcement functions you have within your agency and how they affect small businesses and our communities and our manufacturer. It is one thing 

to say you need to change the pounds of pressure to remove the 

flow restrictor; it is another thing to walk in and hit someone and 

scare the out of them, you know, with a $470,000 fine. And with 

that—— 

Secretary MONIZ. Okay. 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. —I yield back. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. I thank the gentleman, and the gentleman from 

California, Mr. Takano, is next. 

Mr. TAKANO. I thank the Chairwoman, Mrs. Lummis. 

Thank you, Secretary Moniz, for your testimony before the Committee this morning. 

I was thinking about a joke I could make about 90 percent of the 

scientists and how my side of the aisle stands with the 98 percent 

versus the two percent alluding to our economy and 98 percent of 

the population versus the two percent, but I am not going to go 

there even though I just went there. 

Anyway, I am fortunate to have UC Riverside, a top-notch university research facility. I frequently hear from my constituents 

and researchers at the university about the key role that the Department of Energy plays in fostering innovation and funding basic 

research. Since 2009, UC Riverside has received more than $20 

million from the Department to fund research ranging from highenergy physics to the hormonal regulation of plant growth. 

This fall, the university plans to open an experimental solar and 

battery smart grid, the largest at any university in the Nation. The 

smart grid research lab will allow researchers to study innovative 

ways to improve smart grid power management, link large computing data centers with the grid, study smart grid cyber security, 

and better understand ways to link energy from renewable sources 

with the grid. And that is just a snapshot of the work being done 

at UCR. 

DOE funding has also contributed to biofuels research and solar 

energy research at Bourns College of Engineering, which is part of 

the leading edge of research in pushing down on the costs and driving up the efficiency of solar energy collection. This kind of re-
53 

search and innovation not only creates jobs; it leads to the scientific breakthroughs that will allow us to face the challenges of 

the 21st century. And I appreciate hearing from you today about 

the Department’s strategy as we work together to meet those challenges. 

Now, just to be clear, we—you, I believe, counsel moving forward 

with the best scientific knowledge that we have. I realize I want 

to be humble and not presume that we know the future, but 98 

percent—or 97 percent of the scientists do seem to have a consensus that global climate change is real, that the carbon contribution is coming from human sources, and I don’t want to keep beating that drum, but I think we have amply made that point. 

I want to go to one of my priorities as a former K–12 teacher— 

STEM education. I believe you mentioned that the Chinese have a 

goal of educating one million students in the high-performance 

computing? 

Secretary MONIZ. High-performance computing, yes, um-hum. 

Mr. TAKANO. Can you tell me the significance of that goal and 

do you think it is a prudent goal of the Chinese and what does that 

pose as a challenge to us as Americans? 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, I don’t—I can’t judge whether it is prudent or not in China, but it does catch my attention in terms of 

the importance of training scientists and engineers and mathematicians, et cetera, for the—for our future. 

And another issue, in fact, I would raise is that I think we need 

still, after many years of working at it, to do a better job in terms 

of using all of our talent. Women and minorities certainly in the 

energy field, we are not as well represented as we need to be. So 

I think we need to just keep our eye on the ball. Human resources 

are the key in the end. We have got to use all of our human resources. And it is something that I certainly would like to work on 

in the next few years. 

Mr. TAKANO. I recently ran into a high school classmate of mine 

who was one of the, I don’t know, innovators in terms of all of 

these games that people play on the Internet. 

Secretary MONIZ. Um-hum. Um-hum. 

Mr. TAKANO. He was taken with this idea—this 1 million students caught my attention because he really thinks it would be 

beneficial if we started as early as prekindergarten to teach students the fundamentals of code writing. What do you think about 

that? Is that something—— 

Secretary MONIZ. I think I am not qualified to judge on that, but 

clearly, science, mathematics, and computer literacy are just clearly essential skills I think for young people to succeed in the future. 

Well, I mean, they can succeed in other things, too, but as a country we need more students succeeding in those areas. 

Mr. TAKANO. So—— 

Secretary MONIZ. And I may just add, one of the things that I 

have talked about that I would like to look at as a Department 

kind of along these lines is I think that we may want to look and 

come to the Congress for discussions at what I would call a 

traineeship program where we support—so it is not broad necessarily like scholarships; it is focus on areas of national need 

where we aren’t producing enough young people for our missions. 
54 

So, for example, in our nuclear security mission, you know, actinide chemistry; for our energy mission, power electronics. So I 

think that is something that would be a good discussion to have 

with this Committee and other members about mission areas for 

the Department, targeted programs to get more people trained. 

Mr. TAKANO. This has to be with workforce. But, Madam Chair, 

my time is up. I am sorry I went over. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. I thank the gentleman and yield to the gentleman 

from North Dakota, Mr. Cramer. 

Mr. CRAMER. Thank you, Madam Chair, and Madam Ranking 

Member. 

And thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being with us and being so 

generous with your time. 

I—rather than beating the dead horse, I am going to accept it for 

a moment. And I was—appreciated a couple of things you said. You 

referred to three priorities of how to deal with or how to push 

science and technology investment in the—toward a low-carbon 

economy. You mentioned nuclear, you mentioned renewables, and 

the third thing you mentioned was carbon capture and sequestration, and I don’t think we have spent any time specifically on that 

today as a priority, and I would like to explore that. 

Coming from North Dakota where we enjoy the lowest electricity 

prices in the country due to the low cost of coal and the fact that 

we burn it right there and generate electricity and the fact that we 

enjoy a good economy as a result of the very high price of oil, I 

want to talk about the Department’s strategy in terms of investment in capturing carbon and using it and injecting it into oilfields 

for enhanced oil recovery. Your commitment to that, what do you 

see as that—in—as a possible future scientifically and in research 

and development in that arena? 

Secretary MONIZ. Thank you. Actually, I would say that—in fact, 

I think two years ago when I was at MIT with the University of 

Texas at Austin we had a workshop specifically on CO2 for enhanced oil recovery. Maybe for others not as familiar, I might just 

say that, today, it is not a widely known story that we are using 

today 60 million tons of CO2 annually to produce 300,000 barrels 

of oil per day from enhanced oil recovery. 

And, you know, it is a little bit shaky, but an analysis done for 

the Department two years ago indicates there may be a factor of 

10 still to be had. That would be three million barrels of oil per 

day. But to have enough CO2, we need to capture it from power 

plants or industrial facilities. Today, largely using the stimulus 

funds of several billion dollars went into the—I think we have now 

6 major projects moving forward on carbon capture and storage, 

and I believe—I can check the exact numbers, but I believe four of 

those will use enhanced oil recovery. 

Mr. CRAMER. Um-hum. 

Secretary MONIZ. So, clearly, getting the economic value of the 

oil helps you with the cost of capturing the carbon. 

Mr. CRAMER. Precisely. One of those projects is called the Plains 

CO2 Reduction Partnership in North Dakota at the University of 

North Dakota—— 

Secretary MONIZ. Yes, head of one of the regional partnerships. 

Mr. CRAMER. Yes, that is exactly correct. 
55 

Secretary MONIZ. Yes. 

Mr. CRAMER. And so I guess I want to use the opportunity to encourage you to continue that investment there because we really— 

first of all, geologically, there are lots of opportunities obviously—— 

Secretary MONIZ. Um-hum. 

Mr. CRAMER. And when you have eight billion or more barrels of 

recoverable oil at current technology like we have in North Dakota 

and an 800-year supply of coal that we would like to burn for a 

very long time and generate low-cost electricity, if we could find 

this opportunity to capture that CO2, which we know—understand 

is a challenge and yet we do it. We do it quite effectively up to 50 

percent of it in our coal gasification facility at least. I would encourage that type of an investment where there is already proven— 

a proven cost-benefit and, as you said, of the potential for much, 

much greater. 

One other area of—— 

Secretary MONIZ. Could I just interject? 

Mr. CRAMER. Yes, please. Please do. 

Secretary MONIZ. And of course the Great Plains plant you referred to was an old DOE investment. 

Mr. CRAMER. It certainly was, and boy, what a history it has. 

Thank you. 

One other area I just want to pursue since we—since I have the 

time is that you have been quite specific about your plans for dealing with LNG export and approving applications for LNG ports on 

a case-by-case basis, which seems prudent. But realizing that there 

are a number of applications in front of you where the comment period has ended and some have been waiting for months, is there 

any chance of expediting some of that in a responsible way? Given 

the demand in the world and the fact that global markets are—you 

know, kind of present this window of opportunity for us as a country, could you just comment a little bit on that? I realize it is a little outside the scope, perhaps, of science—— 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, that is fundamentally my plan. Of course, 

the second license was granted shortly before I became Secretary. 

As I said in my confirmation process, I need a few weeks to—and 

I am still just three weeks—basically a few weeks to go over the 

process, look at the inputs, et cetera, not commissioning new studies or anything. 

I think, you know, we are getting kind of to the place where I 

think this kind of review—my personal review period is maturing 

and then I plan to go expeditiously as I have committed. 

I understand some of the frustrations and some of the market opportunities, and we also realize that even with a conditional license 

granted, of course, there is still a lot of work that companies have 

to do in terms of assembling the capital, getting the customers, getting the suppliers all lined up. So I want to move expeditiously. I 

have certainly committed to having strong review process this year. 

Mr. CRAMER. Thank you for your access today and your willingness to be so frank with us. I appreciate it. Thank you. My time 

is obviously expired. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. I thank the gentleman and yield to the gentleman 

from Washington, Mr. Kilmer. 
56 

Mr. KILMER. Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you, Mr. Secretary, for joining us today. 

