[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
OVERSIGHT OF DOE DURING THE COVID-19
PANDEMIC
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JULY 14, 2020
__________
Serial No. 116-120
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce
govinfo.gov/committee/house-energy
energycommerce.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
55-507 PDF WASHINGTON : 2024
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
Chairman
BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois GREG WALDEN, Oregon
ANNA G. ESHOO, California Ranking Member
ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York FRED UPTON, Michigan
DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois
MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas
JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana
G. K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio
DORIS O. MATSUI, California CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington
KATHY CASTOR, Florida BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky
JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland PETE OLSON, Texas
JERRY McNERNEY, California DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia
PETER WELCH, Vermont ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois
BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia
PAUL TONKO, New York GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida
YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York, Vice BILL JOHNSON, Ohio
Chair BILLY LONG, Missouri
DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana
KURT SCHRADER, Oregon BILL FLORES, Texas
JOSEPH P. KENNEDY III, SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana
Massachusetts MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma
TONY CARDENAS, California RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina
RAUL RUIZ, California TIM WALBERG, Michigan
SCOTT H. PETERS, California EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia
DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina
MARC A. VEASEY, Texas GREG GIANFORTE, Montana
ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire
ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois
NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGAN, California
A. DONALD McEACHIN, Virginia
LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER, Delaware
DARREN SOTO, Florida
TOM O'HALLERAN, Arizona
------
Professional Staff
JEFFREY C. CARROLL, Staff Director
TIFFANY GUARASCIO, Deputy Staff Director
MIKE BLOOMQUIST, Minority Staff Director
Subcommittee on Energy
BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
Chairman
SCOTT H. PETERS, California FRED UPTON, Michigan
MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania Ranking Member
JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio
JERRY McNERNEY, California, Vice CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington
Chair PETE OLSON, Texas
PAUL TONKO, New York DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia
DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois
G. K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia
PETER WELCH, Vermont BILL JOHNSON, Ohio
KURT SCHRADER, Oregon LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana
JOSEPH P. KENNEDY III, BILL FLORES, Texas
Massachusetts RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina
MARC A. VEASEY, Texas TIM WALBERG, Michigan
ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire GREG WALDEN, Oregon (ex officio)
ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois
NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGAN, California
A. DONALD McEACHIN, Virginia
TOM O'HALLERAN, Arizona
LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER, Delaware
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey (ex
officio)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hon. Bobby L. Rush, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Illinois, opening statement................................. 2
Prepared statement........................................... 3
Hon. Fred Upton, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Michigan, opening statement.................................... 4
Prepared statement........................................... 5
Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the
State of New Jersey, opening statement......................... 6
Prepared statement........................................... 8
Hon. Greg Walden, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Oregon, opening statement...................................... 9
Prepared statement........................................... 10
Witnesses
Dan Brouillette, U.S. Department Of Energy....................... 12
Prepared statement........................................... 14
Answers to submitted questions \1\
Submitted Material
Memorandum of February 17, 2015, from John Deutch, Chair,
Secretary of Energy Advisory Board, submitted by Mr. Rush...... 67
Letter of July 2, 2018, to Mr. McCain, et al., from Greg Walden,
Chairman, and Mr. Frank Pallone, Jr. Ranking Member, Committee
on Energy and Commerce, submitted by Mr. Rush.................. 73
Letter of July 13, 2018, to Mr. McCain, et al., from Ernest J.
Moniz, et al., Former Secretaries of Energy, submitted by Mr.
Rush........................................................... 76
Letter of July 6, 2020, to Mr. Jim Inhofe, et al., from Ernest J.
Moniz and Rick Perry, Secretaries of Energy, submitted by Mr.
Rush........................................................... 79
Letter of July 13, 2018, to Mr. McCain, et al., from Normal
Augustine, (Ret.) Chairman and CEO, Lockheed Martin Corp., and
(Ret.) Adm. Richard W. Mies, Former Commander, U.S. Strategic
Command, Congressional Advisory Panel, Members, submitted by
Mr. Rush....................................................... 83
Letter of November 15, 2012, to Mr. Levin, at al., from Fred
Upton, Chairman and Henry A Waxman, Rankingf Member, submitted
by Mr. Rush.................................................... 85
Letter of June 29, 2020, to James M. Inhofe, from Dan
Brouillette, Department of Energy, submitted by Mr. Rush....... 88
Statement of May 28, 2020, U.S. Secretary of Energy, by Dan
Brouillette, submitted by Mr. Rush............................. 90
----------
\1\ Mr. Brouillette did not answer submitted questions for the
record by the time of publication.
OVERSIGHT OF DOE DURING THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC
----------
TUESDAY, JULY 14, 2020
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Energy,
Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 12:00 p.m., in
the John D. Dingell Room 2123, Rayburn House Office Building,
Hon. Bobby L. Rush chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Members present: Representatives Rush, Peters, Doyle,
Sarbanes, McNerney, Tonko, Loebsack, Welch, Schrader, Kennedy,
Veasey, Kuster, Kelly, Barragan, McEachin, O'Halleran, Blunt
Rochester, Pallone (ex officio), Upton (subcommittee ranking
member), Latta, Rodgers, Olson, McKinley, Griffith, Johnson,
Bucshon, Flores, Hudson, Walberg, and Walden (ex officio).
Also present: Representatives Shimkus and Burgess.