The Administration recently announced its proposal to create a 

national network for manufacturing innovation meant to serve as 

regional hubs for accelerating the development of manufacturing 

new innovative technologies. The Department of Energy, through 

its Advanced Manufacturing Office, has played a direct role in supporting these innovative manufacturing initiatives. 

I have certainly found that when most people think about innovation, they tend to think of Mr. Swalwell’s district or Silicon Valley, but even in more rural areas, including my neck of the woods 

on the Olympic Peninsula of Washington State, we have advanced 

composite materials manufacturers that are developing very highend, high-quality materials that have enormous potential. 

I was hoping you could speak a little bit about what steps the 

Department is taking to ensure that fair consideration is given to 

innovation that is taking place in rural areas where the injection 

of key support could not only help support our long-term global 

competitiveness but could really revolutionize local economies? 

Secretary MONIZ. Thank you. As you say, the Department is a 

participant along with other agencies in the Advanced Manufacturing Initiative, and had we partnered with DOD and I think a 

third agency in the 3–D Printing Manufacturing Initiative. And we 

have one out now in large bandgap semiconductors. 

I can certainly assure you that, first of all, proposals will certainly be evaluated fairly from rural areas or others; number two, 

that my emphasis on doing more with the States I think that lead 

to a very interesting dialogue about what we can do with—maybe 

to stimulate additional activity in rural places. 

Like I say, today, I would be delighted to have that dialogue, and 

if you have ideas as to how that might go forward, whether it is 

the Manufacturing Initiative or other initiatives, I would be delighted to have that conversation. 

Mr. KILMER. Thank you for that. I sure appreciate that. And certainly, I have my office and a number of other Members would, I 

think, be keen to be part of that happening. 

Secretary MONIZ. If that could be a group that we could get together, well, that would be great. 

Mr. KILMER. Thank you for that. 

If I may ask also what role do you see for the national labs in 

that broader discussion of impact at the local level and local economies? 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, okay. Let me answer one question you 

didn’t ask and one you did ask. 

Mr. KILMER. Sure. 

Secretary MONIZ. The—first of all, the labs are connected to this 

Manufacturing Initiative, so, for example, in the 3–D printing, 

there is a pilot scale project at Oak Ridge and, of course, now we 

have the manufacturing facility in Ohio there. 

In terms of your question, I have spoken with the labs already, 

the lab directors. I mentioned earlier I met with them about—because we are going to be developing this Quadrennial Energy Review process with a much more state and regional focus, while our 

labs don’t cover quite the entire country, I would like them to be-
57 

come centers of that regional outreach. So that is a process we are 

going to have to invent. It isn’t really there now that well, but we 

have to do that. That is number one. 

Number two is when it comes to technology transfer from the 

laboratories, I will be honest; I think it is not at a level that we 

should expect. I think we need to do more. I believe part of that 

will also come by working with the States because I think it is the 

innovation ecosystem you need around the lab then to draw all 

those technologies out. So that is kind of in general terms the kind 

of vision I have at least for this. 

Mr. KILMER. I think that is very true and certainly in my part 

of the world you would find a private sector that would be very interested in having stronger integration between the lab and private 

industry. 

Secretary MONIZ. Yes, that would be great. Again, I would be— 

I would love to follow up on that. 

Mr. KILMER. Thank you. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. I thank the gentleman. 

Mr. Secretary, it is eight minutes past noon. Are you able to 

hang in there with us for a few more minutes? 

Secretary MONIZ. A few more minutes, I am sure. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Thank you very much. 

The gentleman from Texas has graciously yielded his place in the 

queue to the gentleman from Utah, Mr. Stewart. 

Mr. STEWART. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

And thank you, Mr. Weber, for allowing me to jump in here. 

Mr. Secretary, thank you for being here. Once in a while, you 

will read someone’s resume and you think, wow. That guy is a lot 

smarter than I am and—— 

Secretary MONIZ. Don’t believe what you read. 

Mr. STEWART. Unlike climate change, this is a matter of fact, not 

speculation, and your re ́sume ́ is really quite impressive. 

I worked a little bit in the energy and environment sector. I am 

not an expert on it. I have never claimed to be, but I do know a 

little bit about it. And I think by far the most important story that 

we see in the energy world right now, it is not wind, it is not solar, 

it is not biomass; it is really hydraulic fracking. That has changed 

the energy world, and frankly, it has changed the world in very significant ways. 

It has reshaped the energy map, and as a former military officer—and I can tell you that from a strategic point of view, it has 

changed the way that I think we view many of the challenges that 

we face from not just the energy sector but also from a national security point of view. 

Secretary MONIZ. Um-hum. 

Mr. STEWART. You know, I just want to comment that the United 

States will surpass Saudi Arabia and also Russia to become the top 

global oil producer in the next decade. I think that is great news 

for us. But, Mr. Secretary, by DOE’s own report, very, very little 

of this increased production has happened on Federal lands. 

I come from Utah. There are some counties in my district that 

are 97 percent controlled by the Federal Government, and many of 

these counties have enormous natural resources. They have re-
58 

sources there that we could be taking advantage of but they unfortunately don’t lie on state lands or private lands; they lay underneath Federal lands. 

And I am wondering would you commit to us that DOE would 

be willing to support greater access to Federal lands to take advantage of some of these natural resources? 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, sir, I think, you know, first of all, of 

course, I actually said our production overall is going up dramatically. With regard to the Federal lands, that is clearly something 

for the Department of the Interior and not something that we 

have— 

Mr. STEWART. Right. 

Secretary MONIZ. —any direct engagement with. 

Mr. STEWART. I understand that but I am just wondering, you 

know, with your background and with your expertise, would you 

say that that was—that would be an appropriate response for us 

to try to encourage Federal Government to make more available on 

these Federal lands? 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, I think, again, the President supports allof-the-above, and I think the issue is to see that we continue to 

grow our domestic production. 

Mr. STEWART. Okay. And thank you for that. And I hope the 

President takes that approach as well. 

And then one other comment very quickly knowing that you are 

extending your time, and this is not something that involved you 

directly knowing that you are, of course, new in your position and, 

by the way, have enjoyed, I think, broad bipartisan support. And 

your—the vote that you had for your nomination, I think, is an indicator of that. 

But one thing that I think troubled several of us was this idea 

of the crony capitalism. If you go back and look over the last four 

years, you know the Solyndras of the world. And if you look at the 

very, very high percentage of those people, those companies that 

had renewable energy companies were backed by the Energy Department, and by some reports as much as 80 percent of them were 

run by or primarily owned by Obama financial backers. 

And I am just wondering if you would respond to that and tell 

me if you think that is a great idea, which I am supposing you 

don’t and make a commitment once again that there would be not 

a political influence that would be played into some of these financial backings that the Department takes—— 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, first of all, I think I want to start by referring back to the Allison Report that suggested that the program 

in fact has been quite well run. And I have to say in my three 

weeks I have been impressed with the quality of the people recruited, their financial knowledge in terms of the loan program. 

Clearly, we have to evaluate the loans, loan grants under merits. 

Of course, right now, much of the job is really stewarding the loans 

that have been made. 

As I noted earlier, there are still some outstanding issues like 

the loan commitment made for the nuclear power plants in Georgia 

and a possible additional FOA that we might do in fossil that we 

are considering. 
59 

Mr. STEWART. I think you and I can agree, though, that if it is 

true in the previous four years that 80 percent of these companies 

had some type of financial ties to the President that that would be 

an inappropriate measuring stick to whether they would receive 

DOE funds? 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, the motivation for the award clearly has 

to be on the merits— 

Mr. STEWART. On the merits, exactly. 

Secretary MONIZ. —of the budget. 

Mr. STEWART. Thank you. 

Secretary MONIZ. Right. 

Mr. STEWART. Thank you for that because that is obviously very 

true. 

And I am going to cede the last 8 seconds of my time. Thank you, 

Madam Chairwoman. 

Secretary MONIZ. Thank you. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. The gentleman from Massachusetts thanks you 

kindly and we now turn to him. 

Mr. KENNEDY. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

And, Mr. Secretary, it is a pleasure to see you. Thank you for 

your patience. Thank you for—— 

Secretary MONIZ. Your constituent. 

Mr. KENNEDY. Yes, I know. I am thrilled about that. I hope you 

are, too. But, nevertheless, we have a bit of a similar background. 

We both went to Stanford. I hesitate to compare my physics report 

card with yours, but nevertheless, glad to see you where you sit 

and glad that I am here as well. 

So three points that I just wanted to—or two questions and really one point; I will start with the point first. 

Intrigued a little bit, Mr. Secretary, by your response to one of 

my colleague’s questions earlier about STEM and the importance 

of STEM education really for that foundation going forward for 

that next generation of engineers and that skill set that we need 

for whatever those jobs of the future are. I am very intrigued by 

that training program. 

The district that I represent, you are very familiar with, spanned 

the spectrum in terms of economic outlook. Massachusetts has 

struggled a bit getting the low-skilled to middle-skilled while we 

have done well with the high—the middle-skilled to the highskilled. So I would be thrilled to learn more about and support any 

of those efforts that you have for a mentorship or trainee program. 

Secretary MONIZ. Great. 

Mr. KENNEDY. So please just keep us in mind—— 

Secretary MONIZ. Um-hum. 

Mr. KENNEDY. —as that develops. 

Now, for the two questions. 

First, Mr. Secretary, MIT, as you mentioned and you spoke about 

this briefly, it is home to one of the world’s foremost plasma fusion 

energy science programs, the C–Mod facility, which I had the 

pleasure of touring a couple of months ago. Ultimately, the Administration’s Fiscal Year 2014 budget request terminates that facility 

and while proposing an overall increase to the Fiscal Year 2013 enacted levels. The increase in funding request will support the U.S. 

contribution to the ITER international fusion project. 
60 

I know there are sensitivities around this given your former position at MIT, but I just wanted to ask generally your thoughts about 

the importance of making investments in fusion energy and what 

that means for that all-of-the-above energy outlook that you talked 

about going forward if you can. 

Secretary MONIZ. Thank you. Well, okay. Respectfully, I cannot 

answer anything with regard to specifics of the program. 

Mr. KENNEDY. Understood. 

Secretary MONIZ. General counsel has recused me from that. 

In general, in terms of fusion, I think fusion is—actually, I 

should say fusion and plasma science I think are an important area 

for continued DOE support. Plasma science really is another kind 

of phase of matter and then fusion has a long-term—and it is still 

long-term possibility as an attractive energy source. So I support 

the general idea of continuing fusion research. 

Mr. KENNEDY. And again, Mr. Secretary, keeping it general, as 

you said, those long-term investments, the—we still—just because 

it is a long-term horizon doesn’t mean that we don’t make the investment. Would you agree? 

Secretary MONIZ. No, we have to. If you don’t make it today, we 

won’t have it in the future. 

Mr. KENNEDY. I would agree with you. 

And second, building off a little bit of what you said, sir, you 

talked quite a bit about—and there has been numerous questions 

today about that all-of-the-above energy strategy. The Fiscal Year 

2014 administration budget includes 2.78 billion for the Office of 

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, which proposes a number of increases to its programs across the board. 

You also mentioned in your testimony, sir, the ‘‘Race to the Top’’ 

initiative as part of your larger focus on national energy policy. 

You touched upon this a little bit earlier, sir, but if there are 

parts of our across-the-board energy portfolio that are not yet costcompetitive because of barriers to technological advancement, how 

would you propose going forward to lower those barriers to make 

the technological advances to make it cost-effective? 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, I think we need a portfolio of instruments. At the foundation is the basic R&D, which gives us, you 

know, the new possibilities. 

But then, of course, we have something like ARPA–E, which 

takes promising but still high-risk technologies and moves them 

hopefully to the place where they become market-attractive for investors. And I think we are seeing a lot of success now developing 

there and that the program is still new. I mean it is about 3–1/2 

years old, well, going on 4, I guess. So that is very, very encouraging. 

We also have them in programs and the applied energy programs 

in selected areas for large-scale demonstrations. The gentleman 

from North Dakota, for example, mentioned carbon capture and sequestration. That is a place where demonstrating the viability of 

large-scale storage is just not credible without DOE, without government investment. 

And then when it comes to deploying or helping the deployment, 

then we have things like the loan programs, for example, where— 

by the way, I didn’t get the chance to say this earlier so I will say 
61 

it now. The fact is that this loan portfolio, even if we project with 

uncertainty on some of the remaining loans going forward, we are 

talking about no more than ten percent loss against the congressionally approved loan loss reserve. That is a pretty good performing portfolio, not to mention things like Tesla paying back a 

half-a-billion dollars nine years earlier, et cetera, et cetera. 

And by the way, Tesla, next year, their announced plan is they 

are going to become an exporter of vehicles now next year. So that 

is a great story. 

But also, the world largest concentrated solar plant in the California desert just had a ceremony a few weeks ago. 

So I guess our view is that we are moving inexorably, as we have 

for a century, towards a lower-carbon future, and if we want to sit 

around and not have those technologies developed here, well, we 

are going to be buyers and not sellers. I believe that we still are 

the strongest innovation engine. It is a question now of capturing 

that innovation in our marketplace. 

Mr. KENNEDY. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I yield back. Thank you 

for the time. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. I thank the gentleman and yield to the Vice Chair 

of our Energy Subcommittee, the gentleman from Texas, Mr. 

Weber. 

Mr. WEBER. Thank you, Madam Chair. They have obviously 

saved the best for last. 

So I am from Texas, the Keystone—the vaunted XL Keystone 

pipeline would terminate in my district, Mr. Secretary, so we will 

have a little bit of a discussion about that. 

Candidate Obama running for president made the statement 

that under his energy plan, electricity prices would, of necessity, 

skyrocket. Do you remember that, ever seen that video? 

Secretary MONIZ. No, I did not. 

Mr. WEBER. Google it; it is out there. 

Secretary MONIZ. Okay. 

Mr. WEBER. So my question to you is are you doing everything 

you can to make electricity prices higher? 

Secretary MONIZ. Definitely not. As I have said, cost reduction is 

my principal goal of innovation. 

Mr. WEBER. So you are not following the Commander-in-Chief’s 

edict, then, that electricity prices need to be higher? So you don’t 

share that vein of thought apparently. 

Secretary MONIZ. I think we need to have energy costs as affordable as possible. 

Mr. WEBER. The things that make America great are the things 

that America makes, and we need a low, stable energy supply, a 

very reliable one, and I think we have got one. And doing anything 

to upset that apple cart would obviously be bad for the economy, 

bad for national security. 

I will move on. Politico just reported that Representative Waxman announced in the Energy and Commerce hearing on fossil fuel 

export issues that climate change should be a key factor in considering LNG export applications. I have two plants LNG applications 

in my district. Is the Department of Energy considering climate 

change in its LNG applications? 
62 

Secretary MONIZ. As I said earlier, I am still in the process of 

getting up to speed, and soon we will be evaluating the dockets. 

Clearly, the issue is public interest criterion and a set of factors 

coming in there, environment, economy, security, all of those—— 

Mr. WEBER. That is a great statement, public interest should be 

considered. So how would you weight climate change considerations 

against what I would call economic considerations or, to use yours, 

public interest? How would you weight those going forward? 

Secretary MONIZ. I think that is something that we will have to 

talk about in our order when we issue an order for the license applications. 

Mr. WEBER. Have you had these kinds of discussions with climate change with the White House? 

Secretary MONIZ. On the LNG export issue? 

Mr. WEBER. Just on climate change in general? 

Secretary MONIZ. Oh, yes, climate change in general, certainly. 

Mr. WEBER. How many times—how many trips would you say 

you have made to the White House? 

Secretary MONIZ. You mean in the last few weeks? 

Mr. WEBER. Sure, in the last few weeks, last year. Is it 2 is it 

22? 

Secretary MONIZ. Three or four times I—yes. 

Mr. WEBER. Three or four times, okay. Well, kind of given the 

sensitive nature of some of the news reports that have been out 

lately with some of the revelations, of course, let me just say that, 

you know, the President said his Administration would be the most 

transparent administration in history; that was his promise, and it 

seems like it is getting more and more transparent and it is not 

very pretty. I want to hold the Department of Energy to a higher 

standard. Some of the discussion has been about the Solyndras in 

the days behind us, and I know you are going forward as the new 

Secretary. Are you sensitive to the fact that that agency—DOE I 

am talking about specificly—might be used indeed to put pressure 

on political enemies? Are you sensitive to that fact? In other words, 

that none of the policies in the DOE would give favoritism toward 

some of the cronyism that was mentioned here earlier. Do you have 

a—have you had that discussion with your staff? Do you have a 

plan in place to make sure it doesn’t happen? 

Secretary MONIZ. I—first of all, without just talking about the 

past, going forward—— 

Mr. WEBER. Um-hum. 

Secretary MONIZ. —me—I make it very clear we want to be A) 

as transparent as possible and as completely open and fair and 

evaluating everything on the merits. 

Mr. WEBER. Well, the last thing we need is—there are so many 

agencies and you can name them—NSA, IRS—you can go right 

down the list that have given the public—American public such a 

bad taste. The last thing we need is the Department of Energy or 

the EPA which already, I will have to tell you, doesn’t have that 

sterling of a reputation, at least back in my district because they 

seem to hamper things more than they help. The last thing we 

need is that kind of reputation to be further promulgated in your 

agency, so I would charge you going forward that you make sure 

it doesn’t happen. 
63 

Let me switch gears. I am running out of time. You said in some 

of your comments earlier that you think gas has—and I am—this 

is probably paraphrasing. You said gas has revolutionized the energy industry and should be part of the solution going forward, natural gas we are talking about. 

Secretary MONIZ. Absolutely, um-hum. 

Mr. WEBER. We have a unique opportunity in the history of the 

world for America to take the lead, as you heard earlier from one 

of my colleagues. Are you committed to doing everything you can 

to get those—that permit process moving forward, especially LNG, 

natural gas, and making it expeditious so that we can maintain our 

competitive edge so that we can have that public interest in mind 

that you yourself talked about? 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, again, to clarify, I mean we are not engaged in permitting in terms of production or exploration but in 

terms of LNG exports certainly. And I have said repeatedly and I 

intend to be expeditious in going through those cases. 

Mr. WEBER. Are you in favor of allowing the Keystone pipeline 

to come to the Gulf of Mexico? 

Secretary MONIZ. That is an issue for the Department of State. 

Mr. WEBER. You haven’t looked at it at all? 

Secretary MONIZ. It is not in—— 

Mr. WEBER. You have had no discussions with the President or 

the White House on it? 

Secretary MONIZ. No, I—it is not a responsibility of mine. I have 

not discussed it. 

Mr. WEBER. Okay. Well, I was just curious—— 

Secretary MONIZ. Yes. 

Mr. WEBER. —because I want you to do me a favor. When you 

leave here, I want you to go tell him that we want it in Texas. 

Secretary MONIZ. Okay. But you already have the bottom half, 

right? 

Mr. WEBER. Madam Chairman, I yield back. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. I thank the gentleman. And I thank the Secretary 

for his enormous patience today. 

The Chair yields to herself—— 

Secretary MONIZ. Okay. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. —for the final round of questions. And my questions are going to revolve around uranium, Mr. Secretary. First of 

all, does nuclear power add to CO2 emissions? 