Staff present: Billy Benjamin, Systems Administrator;
Jeffrey C. Carroll, Staff Director; Adam Fischer, Policy
Analyst; Catherine Giljohann, FERC Detailee; Waverly Gordon,
Deputy Chief Counsel; Tiffany Guarascio, Deputy Staff Director;
Rick Kessler, Senior Advisor and Staff Directory, Energy and
Environment; Brendan Larkin, Policy Coordinator; Jourdan Lewis,
Policy Analyst; Elysa Montfort, Press Secretary; Joe Orlando,
Staff Assistant; Kaitlyn Peel, Digital Director; Mike
Bloomquist, Minority Staff Director; Theresa Gambo, Minority
Human Resources/Office Assistant; Peter Kielty, Minority
General Counsel; Ryan Long, Minority Deputy Staff Director;
Mary Martin, Minority Chief Counsel, Energy and Environment and
Climate Change; Brandon Mooney, Minority Deputy Chief Counsel,
Energy; Brannon Rains, Minority Policy Analyst; and Peter
Spencer, Minority Senior Professional Staff Member, Environment
and Climate Change.
Mr. Rush. The subcommittee will now come to order. Today
the subcommittee is holding a hearing entitled, ``Oversight of
DOE During the COVID-19 Pandemic.'' Due to the COVID-19 public
health emergency, members will be participating in today's
hearing, finally, either in person or remotely via
videoconferencing. And just as a reminder, we have had some
technical difficulties in making sure that our remote video was
operating up to standard.
As part of this hearing, the microphones of members
participating remotely will be set on mute for the purpose of
eliminating inadvertent background noise. Members participating
remotely will need to unmute their microphones each time you
wish to speak. For members and witnesses participating in
person, I encourage you to wear your masks whenever you are not
speaking.
Dr. Monahan, the House physician, stressed in the updated
attending physician COVID-19 guidelines that the use of face
coverings is meant to protect other people in case the wearer
is unknowingly infected but does not have symptoms. By wearing
our masks when we are not speaking, each of us is playing a
vital role in protecting all members and all staff who are in
attendance, as well as the leaders of the Administration's
COVID-19 response of who will be testifying before the
committee today, the Secretary of Energy, Secretary
Brouillette.
Finally, documents for the record can be sent to Adam
Fischer at the email address that we provided to staff. All
documents will be entered into the record at the conclusion of
the hearing. The Chair now recognizes himself for 5 minutes for
the purposes of an opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BOBBY L. RUSH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
Good afternoon. The recent decline in our nation's economic
activity has resulted in a multitude of hardships within our
communities and economic sectors. Today the Subcommittee on
Energy convenes for a hearing to further examine the impacts of
novel coronavirus on a vital segment of our economy.
From the outset, the pandemic has presented the energy
sector with numerous challenges, ranging from staggering
unemployment rates, supply chain disruptions, declining demand,
and depleted investment. At present, 1.3 million members of the
energy sector workforce remain unemployed. A significant
percentage of these jobs were once occupied by people of color
and hardworking members of the clean energy industry which
previously enjoyed steady growth.
Taking this into account, the subcommittee held a remote
hearing in June to discuss the sector's recent setbacks.
Throughout this hearing, we received expert testimony from
witnesses who spoke to the pandemic's effect on clean energy
jobs as well as the industry's function as an economic recovery
engine.
In response to this hearing, I was proud to join my
colleagues in including provisions to support workforce
development, diversity, and clean energy infrastructure
investment within the recent infrastructure bill. This
committee, through its broad and envious jurisdiction, has
oversight of federal agency resources that are key to the
confrontation of the public health crisis and the economic
challenges that are linked to the coronavirus.
The Department of Energy and its vast enterprise is chief
among these resources. That is why I am so pleased to welcome
the Secretary of Energy, Mr. Dan--Secretary Dan Brouillette,
who will testify before the subcommittee today. Secretary
Brouillette is not a stranger to this subcommittee in that he
served previously as a staff director to Chairman Tauzin a few
years back.
To date, the Department of Energy has leveraged its
national laboratory system, which includes Chicago's own
Argonne National Lab, to harness its supercomputing
capabilities to fight COVID-19. Additionally, it has worked to
support the public and private sectors in keeping our very own
lights on. However, the full deployment of DOE's resources is
of great and vital importance to our nation's economic
recovery.
Existing program offices like the Office of Economic Impact
and Diversity and the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy have the ability to drive employment opportunities,
enhance sector diversity and secure energy savings, especially
at a time when they are so critically needed most. Therefore, I
look forward to today's hearing as a first step in ensuring a
productive partnership to preserve reliability and opportunity
within the energy sector.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rush follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Bobby L. Rush
Good afternoon.The recent decline in our nation's economic
activity has resulted in a multitude of hardships within our
communities and economic sectors. Today, the Subcommittee on
Energy convenes for a hearing to further examine the impacts of
the novel coronavirus on a vital segment of the economy.
From the outset, the pandemic has presented the energy
sector with numerous challenges ranging from staggering
unemployment rates, supply chain disruptions, declining demand,
and depleted investment.
At present, 1.3 million members of the energy sector
workforce remain unemployed. A significant percentage of these
job were once occupied by people of color and hardworking
members of the clean energy industry, which previously enjoyed
steady growth.
Taking this into account, the Subcommittee held a remote
hearing in June to discuss the sector's recent setbacks.
Through this hearing we received expert testimony from
witnesses who spoke to the pandemic's effect on clean energy
jobs as well as the industry's function as an economic recovery
tool.
In response to this hearing, I was proud to join my
colleagues in including provisions to support workforce
development, diversity, and clean energy infrastructure
investment within the recent infrastructure bill.
This Committee, through its broad jurisdiction, has
oversight of federal agency resources that are key to the
confrontation of the public health crisis and economic
challenges linked to the coronavirus.
The Department of Energy, and its vast enterprise, is chief
among these resources. This is why I am pleased to welcome the
Secretary of Energy, Dan Brouillette, who will testify before
the Subcommittee today.
To date, the Department of Energy has leveraged its
national laboratory system--which includes Chicago's close
neighbor, Argonne National Lab--to harness its super computing
capabilities to fight COVID-19.
Additionally, it has worked to support the public and
private sectors in keeping the lights on.
However, the full deployment of DOE's resources is of great
importance to our nation's economic recovery.