Secretary MONIZ. It is essentially carbon-free, right. Um-hum. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Thank you. I want to visit with you about what 

has been happening with regard to the domestic uranium industry. 

Sometime ago a ten percent cap was negotiated so that DOE would 

only transfer, sell, or barter their uranium stockpile at a rate below 

ten percent of current domestic uranium demand. And that agreement was abrogated and the price of uranium fell through the 

floor. And my State, which produces a great deal of uranium—albeit domestic supply only supplies ten percent of our uranium for 

our nuclear power needs—was hurt badly, badly by the DOE’s decision to abrogate the ten percent cap. 

So I apologize that your predecessor left you holding the bag, but 

I must ask you now that you are in charge, when does the DOE 

plan to comply with the law and submit a new management plan? 
64 

Secretary MONIZ. We are working on that very actively, and I 

think we can have a plan ready to bring forward fairly soon. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

Secretary MONIZ. Um-hum. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. You know, the DOE has the authority, the power 

to make or break uranium production in this country because of 

prices and their ability to dump excess product on the market and 

destroy prices here, thereby making our country actually more reliant on foreign providers of uranium. So I strongly encourage you 

to come and visit Wyoming—— 

Secretary MONIZ. Um-hum. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. —and our uranium industry to help you better understand the dramatic direct impact that DOE has on our uranium 

industry. 

My next question is about USEC. Over the last 18 months, Dr. 

Moniz, the taxpayers have been asked to directly subsidize the U.S. 

Enrichment Corporation to the tune of over $1 billion in cash for 

uranium and other incentives. I want to understand how big this 

hook is that the taxpayers are hanging on. Specifically, is it DOE 

or is it USEC who is financially obligated to safely decommission 

the enrichment facility in Paducah, Kentucky, and hand it over to 

DOE? And how much do you anticipate that costing? 

Secretary MONIZ. I cannot give you an exact cost estimate right 

now, but the USEC will have some responsibilities for the turnover 

of the plant, probably in some stages. That is still to be worked out 

in detail, but then the Department will go into cleanup, preparatory to a D&D, decommissioning. And then the issue, which is 

not dissimilar to that in Piketon, is what can we do with those 

communities to help provide a new industrial activity that might 

provide an additional future at those sites. And for Paducah it is 

well known we have—we at the Department did ask for expressions of interest in terms of what might be done with the site, and 

that is something we will have to evaluate this year. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. Secretary, what is your opinion about the efficacy of the technology of the American Centrifuge Project? 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, that is something that we will need to 

judge. The intent is that the demonstration of the cascade will— 

should, assuming funding is there—should end at the end of this 

year. That is the schedule, and then we have to see whether that 

looks to be a promising commercial technology and then will come 

some decisions to be made. 

What is the case, of course, I think as you know is the—there 

is a sensitivity that currently we have no American origin uranium 

enrichment technology, and consequently, if and when we need enriched uranium for military purposes, we will not have the option. 

In fact, if I may comment—maybe a last comment going back to 

the uranium market, again, we have this report which is, I think, 

coming along and will be available pretty soon, clearly, I understand completely the issue of balancing the various equities, uranium producers on the one hand, national security requirements on 

the other. So, for example, if you take Paducah, then a year ago 

or just—or over a year ago of course there was uranium used at 

Paducah for an extra year of operation. That was for a well-defined 

national security purpose to make a tritium reserve for our weap-
65 

ons, whereas the recent proposal for an extension was declined because there was no national security purpose. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Oh, thank you, Dr. Moniz. And there is considerable interest on this Committee on both sides of the aisle on small 

modular nuclear reactor technology and whether that has promise. 

I hope that our Subcommittee on Energy will have an opportunity 

to visit with you informally about—— 

Secretary MONIZ. Um-hum. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. —your understanding of the status of that technology and the viability of that technology going forward. 

Secretary MONIZ. Um-hum. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. And we would invite you into those discussions at 

your convenience. 

Secretary MONIZ. Great. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. I want to thank you so much for your valuable testimony, and I want to thank the Members for their questions. 

The Members of the Committee may have additional questions 

for you, and we will ask you to respond to those in writing. The 

record will remain open for two weeks for additional comments and 

written questions for Members. 

I would like now to offer Ranking Member Johnson, who has 

been so patient, her opportunity for closing remarks. Do you wish 

to comment? 

Ms. JOHNSON. Well, thank you. I just want to thank the Secretary again for coming—— 

Secretary MONIZ. Thank you. 

Ms. JOHNSON. —and look forward to working with you. And 

thanks to you. 

Secretary MONIZ. Thank you. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. I thank the Ranking Member. I want to particularly thank you, Secretary Moniz, for joining us today. As you 

heard from numerous Members of this Committee, we have high 

hopes for a very positive working relationship with you going forward, and we look forward to that with a very robust scientific future for our country. 

And with that, the—— 

Secretary MONIZ. I do as well even if we have little arguments 

sometimes. But I look forward to discussion really. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. And the operative word is little—— 

Secretary MONIZ. Yes. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. —because regardless of whether one believes in 

the role of mankind in increasing the effects of climate change, I 

think there is general agreement that the climates are changing. 

The amazing geology of my own—— 

Secretary MONIZ. Um-hum. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. —State of Wyoming bears witness to climate 

change over eons of time. And if it has been exacerbated by mankind or not, we all agree on this Committee that the importance 

of giving to our children and grandchildren the best world that we 

can is in everyone’s best interest. 

So with that, the witness is excused and this hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:35 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

(67) 

Appendix I 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS
68 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by Secretary Moniz 

QUESTIONS FROM LAMAR SMITH 

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

Department of Energy Science and Technology Priorities 

Tuesday June 18, 2013 

Q 1. Dr. Moniz, in 2012 the Department of Energy signed a Memorandum of Agreement with the 

Department ofInterior and Environmental Protection Agency that created a tri-agency research 

effOli to address the highest priority challenges related to unconventional oil gas development. 

However, despite a January 2013 deadline for a final research plan, the Administration has not 

yet produced even a draft proposal for Congressional and public review. Nonetheless, at an April 

Science Committee hearing, DOE testified that it was spending $10 million on this effort this 

year. It is very troubling that the Administration is spending millions studying a practice that it is 

openly aiming to regulate, and yet Congress and the public have no idea what this money is 

being spent on. 

a) Please provide the committee a detailed description of what this $10 million in DOE 

fI'acking research is being spent on. 

Ala. The tri-agency research plan is still under development. The work to date to develop the 

plan has been very helpful in hoth coordinating the research efforts of the tlu-ee agencies and 

developing the President's FY 2014 Budget Request. The Department's work in this area has 

focused on developing technologies and best practices to address safety and environmental issues 

associated with hydraulic fracturing. Currently, FE's work includes unconventional resource 

characterization, developing technologies for mitigating impacts associated with unconventional 

gas development, and the treatment and handling of produced water. In addition, DOE is 

pursuing a range of research activities to support an integrated environmental risk assessment 

associated with unconventional resource development. This assessment integrates evaluations of 

risks to water and air quality, as well as issues related to induced seismicity. 

Qlb. Will you commit to ensure we receive, as soon as possible, a specific expected 

completion date of the interagency research plan, as well as to provide the Committee regular 

briefings on its implementation progress? 
69 

Alb. The tri-agency research plan is still under development and work on the plan remains a 

high priority. The Office of Fossil Energy can provide further information once the plan is 

complete. 

2 
70 

QUESTIONS FROM LAMAR SMITH 

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

Department of Energy Science and Technology Priorities 

Tuesday June 18, 2013 

Q2. President Obama has regularly touted-at least during his first term-that his 

administration would be the most open and transparent Administration in history. I full 

support greater transparency but have fonnd the President's commitment lacking in several 

areas. There appears to be significant room for improvement within DOE, particularly with 

respect to improved disclosure of where taxpayer dollars are spent and who the benet1ciaries 

are. If so, I would ask: 

a) Do you support making DOE laboratories' Cooperative Research and Development 

Agreements (CRADAs) with private companies publicly available? 

A2a. Generally, yes; however, DOE is subject to some limitations. The Stevenson-Wydler Act 

(J 5 USC 371 Oa) authorizes CRADAs, but subsection (c)(7) thereof specit1cally prohibits the 

disclosure of trade secrets or commercial or financial information that is privileged or 

confidential, and obtained from a CRADA patiicipant. Public disclosure of labs' CRADA 

Agreements must not disclose any such privileged or confidential information. In accordance 

with the DOE Order 483.1A, statistical information on the CRADAs must be snbmitted as pM 

of the annual Federal Laboratory technology transfer report, which is available to the public. 

Additionally, a final technical report, appropriately marked, must be submitted to DOE's Office 

of Scientitic and Technical Information (OST!), at the completion or termination of the CRADA. 

OSTI then makes the information available to the public. 

Q2b. Do you support making public DOE's licensing and intellectual property agreements 

with its awardees? 

A2b. 35 USC 209 sets forth the criteria for licensing federally o'Wl1cd inventions. 35 USC 

209(f) requires that each licensee provide a plan for development or marketing of the invention, 

and goes on to state that any such plan is not subject to disclosure under the Freedom of 

3 
71 

Information Act (FOIA). Before public release of such a license agreement, under FOIA or 

otherwise, agreements would need to be reviewed to possibly remove any information reflecting 

of embodying a licensee's plan for development or marketing of the invention. 

Q2e. Do you support making public the (unclassified) instances when DOE invokes "other 

transactions authority, OTA"? 

A2c. This information is available. For EERE OTAs (often referred to as Technology 

Investment Agreements or TIAs), there is a press release indicating the award of the OT AiTIA, 

and interested parties may contact EERE for copies of the TIA agreements. ARPA-E TIAs may 

be found on the ARPA-E website. 