Existing program offices, like the Office of Economic
Impact and Diversity and the Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, have the ability to drive employment
opportunities, enhance sector diversity, and secure energy
savings--especially at a time when they are neededmost.
Therefore, I look forward to today's discussion, as a first
step in ensuring a productive partnership to preserve
reliability and opportunity within the energy sector. With
that, I yield to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from
Michigan, Ranking Member Upton.
With that, I yield to my friend and colleague, the
gentleman from Michigan, the ranking member Fred Upton, for 5
minutes for an opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRED UPTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN
Mr. Upton. Well thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome back
to you. And welcome back, Mr. Secretary. You know it is good to
have you before the committee today, and certainly good to see
you are thriving after your promotion to Cabinet Secretary. We
have all said from the beginning we are fortunate to have
somebody like you at the helm at the Department of Energy. And
when you testified before us as the Deputy Secretary that was
2-1/2 years ago back in 2018.
At that hearing, which I chaired, the committee was looking
at DOE modernization, what steps Congress should take to ensure
that the Department could address the national, the economic,
and energy security challenges that are going to be confronting
the nation over the coming decades. Given the committee's
jurisdiction, we heard from the three main mission components
of the Department--the under secretaries of Energy, of Nuclear
Security, and of Science. And you led off the panel in your
role as DOE's number two and the COO of the Department.
So that hearing informed several ongoing legislative
initiatives. For example, we have worked to strengthen the
Department's ability to address emerging hazards and cyber
threats to critical infrastructure, to modernize the Strategic
Petroleum Reserve, to improve energy diplomacy, to improve and
advance nuclear and other energy policy, and to improve
programs like minority workforce development important to all
of us.
So fast forward to today, and many of these policy issues
remain critical. The COVID-19 pandemic and the severe economic
and energy sector impacts have highlighted why a well-
functioning DOE is so important.
Mr. Rush. Mr. Upton. Mr. Upton, will you please suspend?
You are breaking up and we want to try to correct that problem.
We are sitting on the edge of our seats trying to hear what you
have to say.
Mr. Upton. I will wait for the green light.
Mr. Rush. The gentleman will proceed.
Mr. Upton. OK. In your own testimony, Mr. Secretary, you
highlighted how DOE brought the capabilities of its scientific
and technological advances resources to the COVID fight. And
data on compound screening with the super computer at Oak
Ridge, the use of the Argonne Lab's Advanced Photon Source user
facility to characterize the virus, and the work of leading
tech companies illustrate the benefits of collaboration across
the DOE complex with the private sector.
And we heard testimony just to this point two years ago,
and now we see how it can work in a crisis. Other missions of
the Department have been put to the test. The crisis in the
energy sector, with economic shutdown and the Russia-Saudi
price war, challenged your ability and our strategic energy
responsibilities in American energy leaderships in new ways. I
doubt anyone imagined some 40 years ago that our Strategic
Petroleum Reserve might be useful to just take on supply rather
than disperse it in a crisis.
You know, we might have to consider new strategic
approaches to protect our energy security. Clearly, the
pandemic exposed the security and strategic risks from ceding
leadership on oil and gas and reminded us of the important role
American energy resources and technology serves our national
and strategic interests.
Several Republican members on this panel are working on
legislative reforms to help modernize energy infrastructure and
increase American energy leadership and that involves policies
to strengthen our energy security, to promote and deploy
cleaner energy, and modernizing regulatory requirements to
ensure that DOE and the private sector innovation advances can
be put into action.
The recent crisis revealed to more Americans the strategic
threats of China, Russia, and other adversaries to our long-
term economic and energy security. And this underscores the
work that we must do to make sure that DOE has all the tools
and the authorities necessary to safeguard and respond to
threats to our critical electric infrastructure, and the
delivery and supply of energy. The President's recent bulk
power system executive order underscores those risks, and DOE,
I know, is at the center of responding to them.
The increasingly complex interconnections of our modern
energy systems, from pipelines to power plants, present growing
risks to that grid. Getting ahead of this requires secretarial
leadership and a coordinated attention across the Energy
Department's programs, and operations and we ought to discuss
what more is needed to advance your mission on that front
today.
Finally, growing nuclear weapons threats and the tens of
billions of dollars needed to maintain the nuclear deterrent
underscore the urgency for creating efficient, effective, and
durable governance and management of DOE's nuclear security
missions. So, there are many topics here, Mr. Secretary. Your
experience from the past, your experience now will help to
identify, to address the challenges in how we all can work
together on behalf of the country. Thank you and I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Upton follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Fred Upton
Thank you, Chairman Rush and welcome back Secretary
Brouillette.
It is good to have you before the Subcommittee today and
good to see you are thriving after your promotion to Cabinet
Secretary. The nation is fortunate to have somebody like you at
the helm of the Department of Energy.
When you last testified before us, you were the Deputy
Secretary. That was more than two year and a half years ago, in
January 2018.
At that hearing, which I chaired, the Committee was looking
at DOE modernization. We examined what steps Congress could
take to be sure the Department could address the national, the
economic, and the energy security challenges that will be
confronting the nation over the coming decades.
Given the Committee's jurisdiction, we heard from the three
main mission components of the Department--the undersecretaries
of Energy, of Nuclear Security, and of Science. You led off the
panel in your role as DOE's number two and the Chief Operating
Officer of the Department.
That hearing informed several ongoing legislative
initiatives. For example, we have worked to strengthen the
Department's ability to address emerging hazards and cyber
threats to critical infrastructure, to modernize the strategic
petroleum reserve, to improve energy diplomacy, to advance
nuclear and other energy policy, and to improve programs like
minority workforce development.Fast forward to today, and many
of these policy issues remain critical.
The COVID-19 pandemic and the severe economic and energy
sector impacts have highlighted why a well-functioning DOE is
so important for the nation.
In your own testimony, Mr. Secretary, you highlight how DOE
brought the capabilities of its scientific and technological
resources to the Covid fight.