4 
72 

QUESTIONS FROM LAMAR SMITH 

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

Department of Energy Science and Technology Priorities 

Tuesday June 18, 2013 

Q3; Dr. Moniz, as you know, last week the White House released a "teclmical update" to its 

"Social Cost of Carbon," figure that is used to estimate the economic benefits of CO2 emissions 

avoided by various regulations. This revision now assumes a ton of CO2 emitted causes $36 in 

damages, up from $22. The revision was first applied in a DOE rule regulating the efficiency of 

microwave ovens. A DOE press release accompanying the rule stated that its economic benefits 

would be $400 million higher as a result of the revision. 

a) Do you agree that placing a dollar value on "social damages" from carbon emissions is a 

highly speculative and subjective exercise? If so, what is the value and purpose behind 

such a calculation, beyond making costly regnlations appear less harmful? 

A3a. Using the best available science and economic information, the Interagency Working 

Group on the Social Cost of Carbon developed estimates of the net damages due to the emission 

of one additional metric ton of CO2 into the atmosphere. The range of values presented is 

intended to reflect underlying uncertainties in key physical and economic systems. By taking into 

account the impacts of carbon pollution on human welfare in rulemakings, agencies ensure that 

such rules are economically justified, based on a balanced assessment of costs and benefits. 

Q3b. Do you support requiring agencies to caveat such estimates in their communications so 

that the public is aware of tile uncertainty and subjectivity associated with the claimed benefits of 

regulatory actions? 

A3b. Agencies rely on the best available science and economic information to detennine 

benefits and costs ofregulatiol1s, noting uncertainties where relevant. The Interagency Working 

Group on the Social Cost of Carbon noted a number of uncertainties and limitations associated 

with estimating the social cost of carbon and presented a range of valnes to reflect that 

unceJiainty. 

5 
73 

Q3c. The U.S. emits approximate 7.4 billion tOllS of CO2-equivalents each year. According the 

new figures from the Obama Administration, at $36 a lon, elimination of ALL carbon [rom the 

U.S. economy would deliver over $266 billion in benefits. Dr. Moniz, do you agree this is 

ridiculous, and if so, how do you propose fixing the problem with Social Cost of Carbon 

estimates? 

A3c. Agencies use the best available science and economic information to determine the 

benefits and costs of regulations, noting tmcertainties where relevant. The Interagency Working 

Group noted a number of uncertainties and limitations associated with estimating the social cost 

of carbon and presented a range of values to reflect that uncertainty. In addition, the Interagency 

Working Group committed to updating the social cost of carbon periodically as neVi scientific or 

economic information becomes available, ensuring that such estimates remain consistent with the 

best available information. 

Q3d. What is the social benefit of carbon? 

A3d. The social cost of carbon includes projected damages and beneflts as quantified by the 

models. Examples of projected benetlts in the three peer-reviewed integrated assessment models 

used to estimate the social cost of carbon include the potential for increased agriculture and 

forest produclivity in some regions, the reduction in energy costs due to reduced heating in some 

regions, and the potential for some health benefits. These benefits are offset against damages in 

the net sec estimates generated by the models. 

6 
74 

QUESTIONS FROM LAMAR SMITH 

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

Department of Energy Science and Technology Priorities 

Tuesday June 18, 2013 

Q4. Last month, President Obama visited the world-renowned Al'golme National Laboratory 

and gave a speech emphasizing the importance of investments in basic research. Specifically, he 

said: 

"And ata time when every month you've got to replace yon1' smartpbone because 

something 'new has corne up, imagine what that means when China and Gennany and 

Japan are all continuing to plump up their basic research, and we're just sitting there 

doing nothing." The President then went on to call on Congress to spend $2 billion on a 

new "Energy Security Trust Fund" that would "invest in technologies that would shift 

our vehicles off of oil for good." 

a) Would funding spent through the Trust Fund go toward the basic research activities that 

the President we were "doing nothing" on? 

b) What office within DOE would be responsible for spending money from the Tmst 

Fund, and how would the activities funded by the fund difter from what DOE already 

spends money on? 

A4. No funds have been appropriated for the Energy Security Trust Fund, and therefore 

precise arrangements for administration of the Fund and detailed allocation of the research 

funding have yet to be determined. With the support of Congress, the aim of the Fund is to 

use revenues from federal oil and gas development (0 support research by American 

scientists on long-term projects, including research into a range of technologies, such as 

vehicles that run on electricity, domestically grown biofuels, and domestically produced 

natural gas. DOE is seeking to achieve cutting-edge discoveries that will shift our vehicles 

off oil and at the same time to ensure that American scientists and research labs have the 

support they need to keep our country competitive and create the jobs of the future. 

7 
75 

QUESTIONS FROM LAMAR SMITH 

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

Department of Energy Science and Technology Priorities 

Tuesday June 18, 2013 

Q5. The United States is currently a partner in ITER, a more thao $20 billion international 

project (U .S. contribution about $2 billion) to demonstrate the concept of fusion energy. 

Unfortunately, this project has been plagued by delays, increased cost estimates, and poor 

project management and I understand more bad news may be on the way in tenns of our 

European partners' ability to meet their project obligations. 

a) Dr. Moniz, do you have full confidence in the construction and financing oflTER 

within a reasonable timeframe and cost structure? How will you manage ITER project 

risks? 

A5a. ITER's technical challenges are significant. It has faced unprecedented challenges as a 

multinational endeavor that must efficiently integrate the most highly technical hardware 

contributions from the seven partners. In 2009, the U.S. recognized deficiencies in the 

project's management and helped spur an initiative within the ITER Organization (IO) and 

among the partner governments that led to leadership and management structure changes in 

2010. Futihermore, the U.S. sent one of our own fusion leaders to work at the ITER site for 

two years. 

In the U.S., our in-kind contributions are managed through the U.S. ITER Project Office, 

located at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL). ORNL's execution and DOE's oversight 

of the U.S. project are carried out according to the highest standards of project management 

within the Department, following the principles of DOE Order 413.3b. This standard requires 

frequent internal and external reviews that focus on identification aod management of risks. 

These include the identification of additional technical requirements as compared to the initial 

design (driven in part by scientific discoveries made by U.S. researchers that have been 

8 
76 

deemed highly beneficial for ITER), the time and effort required to finalize the design, 

increases in commodity prices since the Critical Decision-l cost range was established, and 

significant variations and uncertainty in Congressional appropriations from year to year. This 

last factor has had a significant impact on the pace of design activities and early procurements. 

Finally, the U.S. depends on the 10 and the other ITER Members to deliver their commitments 

on a timely basis. For example, the earthquake and tstUlami that caused the disaster at Japan's 

Fukushima Daiichi nuclear facilities severely impacted Japanese participation in ITER, adding 

a year to the schedule. In addition, the European Union (EU) host has faced funding 

difficulties. Since the EU host contribution is five times larger than that of each of the other 

six Members and EU work scope is largely on the critical path, the effects of these funding 

difficulties have been directly and immediately felt throughout the project by the other 

Members. DOE believes that the EU has overcome these difficulties and has now achieved a 

level of political consensus to gain approval for their next funding cycle (2014-2020). 

9 
77 

QUESTIONS THE HONORABLE CYNTHIA LUMMIS 

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

Department of Energy Science and Technology Priorities 

Tnesday June 18, 2013 

Ql. DOE has several active applications for fossil energy loan guarantees that have been 

outstanding for several months and years. P!ea~e provide to this committee the number of 

applicants outstanding, the amounts requested, and the status of each applicatioh made to DOE 

for fossil energy loan guarantees. 

AI. Current applicants for fossil energy loan guarantees as of June 28, 2013 are as follows: 

Program Authority Sector 

Requested 

PI·oject Name: Loan Amount 

(SinM) 

Fossil Projects - Due Diligence Pipeline 

Title 17 1703 

Fossil Projects - On Hold 

Title 17 1703 

Title 17 1703 

Coal Gasification 

Coal Gasification 

Coal Gasification 

Project I $ 

Each of these projects has a number of open issues that need to be resolved before DOE could 

determine, as is required by statute, that there exists "a reasonable prospect of repayment of the 

2,815 

1,750 

1,700 

principal and interest on the obligation by the borrower." Some of these issues involve local and 

state legislatures or other governing bodies, on which the Loan Programs cannot force a timeline. 

Q2. The Office of Management and Budget is required to do a credit subsidy review of loan 

guarantee applications. Beyond that, please confirm if there is any other office or individual at 

OMB or the White House involved in the decision making process for fossil energy loan 

guarantees. If so, please provide the names of each office and/or individuaL 

A2. Under the Federal Credit Refornl Act of 1990 (Sec. 503), the Director ofOMB is 

responsible for coordinating credit subsidy cost estimates. Under this authority, OMB delegates 

responsibility for the modeling to agencies, and reviews and must approve snbsidy cost estimates 

10 
78 

for all loan and loan guarantee programs. OMB works closely with agencies to state accurately 

the costs of Federal credit programs. Accordingly, OMB reviews and must approve the credit 

subsidy cost estimates generated by the Department for each loan guarantee issued under the 

Title XVII program. 

Q3. Given the aJillouncement of July 2, 2013, on solicitations for fossil energy 10aJl guarantees, 

please inform the committee how DOE intends to treat pending applications that have been under 

consideration. Is the solicitation intended to supplant or supplement the current applications? 

A3. The forthcoming Advanced Fossil Energy Projects Solicitation will supplement the 

existing pipeline mentioned above in Q 1. 