Data on compound screening with the super computer at Oak
Ridge, the use of Argonne Lab's advanced-photon-source user
facility to characterize the virus, and the work with leading
tech companies, illustrate the benefits of collaboration across
the DOE complex and with private sector.
We heard testimony just to this point two years ago-and now
see how it can work in a crisis.
Other missions of the Department have been put to the test.
The crisis in the energy sector, with economic shut down
and the Russia-Saudi price war challenged DOE's strategic
energy responsibilities and American energy leadership in new
ways. I doubt anyone imagined forty years ago that our
strategic petroleum reserve might be useful to just to take on
supply, rather than disperse it in a crisis.
We may have to consider new strategic approaches to protect
our energy security. Clearly, the pandemic exposed the security
and strategic risks from ceding leadership on oil and gas and
reminded us of the important role American energy resources and
technology serves our national and strategic interests.
Several Republican members on this panel are working on
legislative reforms to help modernize energy infrastructure and
increase American energy leadership. This involves policies to
strengthen our energy security, to promote and deploy cleaner
energy, and modernizing regulatory requirements to ensure DOE
and private innovation advances can be but into action.
The recent crises revealed to more Americans the strategic
threats of China, Russia and other adversaries to our long-term
economic and energy security. And this underscores the work we
must do to make sure DOE has all the tools and authorities
necessary to safeguard and respond to threats to our critical
electric infrastructure, and the delivery and supply of energy.
The President's recent bulk power system Executive Order
underscores these risks, and DOE is at the center of responding
to them.
The increasingly complex interconnections of our modern
energy systems-from pipelines to power plants--present growing
risks to our grid. Getting ahead of this requires Secretarial
leadership and coordinated attention across the agency's many
programs and operations. We should discuss what more is needed
to advance your mission on this front today.
Finally, growing nuclear weapons threats and the tens of
billions of dollars needed to maintain the nuclear deterrent
underscore the urgency for creating efficient, effective, and
durable governance and management of DOE's nuclear security
missions.
There are many topics to cove, Mr. Secretary. Your
experience as COO and now Secretary will help us identify how
to address the challenges, I am sure.
Yield back.
Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
recognizes Mr. Pallone, the Chairman of the full committee, for
5 minutes for the purposes of an opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, Jr., A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Chairman Rush. Secretary
Brouillette, welcome back to the committee. We are obviously
glad that we have you before the committee in your role as
Secretary. I just want to begin by thanking the Department of
Energy, particularly its national laboratories, for the
research they are conducting on COVID-19. Our committee has
held numerous hearings and conducted a lot of oversight over
the Federal Government's woefully inadequate response to the
pandemic, and a response that has done very little to help
alleviate the skyrocketing cases we are now seeing all around
the nation.
And while I continue to be critical of the Administration's
response, the research being conducted at the national labs is
important to analyze the structure of the virus and the model
as it is spread, and I look forward to hearing more specifics
on that effort, Mr. Secretary.
The pandemic has also seriously damaged our economy,
leaving millions of Americans unemployed. The severe economic
downturn is impacting the energy sector, with the energy
efficiency and renewable energy industries particularly hard
hit. The subcommittee held a hearing last month with former
Energy Secretary Moniz who briefed us on the impact the
pandemic has had on the energy sector, and we have to do more
to aid the struggling renewable industry.
Now earlier this month, the House passed H.R. 2, the Moving
Forward Act, which would help us rebuild our economy and combat
climate change. The bill invests more than $126 billion in
clean energy, energy efficiency, and deep decarbonization.
There is no better way to stimulate the economy and create
millions of good paying jobs, in my opinion, than to modernize
our badly aging infrastructure. And the President has expressed
interest in an infrastructure package, but he is going to need
to exert some pressure on the Senate Majority Leader McConnell,
who so far has--refuses to act on an infrastructure bill.
And speaking of the Senate, I also want to discuss our
nation's nuclear security mission, because the Senate continues
to try to undermine that mission and the National Defense
Authorization Act. Once again, this year, the Senate Armed
Services Chairman attempted to strip the DOE of much of its
authority over the National Nuclear Security Administration,
and this was a really wrong-headed effort that threatens the
important longstanding principle of civilian, not military,
control over the nuclear weapons stockpile. It also stands to
upend other non-nuclear weapons aspects of the deal we budget.
Fortunately, an amendment by Senators Cantwell and Manchin
scaled back the initial Senate language, but I do firmly
believe that the Defense Department should not have its hand in
the Energy Department's budgeting process, and instead we
should be strengthening the Secretary of Energy's role in
managing the nuclear security mission, because NNSA seems to be
going from quasi-independent to completely rogue with each
passing year.
Now turning back to or turning to the bulk power system, I
do have some concerns, Mr. Secretary, about the way DOE is
implementing an executive order limiting the use of bulk power
system equipment produced by foreign adversaries. I support
this effort as part of our ongoing efforts to protect our grid,
but I think there is quite a bit of confusion surrounding DOE's
implementation of the order. With the prohibitions on acquiring
and installing this equipment already in place, there is a
pressing need for guidance for energy projects, many of which
depend on complex supply chains. And I look forward to an
update on the Department's progress on finalizing this policy.
I also wanted to touch, finally, on an issue that I pressed
with your predecessor, Secretary Perry, and also Under
Secretary Menezes. DOE has fallen far behind on its legal
deadlines for updating appliance efficiency standards. And this
is almost hard to believe, but DOE has missed 26 statutory
deadlines for updating efficiency standards.
And I appreciate the Department has recently and finally
started the process of catching up on these deadlines by
initiating rulemaking, but I also know that you have been
putting quite a bit of resources into purely discretionary
rulemaking, some of which seem designed to undercut rather than
promote energy savings. For example, a discretionary
interpretive rule in the works would make future improved
efficiency standards for home furnaces almost impossible.