11 
79 

QUESTIONS THE HONORABLE CYNTHIA LUMMIS 

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

Department of Energy Science and Technology Priorities 

Tuesday June 18, 2013 

Q4: DOE has a very small program called the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive 

Research (EPSCoR). I understand that many of the largest energy producing states, ine1uding 

Wyoming, are EPSCoR states. Because of energy activities within their states, these states are 

already deeply involved in energy research activities. What can we do to strengthen this 

program and assist the states that are contributing so much to energy production in this natiol1 

but receiving a very limited amount of research support from DoE? 

A4: The Office ofScienee believes that the FY 2014 President's Budget Request for the 

Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR) is consistent with program 

needs. EPSCoR exists to improve the capability of designated states and tcnitories to conduct 

sustainable and nationally competitive energy-related research; jumpstart infrastructure 

development in designated states and tenitories through increased human and teclmical 

resources, training scientists and engineers in energy-related areas; and build beneficial 

relationships of designated states and tenitories with the ten world-class laboratories managed by 

the Office of Science, leveraging DOE national user facilities and intellectual collaboration. In 

addition to the EPSCoR program, the FY 2014 President's Budget Request provides a number of 

opportunities that can contribute to groMh of research within the EPSCoR states and teuitories. 

These include the recompetition to select new/renew existing Energy Frontier Research Centers 

(EFRCs). The FY 2014 EFRC solicitation will feature new scientific initiatives including 

recently identified opportunities in the mesoscale science and in computational design of 

materials and chemical processes. These topics have been identified as critical to the Nation's 

energy research enterprise. 

12 
80 

Q5: Could you provide a state-by-state listing of the amount of R&D funding made available to 

each state from DOE during the most recent three years for which information is available? 

A5: The following table reflects the distribution to eligible states of funding for the 

Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research for FY 2011 to 2013, as well as the 

FY 2014 request for the program. The information follows: 

(dollars in thousands) 

Alabama 585 0 294 0 

Alaska 0 0 896 0 

Arkansas 0 0 0 0 

Delaware 780 979 330 ISO 

Guam 0 0 0 0 

Hawaii 0 0 150 0 

Idaho 0 0 0 0 

Iowab 0 0 0 0 

K.ansas 0 150 25 0 

Kentucky 590 590 590 0 

Louisiana 0 0 0 0 

Maine 600 600 600 0 

Mississippi 0 0 0 0 

Missouri 0 0 0 0 

Montana 505 125 140 0 

Nebraska 0 0 0 0 

Nevada 0 0 0 0 

New Hampshire 700 700 0 0 

New Mexico 480 150 150 150 

North Dakota 600 150 150 150 

Oklahoma 0 0 772 0 

Puerto Rico 770 1,511 29 0 

13 
81 

(dollars in thousands) 

FY2013 

Approp. 

Rhode Island 2,355 1,932 2,137 150 

South Carolina 0 0 150 0 

South Dakota 0 0 946 0 

Tennesseeb 0 1,333 150 553 

U.S. Virgin Islands 0 0 0 0 

Utahb 0 0 0 0 

Vermont 0 0 0 0 

West Virginia 300 300 150 0 

Wyoming 0 0 757 0 

Technical Support 255 0 0 75 

Otherl 0 0 7,292 

Total, EPSCoR 8,520 8,520 8,417 8,520 

Q6. One of DOE's advisory committees is the Basic Energy Sciences Advisory Committee 

(BESAC), BESAC is responsible for a broad range of programs in material sciences and 

engineering, chemical sciences, geosciences and the physical biosciences, but BESAC represents 

a rather concentrated geographic area. How can states like Wyoming pmiicipate more fuJIy in 

DOE's advisory committees? 

A6: While the current committee does not include members from the EPSCoR states, BESAC 

has a rotating membership and has typically included one or more members from the EPSCoR 

states. 

Within the Office of Science, there are six advisory committees that collectively have nine 

representatives from EPSCoR states, including the ehair of the Fusion Energy Sciences Advisory 

Committee, In composing its advisory committees, the Department had a standing goal of 

I Uncommitted funds in FY 2013 and FY 2014 will be competed among the EPSCoR states. 

b Iowa, Tennessee, and Utah will lose EPSCoR eligibility in FY 2013; existing awards will continue to their end 

date, 

14 
82 

achieving a broad representation across a variety ofiactors, including geography, from the 

leaders in the relevant scientific communities. 

15 
83 

QUESTIONS FROM STEVEN P Al,AZZO 

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

Department of Energy Science and Technology PI"ioI"ities 

Tuesday June 18, 2013 

Ql. Secretary Moniz, the United States has some 25% of the world's coal reserves and it has 

historically been a major part of our electricity mix ill the country. In your opinion what is the 

future for using coal in the U.S.? 

A 1. DOE's role in clean coal research and development is to advance technologies related to 

the reliable, efficient, affordable, and environmentally sound use of fossil fuels. To this end, our 

research and development is primarily focnsed on carbon capture and storage, a technology that 

can permanently rednce carbon dioxide emissions from utility and industrial processes which 

generate carbon dioxide, including the use of coal. 

Q2. I understand that the DOE is a partner with Southern Company in building a new coal 

gasification power plant in Mississippi that includes carbon capture. Is that project a model for 

using coal in the future in the U.S.? 

A2. The Southern Company coal gasification power plant in Mississippi was originally 

selected in Round 2 of the Clean Coal Power Initiative (CCPI) to demonstrate advanced power 

generation systems using Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (lGCC) technology at a 

Florida site. As a condition of allowing Southern Company to relocate the project to Kemper 

County, Mississippi, the project plan was revised to utilize air-blown lGCC teclmology through a 

coal-based transport gasifier integrated with carbon capture and storage. The transpoli gasifier 

has a fuel-flexible design projected to have higher efficiency and lower capital and operating 

costs than the ctilTently available oxygen-blown entrained-flow gasifiers. The primary objective 

of this project is to demonstrate the operation oftlIe commercial-scale gasifier teclmology 

integrated with a combined-cycle power island and carbon capture and storage. The further 

16 
84 

integration of the plant with Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) technologies through Enhanced 

Oil recovery (EOR) will test promising teclmology advances that will produce electricity from 

coal while emitting lower levels of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. This project is one in a 

suite of technologies being developed, in partnership with the private sector that will ensure the 

availability of a broad spectrum of environmentally responsible and economically viable energy 

technologies that allow the utilization of all of our abl1l1dant natural resources. 

17 
85 

QUESTIONS FROM RANDY HULTGREN 

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

Department of Energy Science and Technology Priorities 

Tuesday June 18, 2013 

Q I. With the recent news that the Chinese have surpassed the United States and now run the 

world's fastest computer, where do you think there are opportunities to shift fuuding at the DOE 

where we would get more "bang for our buck" with exascale computing instead of existing 

expenditures in other areas? Also, to what extent would you hope to coordinate the activities of 

the Office of Science with the N'NSA? 

AI. The Department of Energy (DOE) is starting a strategic portfolio review to prioritize 

these choices and is a strong snppOlier of exascale and high perfomlance computing. There is a 

MOU between the Office of Science and NNSA to coordinate exascale activities. NNSA's 

Office of Advanced Simulation and Computing continues to work with the DOE Office of 

Science on future computing systems, including exascale systems. One example of this 

collaboration is the Fast Forward program where SC and NNSA are palinering with U.S. 

industry to accelerate the development of critical technologies for exascale such as memory, 

processors, storage and interconnects. DOE is jointly executing R&D activities that are on the 

path to eventual deployment of an exascale system and planning high-perfonnance computing 

(HPC) systems software activities. In the near term, Los Alamos and La"vrence Berkeley 

National Laboratories are working together on the procurement of the next generation petascale 

platforms, Trinity and NERSC-8, which will be sited at Los Alamos and Lawrence Berkley 

National Laboratories for their respective sites. DOE has also initiated joint planning for preexascale machines to be deployed in the 2017-8 timefl:ame. NNSA continues to partner with 

DOE Office of Science to make the most effective use of government resources in meeting their 

differing mission needs. 

18 
86 

QUESTIONS FROM ZOE LOFGREN 

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

Department of Energy Science and Technology Priorities 

Tuesday June 18, 2013 

Q I. Secretary Moniz, thank you for testifying before the Science Committee, and r apologize for 

being unable to attend the hearing in person. However, having reviewed the transcript, I had 

several additional questions I would like you to respond to for the record. In your appearance 

before our Committee on June 18th, representative Sw-alwell asked you about the recently 

completed and fully operational, National Ignition Facility at Lawrence Livermore National Lab. 

At the time you said you had "not yet had the chance to drill down into it." But 111at you 

acknowledged its importance in our science-based Stockpile Stewardship Program. I would ask 

that you now "drill down" and get back to us with your thoughts on NIF, its importance for 

Stockpile Stewardship and fundamental bigh-energy physics, and its capability to fulfill- what I 

hope you will agree are - its critical responsibilities under the President's Budget Request. In 

your responses to Rep. Swalwell, you were hesitant on NIF's role in Inertial Confinement Fusion 

energy research. While everyone agrees that NIF was built and funded with the primary aim of 

stockpile stewardship, I hope in your drilling down you will recognize that since its inception, 

advancing research in ICF for energy has been an explicit and important aim. I hope you will 

also see that achieving ignition, whether for SSP or energy research required basically the same 

approach, and is critically important to continue pursuing. 

To clarify, please address: 

a) Your opinion of the National Ignition Facility and its role in the NNSA. 

b) Your assessment of the current scientific merit of the ICF program, and NIF researcb. 

c) The role you see for the NIF and rCF under Secretaryship. 

d) Whetber you beJieve the President's Budget Request will allow the NIF to serve its 

primary purpose of advancing the Stockpile Stewardship Progran1, and its other 

purposes of advancing fundamental physics research, investigating the possibility of rCF 

for energy, maintaining a highly skilled worktorce, and retaining the United States' 

position at the forefront of all of these fields. 

e) Your thoughts on the recent National Research Council report entitled An Assessment of 

the Prospects for Inertial Fusion Energy, whicb makes a strong case tor continuing IFE 

research and NIF's key role in doing so. 