So we need to see more action from DOE now to update and
finalize critical efficiency standards that save consumers
money and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. I thank you again,
Secretary Brouillette. Thank you for joining us today. I know
it is always difficult, you know, with the COVID and with the
doing things virtually. We go back and forth in terms of our
ability to do everything virtually, but I do thank you for
coming and being here today because this is a very important
hearing.
And I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follow:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr.
Secretary Brouillette, welcome back to the Committee--a
place that you know well from your days as staff director here.
We're glad to now finally have you before us in your role as
Secretary.
I'd like to begin by thanking the Department of Energy
(DOE)--particularly its National Laboratories--for the research
they are conducting on COVID-19. Our Committee has held
numerous hearings and conducted important oversight over the
federal government's woefully inadequate response to the
pandemic, a response that has done very little to help
alleviate the skyrocketing cases we are now seeing all around
the nation. While I continue to be critical of the
Administration's response, the research being conducted at the
National Laboratories is important to analyze the structure of
the virus and model its spread. I look forward to hearing more
specifics on this effort.
The pandemic has also seriously damaged our economy,
leaving millions of Americans unemployed. The severe economic
downturn is impacting the energy sector, with the energy
efficiency and renewable energy industries particularly hard
hit. This Subcommittee held a hearing last month with former
Energy Secretary Moniz, who briefed us on the devastating
impact the pandemic has had on the energy sector. We must do
more to aid this struggling industry.
Earlier this month, the House passed H.R. 2, the Moving
Forward Act, which would help us rebuild our economy and combat
climate change. The bill invests more than $126 billion in
clean energy, energy efficiency and deep decarbonization. There
is no better way to stimulate the economy and create millions
of good paying jobs than to modernize our badly aging
infrastructure. The President has expressed interest in an
infrastructure package, but he's going to need to exert some
pressure on Senate Majority Leader McConnell who refuses to
act.
And speaking of the Senate, I also want to discuss our
nation's nuclear security mission because the Senate continues
to try to undermine that mission in the National Defense
Authorization Act. Once again this year, the Senate Armed
Services Chairman attempted to strip the DOE of much of its
authority over the National Nuclear Security Administration
(NNSA). This wrongheaded effort threatens the important,
longstanding principal of civilian--not military--control over
the nuclear weapons stockpile. It also stands to upend other
non-nuclear weapons aspects of the DOE budget. Fortunately, an
amendment by Senators Cantwell and Manchin scaled back the
initial Senate language, but I firmly believe that the Defense
Department should not have its hand in the Energy Department's
budgeting process. Instead, we should be strengthening the
Secretary of Energy's role in managing the nuclear security
mission, because NNSA seems to be going from quasi-independent
to completely rogue with each passing year.
Turning to the bulk-power system, I have some concerns
about the way DOE is implementing an executive order limiting
the use of bulk-power system equipment produced by ``foreign
adversaries.'' I support this effort as part of our ongoing
efforts to protect our grid, but I think there is quite a bit
of confusion surrounding DOE's implementation of the order.
With the prohibitions on acquiring and installing this
equipment already in place, there is a pressing need for
guidance for energy projects, many of which depend on complex
supply chains. I look forward to an update on the Department's
progress on finalizing this policy.
I would also like to touch on an issue that I have pressed
with your predecessor Secretary Perry, and well as Under
Secretary Menezes [MEN-zees]. DOE has fallen ridiculously far
behind on its legal deadlines for updating appliance efficiency
standards. This is almost hard to believe, but DOE has now
missed 26 statutory deadlines for updating efficiency
standards. I appreciate that the Department hasrecently--
finally-- started the process of catching up on these deadlines
by initiating rulemaking.
But I also know that you have been putting quite a bit of
resources into purely discretionary rulemakings, some of which
seem designed to undercut--rather than promote--energy savings.
For example, a discretionary interpretive rule in the works
would make future improved efficiency standards for home
furnaces almost impossible. We need to see more action from DOE
now to update and finalize critical efficiency standards that
save consumers money and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Secretary Brouillette, thank you for joining us today. I
yield back.
Mr. Rush. Mr. Pallone of the full committee yields back.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Walden, the ranking member of the
full committee, for 5 minutes for the purposes of an opening
statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GREG WALDEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON
Mr. Walden. Well good morning or afternoon, depending on
which coast you are on, Mr. Chairman, and I thank you for
holding this hearing.
I want to welcome Secretary Brouillette. It is great to
have you back before the committee. Once again you have
provided really strong leadership over the last seven months
that you have been in office, and we appreciate that. And
certainly, you have been fighting the COVID-19 virus and the
pandemic as it has worked its way across every sector of our
country, across the world, and certainly in the energy
industry.
The unprecedented drop in oil prices has devastated the
American gas and oil industry and cost upwards of 100,000 jobs,
and the Department of Energy has been right in the action
helping our country respond to this terrible situation. And so
going forward, the work is on top of the other important
responsibilities that the Department has, certainly, and these
range from executing on the nation's nuclear deterrent mission
to protecting our critical energy infrastructure, supporting a
robust R&D program, keeping the nation's lab facilities and
capabilities up to date, and cleaning up defense sites such as
that at Hanford in Washington, across the river from my
district.
Most people do not appreciate all of the responsibilities
that you have at the Department of Energy. It is a national
security agency and an energy security agency, having designed
and produced every nuclear warhead in the U.S. arsenal,
powering our nuclear navy, and serving critical roles in
nonproliferation, international nuclear security, and other
energy security missions.
DOE is a world-class science, engineering, and technology
agency. It is an environmental engineering and cleanup agency.
All of this is interconnected across a complex of national
labs, production sites, and facilities, involving a contractor
workforce approaching 100,000 people. Managing this enterprise
is never easy, it is a complicated job and we know that.
But the upshot is the tremendous benefits for the nation,
for security, for science and innovation, and for keeping
America in the lead across the energy landscape. The key
ingredient for success here is the innovative science and
engineering capabilities fostered through a cohesive DOE
enterprise and the multidisciplinary teamwork that emerges from
that.
This synergy among the weapons labs, the science labs, and
the energy and environment labs are critical for success. Think
about the supercomputing and big data capabilities of the
agency. The computational science in advancing computing
architecture created by DOE's science and weapons programs is
essential for modeling nuclear weapons stockpile.
But the cross-mission benefits of this are clear. Look at
the use of Oak Ridge's Summit computer to screen compounds for
COVID-19's vaccine development. National security and materials
science programs at the Pacific Northwest National Lab, which I
have toured, have translated into technologies for scanning at
airports, for cybersecurity protections, and even advanced
battery production.
And this works both ways. The advances in nuclear fuels and
technology at the Idaho National Lab attracts the expertise and
informs the knowledge base for Navy nuclear. You can extend
this to other important missions. DOE's work on advanced
nuclear, coupled with our work to ensure efficient NRC
licensing, provides the foundation for expanding the peaceful
use of atomic energy.
This is the cornerstone of the nation's nuclear policy, a
hallmark of civilian control of the nuclear enterprise, and an
important tool not only for national security but also a key
solution to exporting cleaner energy around the world. Our duty
on this committee and in this Congress is to make sure the
Secretary has the tools and authority he or she needs to
execute the Department's missions. Our goal is to maximize the
benefits of the DOE enterprise for America.
So, I look forward to exploring what more we can do to be
of assistance today, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Secretary. And I want
to share the concerns expressed by the Chairman of the full
committee with regards to the NDAA and what it does, purports
to do to the civilian side of the nuclear weapons program and
to diminish the important role of the Secretary of Energy, and
Chairman Pallone and I are working together shoulder to
shoulder on fixing this problem in the legislation the House is
going to take up.
So, with that, Mr. Chairman, I will yield back the balance
of my time and look forward to the discussion.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Walden follow:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Greg Walden
Welcome Secretary Brouillette. It is good to have you back
before the Committee. And I must say: You have provided strong
leadership at the Department during a very critical time for
the nation.
Over your first seven months on the job, the country has
been fighting a global pandemic and reeling from an economic
shutdown and massive job destruction. The unprecedented drop in
oil prices has devastated the American oil and gas industry and
cost thousands of America jobs. And the Department of Energy
(DOE) has been right in the action helping the nation to
respond.
This work is on top of the other important responsibilities
of the Department. These range from executing on the nation's
nuclear deterrent mission to protecting our critical energy
infrastructure, supporting a robust R&D program, keeping the
nation's lab facilities and capabilities up to date, and
cleaning up defense sites, such as Hanford.
Most people do not appreciate all the responsibilities of
DOE. It is a national security agency and an energy security
agency-havingdesigned and produced every nuclear warhead in the
U.S. arsenal, powering our nuclear navy and serving critical
roles in nonproliferation,international nuclear security, and
other energy security missions.
DOE is a world-class science, engineering, and technology
agency. It is an environmental engineering and cleanup agency.
All of this isinterconnected across a complex of national labs,
production sites, and facilities, involving a contractor
workforce approaching 100,000 people.Managing this enterprise
is a tough, complicated job. But the upshot is the tremendous
benefits for the nation-for security, for science
andinnovation, and for keeping America in the lead across the
energy landscape.
The key ingredient for success here is the innovative
science and engineering capabilities fostered through a
cohesive DOE enterprise-and the multi-disciplinary teamwork
that emerges from that. This synergy among the weapons labs,
the science labs, and the energy and environment labs are
critical for success. Think about the supercomputing and big
data capabilities of the agency. The computational science and
advancing computing architecture created by DOE's science and
weapons programs is essential for modeling the nuclear weapons
stockpile. But the cross-mission benefits of this are clear.
Look at the use of Oak Ridge's Summit computer to screen
compounds for a COVID-19 vaccine development.
National security and materials science programs at Pacific
Northwest National Lab, near my district, have translated into
technologies forscanning at airports, for cyber security
protections, and even advanced batteries.
And this works both ways. The advances in nuclear fuels and
technology at the Idaho National Lab attracts the expertise and
informs theknowledge base for navy nuclear.
You can extend this to other important missions. DOE's work
on advanced nuclear, coupled with our work to ensure efficient
NRC licensing, provides the foundation for expanding the
peaceful use of atomic energy.
This is the cornerstone of the nation's nuclear policy, a
hallmark of civilian control of the nuclear enterprise, and an
important tool not only for national security but a key
solution to exporting cleaner energy around the world.
Our duty on this Committee and in Congress is to make sure
the Secretary has the tools and authorities he needs to execute
the Department's missions. Our goal is to maximize the benefits
of the DOE enterprise for the nation. I look forward to
exploring what more we can do today.
Mr. Rush. The ranking member yields back. The Chair would
like to remind Members that pursuant to committee rules, all
Members' written opening statement shall be made a part of the
committee's records.
And now it is my pleasure and honor to welcome once again
before this committee our witness for today's hearing. As been
noted, Secretary Brouillette is a former staff director on this
committee, and we certainly want to welcome him back as the
Secretary of Energy to testify before this committee.
Mr. Secretary, once again we welcome you. I enjoyed our
conversation yesterday, and we look forward to your testimony.
But before we begin, Mr. Secretary, I would like to explain, I
don't think I have to, but it says that now I should explain
the lighting system.
In front of you is a series of lights. The light will
initially be green at the start of your opening statement. The
light will turn yellow when you have one minute remaining, and
please begin to wrap up your testimony at that point. The light
will turn red when your time expires. Secretary Brouillette,
again welcome back to the committee, subcommittee rather, and
you are now recognized for 5 minutes for an opening statement.
STATEMENT OF DAN BROUILLETTE
Secretary Brouillette. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you
for the honor of being here again, and thank you for that
gentle reminder. I must say it is much better to be on that
side of the dais than on this side, but thank you for that
gentle reminder. And also, my compliments on that mask. I think
you are rivaling our dearly departed friend Ron Dellums as the
best dressed man in Congress. You do it quite well.