Ala. DOE is supportive of the National Ignition Facility (NIF) role as a scientiiic facility for 

High Energy Density (HED) science in support of the Depmiment's missions. With budgets, 

19 
87 

objectives and operational costs appropriately defined, NIF will continue to playa key role in 

maintenance of the scientific vitality of the laboratories DOE relies upon to support stockpile 

stewardship. 

Alb. During the National Ignitiou Campaign (NrC), NIF was focused on bringing up thc NIF 

facility and on pursuing the planned, specific approach to achieving ignition. With the end of that 

NrC in FY 2012, the NIF experimental program has become much broader with much more 

participation by and input from the broader weapons and BED science communities. The NIF 

experimental promise is just now coming to fi'uition and there is continued improvement in the 

quality of data returned by an evolving suite of diagnostics, as DOE explores the reasons why the 

NIF point design failed to achieve ignition as well as superb research results in areas important to 

stockpile stewardship such as radiation transport experiments and experiments to measure the 

properties of materials at very high pressures. 

Ale. The Inertial Confinement Fusion (ICF) program remains vital for NNSA to maintain its 

capabilities in BED science in support of stockpile stewardship. NIF is a key facility in support 

of that mission and achieving ignition or understanding why we have failed to achieve ignition, 

and important to maintaining our scientific understanding in these key areas. 

Thc weapons program is highly dependent upon computer codes to predict the safety, reliability, 

and performance of our nuclear weapons, particularly in regard to proposed changes, 

modifications, or refurbislunents to maintain a modern stockpile two decades after the cessation 

of underground nuclear explosive tests. NIF provides a superb platform for testing codes and 

models in physical regimes that are relevant to nuclear weapons. Indeed, wc already are learning 

much from exploring why our codes predicted that we would achieve ignition on NIF, even 

20 
88 

though it has not yet been achieved. Maintaining the ability to conduct exciting and challenging 

science in relevant regimes also is key to training and recruiting scientific staff in areas relevant 

to maintaining our stockpile. 

Ald. As you recall, after completion ofNIF construction, DOE undeliook the NIC at the 

behest of the Congress as an Enhanced Management Program to bring the rigor of project 

management to the commissioning ofNIF, the installation of key diagnostics and cryogenic 

equipment, and the performance of the first ignition experiments. Although the first ignition 

experiments were to be completed by the end ofFY 2010, because of technical delays and 

scientific challenges, the NIC was extended t1u·ough the end ofFY 2012. 

Maintaining an effective experimental program with the $329 M per year requested 10 support 

the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) rCF program including NIF operations is 

a challenge, but given present budget constraints it is important that NNSA operate the NIF in 

the most efficient and productive manner possible. NNSA is preparing the actions it will take to 

provide the required information requested by the Senate Energy and Water Development 

Committee within 120 days of enactment of the FY14 National Defense AuthOlization Act on 

the costs of operating NIF. As NIF is a new facility, this is not a review that has been performed 

before, and it is appropriate to study the issue in depth. Once that work is complete, DOE can 

evaluate the appropriateness of the present level of funding and can identify fmiher opportunities 

for improvements or additional experimental capabilities that might be proposed with increased 

funding levels in future budget requests. 

21 
89 

To put the 2014 President's request of$329 M forNIF and rCF at LLNL into perspective, the 

NIF will remain the most expensive scientific facility operated by the DOE, and the $329M 

should be sufficient funding to execute a substantial body of experimental work. 

Ale. The National Academy of Sciences' (NAS) National Research Council (NRC) 2013 

report entitled An Assessment of the Prospects for Inertial Fusion Energy reached several 

important conclusions regarding the future of an Inertial Fusion Energy (IFE) program in the 

Department of Energy. One key conclusion was: "The appropriate time for the establishment of 

a national, coordinated, broad-based inertial fnsion energy program within DOE is when ignition 

is achieved [Conclusion 4-13)." 

This is consistent with the 2012 NNSA '.I' Path Forward to Achieving Ignition in the Inertial 

Confinement Fusion Program report requested by the Congress that set out a balanced approach 

to the quest for ignition with the present indirect drive scheme while also attempting to 

understand the reasons for not yet having achieved ignition. The NAS study is also consistent 

with key conclusions of the accompanying subcommittee report to the NRC report Assessment of 

Inertial Confinement Fusion Targets. This report noted that: "tile national program to achieve 

ignition using indirect laser drive has several physics issues that must be resolved if it is to 

achieve ignition [Conclusion 4-1]." This subcommittee report further predicts that it will take a 

significant effort to resolve these issues: "Based on its analysis of the gaps in current 

understanding of target physics and the remaining disparities between simulations and 

experimental results, the panel assesses that ignition using laser indirect drive is not likely in the 

next several years [Collclusion4.2]." 

22 
90 

NNSA's Path Forward is balanced between the main indirect drive approach and the alternative 

approaches: polar direct drive and magnetic fusion. This balance is consistent with the NAS 

study which concluded that "the prospects for ignition using laser direct drive have improved 

enough that it is now a plausible alternative to laser indirect drive for achieving ignition and for 

generating energy [Conclusion 4-6]." It also found that "Sandia National Laboratory is leading a 

research effort on a Z-pinch scheme that has the potential to produce high gain with good energy 

efficiency, but concepts for an energy delivery system based on this driver are too immature to 

be evaluated at this time [CONCLUSION 4-13)." 

Q2. In your written testimony, you touched on the importance ofNNSA science investments: 

"This national security investment provides a strong basis for transitioning to a smaller yet still 

safe, secure and effective nuclear stockpile. It also strengthens the science, technology and 

engineering base of our enterprise." One key tool in that national security investment is the NIF. 

In the reccnt stockpile stewardship and Management Plan you referred to in your testimony, 

NNSA says the NIF and similar facilities "have had considerable impact on NNSA's ability to 

meet national security challenges, attract and retain a premier workforce, and maintain the 

preeminence of its laboratories as world leaders in science," and they have called it their flagship 

facility. Do you agree that NIF is a critical element of the stockpile stewardship program and the 

Department of Energy's research enterprise? 

A2. The National Ignition Facility (NIF) is entirely funded through the NNSA. DOE, 

including NNSA, is facing substantial budget pressures, and it is important that NIF's umding 

be kept in balance with other NNSA stockpile priorities. 

Whereas there are strong overlaps between NNSA's mission and information required to SUppOlt 

Inertial Fusion Energy (IF E), IFE technology development or specific IFE research is outside of 

NNSA's mission space. As suggested by the NAS study on IFE, the appropriate time to consider 

an IFE Program is after we have achieved ignition. 

Q3. Recently, in testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Livermore National 

Lab Director Pamey Albright, said "will significantly limit our ability to utilize the National 

Ignition Facility and undermine [our nuclear] stewardship programme." He went on in detail 

23 
91 

about the layoffs (staff reductions are already occurring) and the diminishment of research 

capacity that would occur. 

a) Are you cOl1cemed that severe budget cuts at the National Ignition Facility could hinder 

stockpile stewardship, energy research, critical workforce maintenance, and the United 

States' leadership in high-energy density physics and inertial confinement fusion? 

b) Was the Livenllore National Lab scientific staff and management consulted in the 

budget process as to the potential impacts ofthe proposed budget cuts? 

A3a. When viewed as a whole DOE believes the Stockpile Stewardship Program is balanced 

and sufficiently well-fl1l1ded to accomplish the national security missions of the country and to 

maintain the workforce necessary to do so. Between the National Ignition Facility, the Omega 

laser at the University of Rochester, and the Z-facility at the Sandia National Laboratories, 

NNSA's world leadership in high energy density science is not in jeopardy. DOE believes that 

there is sufficient funding to make progress on ignition, which is the key issue that must be 

addressed before (he DOE can consider whether development of an Ineliial Fusion Energy 

program should be pursued. 

A3b. As is standard practice, the President's budget request is embargoed until it is released to 

the Congress. 

24 
92 

QUESTIONS FROM ZOE LOFGREN 

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

Department of Energy Science and Technology Priorities 

Tuesday .Jnne 18,2013 

Q4. You didn't mention fusion in your testimony, to follow up on Representative Kennedy's 

question at the hearing: 

a) Do you support the DOE's existing fusion research program? 

A4a. Yes. 

Q4b. Do you think fusion energy has a role in our future energy supply? 

A4b. The historical progress in fusion has been substantial, and DOE is now on the verge of 

critical tests of its feasibility through ITER, which will be the first experimental platform to 

produce a self-sustaining fi.tsion reaction. Success could yield substantial benefit to our future 

energy picture. Fusion may have a role in contributing to the U.S. and world energy economy 

later in this century. It is also important to note that fi.tsion energy would have zero greenhouse 

gas emissions. 

Q4c. The history of fusion research is plagued by budget cuts and shifting goals. Do you think 

we are cun-entIy pursuing fusion WitIl an appropriate focus and commitment? 

A4c. With the FY 2014 President's Budget Request, the U.S. continues to have a strong 

investment in fusion research. The proposed budget will enable us to meet our intemational 

commitments to ITER and sustain a viable domestic U.S. program that will continue to make 

significant contributions to resolving vital issues in fusion research. 

The FY 2014 budget proposal positions the program to maximize the scientific return of our 

investment in ITER; address gaps in materials science, required for hamessing fusion energy; 

continue to steward the broader plasma sciences, taking advantage of cross-agency synergies, 

25 
93 

and provide opportunities for U.S. scientists to do research on a billion-dollar-class of new 

intel11ational superconducting facilities. 