But thank you, Chairman Rush. Thank you, Ranking Member
Upton as well, as well as Full Committee Chairman Pallone and
Ranking Member Mr. Walden. It is an honor to appear before you
today to discuss the United States Department of Energy's
response to COVID-19. And I failed to mention, Mr. Rush, I
would also like to thank you for your warm welcome at our
Artificial Intelligence event last fall in Chicago. The
hospitality could not have been better. Thank you for that,
sir. I appreciate that.
When the COVID-19 pandemic hit the United States, President
Trump very early on directed the whole-of-government approach
to defeating this virus. And I am proud to report to you that
DOE's national labs and their world-class facilities have been
on the front lines of this important mission. Seven of our labs
are partners in the COVID-19 High Performance Computing
Consortium which the President announced in March. This public-
private partnership, which is spearheaded by the White House,
DOE, and IBM, including government, industry, and academic
leaders, is unleashing the power of America's supercomputing
resources to combat COVID-19 all around the globe. We are very
excited about the growing international participation in this
consortium to battle the pandemic worldwide.
We at DOE have established a National Virtual Biotechnology
Laboratory which is using the full range of our facilities in
the effort against COVID-19. We have set up a portal which will
enable America's innovators to easily access essential
resources and connect and partner with experts at all of our
national laboratories.
And as the Chairman mentioned, the scientists have used
Argonne Laboratory's Advanced Photon Source to characterize
more than a dozen proteins which are potential targets for
medicines and countermeasures from COVID-19, including one that
allows it to hide from the immune system, and working with our
Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee another protein that
enables it to reproduce.
Researchers at Oak Ridge have screened more than 8,000 drug
compounds for 77 that have potential use in this fight. Oak
Ridge is also helping mass produce healthcare supplies such as
masks and face shields, and they are doing it in record time.
They are also producing and developing low-cost N95 respirators
that can be cleaned and later reused. Scientists at the
Berkeley Lab are using the facilities there to identify
neutralizing antibodies that could be used as preventive
treatments or post-exposure therapies.
This COVID-19 pandemic has also led to challenges that go
well beyond the virus itself. In March, we faced an oversupply
of oil due to some decisions made by key nations following the
collapse of OPEC-Plus negotiations, while also facing a nearly
catastrophic decline in demand due obviously to the pandemic.
The President facilitated an agreement between Saudi Arabia
and Russia, the co-chairs of OPEC-Plus, on terms that were
favorable to the United States. As the largest energy producer
and consumer in the world, we were able to engage other nations
from a position of strength and authority, and the agreement
brought stability to energy markets around the world and it
helped protect America's energy producers.
Following through on President Trump's direction, we opened
the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to store excess oil from U.S.
producers. Crude oil deliveries from roughly 21, of
approximately 21 million barrels to the SPR have now been
completed. DOE is also working closely with states and
stakeholders to ensure that renewable energy and energy
efficiency sectors make it to the other side of this pandemic.
In addition, our EERE Office is working with the National
Association of State Energy Officials to develop post-COVID
economic development proposals using existing resources.
We also worked with our nation's governors and public and
private sector partners to ensure that our critical energy
infrastructure was fully operational. DOE assisted the industry
with access to personal protective equipment and testing kits.
We ensured the inclusion of the energy sector workers in the
Department of Homeland Security's Guidance on the Essential
Critical Infrastructure Workforce which promoted the ability of
such workers to continue working during the closure orders and
with social distancing. And similarly, the Department engaged
in planning processes to sequester control center personnel
onsite to ensure continuity of operations.
As we return to full operations, we are renewing our energy
endeavors and refocusing on important new priorities. The bulk
power system, the backbone of the nation's electric grid, is
coming under increasing threat from foreign adversaries. On May
1st, President Trump signed an executive order to increase its
security. My team and I will continue to work with other
federal departments and industry partners to eliminate
vulnerabilities and develop policies to ensure security and
resiliency.
That is my hope today, to make our nation safer and
stronger, more prosperous, and more filled with promise than
ever before. So thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for the
opportunity. I look forward to answering your questions.
[The statement of Mr. Brouillette follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Rush. The Chair thanks the witness, and now we will
proceed to questions. And the Chair will recognize members on
each, the Democrat members for 5 minutes and recognize
Republican members for 5 minutes. And now the Chair recognizes
himself for 5 minutes for the purposes of questioning the
witness.
Secretary Brouillette, for the past five years, the U.S.
Energy and Employment Report, also known as USEER, has served
as an essential resource for energy sector workforce insight.
In view of current unemployment numbers and the woeful
representation of minorities within the energy sector, these
insights are now needed more than ever. Last December, the
Congress appropriated $1.7 million for the sixth annual USEER
and reiterated their points of its using data collection
methods consistent with previous installments to ensure
accuracy. This means data collections should be, should begin
this September.
Secretary Brouillette, what progress, if any, has the
Department made toward producing the next USEER report and will
it be on time?
Secretary Brouillette. The answer to that last question,
sir, it will be on time. I have had many conversations with
former Secretary Ernie Moniz about this as recently as this
weekend as a matter of fact. It is our commitment to you that
we are going to continue to provide this type of information,
this type of data to the U.S. Congress.
I have proposed that we add some data collection to this
particular process. We are in fact slightly behind with the
data collection. There is no secret to that. I will own that
responsibility. We have fallen slightly behind primarily
because of the COVID. We are working remotely. But nonetheless
we plan to contract with a data collection service very
quickly. We will do that data collection all throughout August,
September, and October of this year. We will then prepare the
final report toward the end of this year and submit it to you.
Mr. Rush. I want to thank you. How will DOE deploy its
resources to include those within the Office of Economic Impact
and Diversity to address job losses and diversity and
inclusion?