26 
94 

QUESTIONS FROM ZOE LOFGREN 

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

Department of Energy Science and Technology Priorities 

Tuesday June 18, 2013 

QS. The National Research Council recently completed a2-year survey ofille possibilities for 

Inertial Confinement Fusion Energy. They found that, given the huge potential benefits to 

society, it was well worth pursuing. They further found that the National Ignition Facility was 

the key tool for advancing this research. Given this expert endorsement, why has the funding for 

NIF been so severely cut in the president's budget? 

a) The budget documents said the NIF "failed to achieve ignition in 2012 as scheduled." 

Doesn't this misunderstand the nature of discovery science? Discoveries don't happen 

on a deadline, or we would have cured cancer in 1976. 

A5a. Up through the end ofFY 2012, NNSA committed to continuing the focused program on 

the path for ignition that was laid out in the LLNL generated NIC Execution Plan. NNSA 

anticipated that ignition could be more challenging, and thus, ignition may take longer than 

platmed. Based on the input from technical experts in the community, DOE resourced the NIC 

sufficiently well to ensure that only tedmical, and not fu 

nding, issues would prevent meeting a 2012 goal. In the last year of that effort, however, 

external review committees became increasingly critical of the schedule-driven approach being 

pursued under the laboratory's plan, and the NNSA Path Forward report Jaid ont an approach 

that enabled discovery science to explore the issues and opportunities for alternative approaches 

to ignition. NNSA had not intended that the rate of expenditures to bring the NIF up to full 

capability and to maintain the focused pace of the NIC would continue beyond the NYC. 

Moreover, given budget pressures and further pressures to increase the productivity of various 

stockpile activities including planning and delivering on various life extension progratll options, 

NNSA-in collaboration with the Department of Defense and the approval of the Nuclear 

27 
95 

Weapons Council-revised program priorities. N'NSA remains committed to funding NIF at the 

President's budget request. 

28 
96 

QUESTIONS FROM WE LOFGREN 

U,S, House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

Department of Energy Science and Technology P"iorities 

Tuesday June 18, 2013 

Q6, A scientist from the Bay Area recently told me, in his opinion, given the success and 

investment at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN, in Switzerland, the US had ceded 

leadership in the high-energy physics space, and should focus on maintaining leadership in 

Astronomy and Cosmology, Given the cuts to the National Ignition Facility, the Office of Fusion 

Energy Science's domestic programs and the High Energy Density Physics program, is the 

President's budget agreeing with that assertion? I would also like to reiterate Rep'Swalwell's 

invitation to visit the facility as soon as you are able, it is a truly impressive facility and located 

in a beautiful part of the country very close to three other DOE national labs to also visit. 

A6. Fundamental nuclear physics, paliicle physics and high energy physics have always been 

international endeavors in which the U,S, has played a prominent role. The LHC at CERN is 

indeed the preeminent high energy physics accelerator in the world today, but the U,S. plays a 

significant role in experimental work undertaken at that facility, The recently announced 

discovery of the Higgs boson involved two detectors, ATLAS and CMS, and U.S. scientists £i'om 

dozens of U.S. laboratories and academic institutions played prominent roles in designing, 

building, fielding, and maintaining the detectors and in analyzing the resulting data. An 

American physicist heads the CMS collaboration. This snpport is continued in the President's FY 

2014 budget request as well as !eading U.S. roles in astrophysics and cosmology. 

High Energy Density Physics (HEDP) and High Energy physics are separate fields of 

investigation, though there is some overlap in the area of astrophysics. In searching for the Higgs 

boson, the LHC investigated the results from the collision of just two protons each at energies of 

up to 7 teraelectron volts (7xl012 electron volts). The high energy density physics experiments 

on the NIF, by contrast, investigates properties ofa plasma at temperatures of up to 5 kilovolts 

(5x103 electron volts) without ignition and perhaps 10 times as high if ignition were to be 

29 
97 

achieved. This is nearly one billionth the energy per particle, but instead of investigating the 

product of the collision of just two particles, HEDP looks at the behavior of a plasma with a 

minimum of 1019 particles for even the smallest investigations. 

NIF will remain the most powerful laser for performing HEDP investigations for the foreseeable 

future. The NIF Path Forward report provided to the Congress in2012laid out a program of 

work that provides substantially increased emphasis on HEDP science decreasing the focus on 

facility investments now that NIF has reached its designed operational capability. Senate Report 

113-47 accompanying the Energy and Water Development appropriatons bill for FY 2014 

requested a report from the NNSA on improving operating efficiencies at NJF assuming that NIF 

will be iunded at the $329M President's request for the next tlu'ee years. l\TNSA is developing an 

approach to studying the issue and reviewing the results to ensure that NIF is achieving the 

highest scientific productivity possible. 

30 
98 

QUESTIONS FROM ELIZABETH ESTY 

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

Department of Energy Scienee and Tec.hnology l'riorities 

Tuesday June 18, 2013 

Q 1. Secretary Moniz, you spoke in your remarks about the importance of continued support for 

ARPA-E, the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy, so that we may continue to invest in 

high-risk, high-reward projects. I believe that we have a duty to invest in technology research 

and development, but I also know the importance of translating R&D into manufacturing jobs for 

the American people and tor finns, many of which are small businesses, in Connecticnt. 

AI. Due to ARPA-E's focus on the early stages of technology development and the short 

time-period of its projects, each project team is expected to establish a credible path to additional 

flmding, partnerships, andior commercialization once the ARP A-E award is completed. ARPA-E 

refers to this as a 'hand-off' to the next stage of the project. To facilitate this hand-off ARP A-E 

has a dedicated teclmology-to-market team that partners with project teams from the start oftheir 

project to help identify a commercialization path based on the specific technology and target 

market.2 

Q2. The House Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development FY14 

appropriations bill proposes and 81 % reduction in funding for ARP A-E, providing just $50 

million for the program. Given the extent to which the majority is threatening to gut the 

program, can you talk in greater detail about some of the success stories from ARP A-E funding, 

and how that has translated into job creation for our nation. 

A2. DOE supports the Administration's request of$379 million for FY2014, as detailed in the 

Budget Justifications3 The House Appropriations Committee mark of $50 million represents an 

82% and 87% cut from the FY2013 enacted level4 and the FY2014 budget request, respectively. 

2 For more information on ARPA-E's "Technology-To-Market" approach, see: h(tp:llarpa-e.energy.gQyj?g~arpa-esite-page/tech-market-t2m 

'For more infonnatioll, please see ARPA-E's section of Volume IV of the FY2014 DOE Detailed Budget 

Justifications: http://arpa-e.energy.gov/sites/t,lefaultlfiles/ ARPA-E%20FY 14%20Budget%20Reguest.pdf 

4 P.L. 113-6, Division F, Title II, Sec. 1203 setARPA-E FY2013 budget at $265 million. The percentage change 

values used in comparing FY20 13 to FY20 14 do not take into account the effects of the budget sequestration 

enacted by P.L. 1I2-25 (as amended). 

31 
99 

While the funding level was increased to $70 million via an amendment in the Committee of the 

Whole, this still represents a 75% cut from FY20 13 enacted. This funding reduction would 

impact the ability of ARPA-E to flmd energy research, While ARPA-E focuses on nimbly 

responding to recent technical discoveries and market events, and in the past it has not funded 

projects with out-year mortgages, a large portion of a budget so reduced would need to bc 

devoted to relatively fixed costs. These costs include oversight of prior year projects to ensure 

prudent use of taxpayer funds. As a result, ARPA-E would likely only initiate one or two new 

programs during FY2014. 

While it is simply too soon to determine whether ARPA-E funded innovations will have 

transformational market impact, ARPA-E does measure teclmical indicators for its projects and, 

most importantly, preliminary indicators for commercial adoption. Technological indicators 

include patents (applied for and issued), publications, and whether projects achieve the technical 

milestones laid out by their program managers, including some 'world record' performances. 

The 285 ARPA-E perfOlmers funded thus far have applied for over 34 patents tor technologies 

resulting from ARPA-E awards and have been awarded at least 16 to date. ARPA-E awardees 

have published 48 papers in technical journals. 

Some technical achievements include: 

• Batteries: An ARPA-E awardee armounced the world record in energy density at 400 Whlkg 

for a rechargeable lithinm-ion battery, doubling the capacity of to day's batteries. This 

advance could cut battery costs by half, perhaps enabling electric cars with comparable ral1ge 

and cost as gasoline-powered cars. 

• Power Electronics: An ARP A-E awardee has had early success in developing a 1 MW 

transistor the size of a human fingernail made of silicon carbide. If successful, the higher 

frequencies enabled by the transistor would allow for a much smaller transformer itself. A 

1000 kVA transfolmer could then shrink from 8,000 pounds to only 100 pounds; it would 

require fewer materials and could be deployed closer to end users. This would greatly reduce 

costs and increase reliability for the electric grid. 

32 
100 

Æ 

• Biofuels: An ARP A-E awardee succeeded in engineering microbes that use hydrogen and 

carbon dioxide to make liquid transportation fuel. Further, this was done without sunlight 

and has the potential to be 10 times more efficient than current photosynthetic biofuels. 

Grid Scale Storage: An ARPA-E awardee developed a near-isothermal compressed air 

energy storage system that prevents air from heating up during compression and cooling 

down during expansion. When integrated with renewable energy generation, such as a wind 

farm, this technology would allow intennittent energy to be stored as compressed air in salt 

caverns or pressurized tanks. Unlike conventional compressed air energy storage, no gas is 

burned to convert the stored high-pressure air back into electricity. The result of this 

breakthrough is an ultra-efficient, fully shapeable, 100 percent renewable, and carbon-free 

power product. 

33