Secretary Brouillette. Well sir, it is a broad-based effort
that we have at the Department of Energy. It focuses on not
only the Department itself; it goes well beyond that and into
the industry. But I will focus my comments on the Department
itself and let you know what we have done since our last
conversation which was I think approximately 18 months ago when
I was before the committee.
You tasked me at that point to take a look at this, and I
have done that and I want to report just really quickly. We
have now revitalized what we refer to as our Minorities in
Energy program at the Department. When I came back from that
hearing, I immediately tasked James Campos, who I think you
have met with many times, to do exactly that and the result of
that effort is what we refer to as the new Equity in Energy
initiative. And it is designed to advise me as the Secretary,
but also expand the inclusion and participation in individuals
in underserved communities in all programs at DOE and the
energy sector more broadly.
And I will tell you from my perspective as the Secretary I
will give you some quick results. The new hire diversity at the
Department of Energy in fiscal year 2017, there were 17 percent
minorities that were hired as new hires. I am happy to report
to you that in fiscal year 2020, this year, that number has now
jumped to 31 percent, so the program is working.
James is doing a great job leading that effort. I am proud
of the fact that we are the only Department or one of the only
Departments that has a program that is completely dedicated to
this. And as you know, sir, James is a Senate-confirmed person,
so it is a very high-ranking position within our Department and
I think he is doing a great job. We are going to continue the
good work in this program.
Mr. Rush. Mr. Secretary, I have just a few seconds left.
Would you also address the FEMP program, I mentioned that on
the phone to you yesterday, and what is the status on the FEMP
program?
Secretary Brouillette. The FEMP program is moving forward,
sir. I think there is a couple things, energy efficiency in
federal buildings is key to energy savings. I know that
Chairman Pallone and others have mentioned some other energy
efficiency programs that deal with appliances.
But one of the greatest savings that we can find is in the
federal complex itself. And I just recently had an opportunity
to visit the roof of the Department of Energy, and I noticed
that there are some solar panels up there that are badly
outdated and we need to update them. So I am going to work with
Ms. Kaptur on the Appropriations Committee and potentially find
some additional resources that we can upgrade the efficiencies
within our own Department but also work with other agencies to
do exactly the same thing. That is where some of our greatest
savings will come from.
Mr. Rush. Thank you. My time is concluded. I yield back
whatever I have remaining. I now recognize the ranking member,
Mr. Upton, for 5 minutes for the purposes of questioning the
witness.
Mr. Upton. Well thanks again, Mr. Chairman. And Mr.
Secretary, I want to ask a couple of questions, but I would
like to begin on focusing on grid security. Back in May, the
President issued an executive order to secure the U.S. bulk
power system, and having many of us a number of classified
briefings it is crystal clear that the threats to the bulk
power system by foreign adversaries constitutes what could be a
real national emergency.
The grid is absolutely fundamental for our critical
infrastructure, our national security, and our economy. If a
foreign adversary were able to take control or degrade
electrical equipment such as a transformer, we could be in very
serious trouble. So, what is the status of DOE's rulemaking to
implement the executive order, and are there statutory
authorities that Congress should consider that could provide
DOE on a more promising basis?
Secretary Brouillette. Yeah. There we go. Now it is on.
Thank you, sir, for that question. I appreciate the opportunity
to respond. With regard to additional authorities that are
needed, I am not quite sure that is necessary at this point. We
have moved forward with implementation of the executive order.
I know that there is some confusion or perceived confusion in
the industry. We want to alleviate the industry of any anxiety
it might have about this as we move forward with a proposed
rule later this year.
Just to elucidate a little bit about what it does, you
know, as you mentioned, sir, the bulk power system is the
backbone of the electric grid. It underpins everything in
America with regard to our electric system. But what we are
doing is we are seeking to operationalize the executive order
through four pillars to implement it, and I will just run
through them real quickly.
One, we want to prohibit foreign adversaries from supplying
particular bulk power system electrical equipment. We want to
establish a list of pre-qualified vendors that the utility
industry can use to purchase from. We want to develop advisory
recommendations for the identification, the isolation, the
monitoring, and the replacement of any currently at-risk
equipment that is on the system. That does not mean, however,
that we are going to rip and replace the entire electric grid
in the United States. We are focused on the bulk power system,
not at this moment or any other moment in the near term the
distribution system.
And then importantly, what the President has directed me to
do is to create a task force. I will convene with others, the
Secretary of Defense in particular, so that we can begin the
process of perhaps recommending to you, the Congress, certain
procurement policies that are going to be directly related to
this national security mission.
Mr. Upton. Thanks. Should we be doing anything about gas
pipelines as it relates to their safety?
Secretary Brouillette. I am sorry, Mr. Upton, I didn't hear
that question.
Mr. Upton. Is there anything that we should do with our gas
pipelines?
Secretary Brouillette. You know, Mr. Upton, you have a long
history in the telecommunications world, and if I were to point
to one thing that we can do an even more aggressive job with
regard to pipelines, it would be in the area of cybersecurity.
The major pipelines are doing just fine. We work with them very
closely. They are very much a part and parcel to what we do at
DOE. The CEOs are very, very engaging and collaborative.
If I have a concern about pipelines in America today, it is
perhaps with regard to some of the smaller members of the
industry. They simply in some cases just do not have the
resources that are needed to protect the infrastructure in the
manner in which we would like to see it be protected. I would
look forward to working with you, members of the committee,
others in the industry, to help design programs and policies
that might address what I think is a growing national security
concern.
Mr. Upton. Finally, let me just ask you about a bill that I
introduced a few weeks ago, H.R. 7435. It is the Methane
Emissions Reduction Act. It authorizes DOE to reduce methane
emission from flaring and venting natural gas during production
activities. As you know, states are the private regulators of
oil and gas production activities, so it is not a DOE
regulatory program. The goal is to get DOE to work with the
states, and certainly Michigan, to provide critical
infrastructure and accelerate the most promising R&D related to
new technology to reduce methane emissions.
While the oil and natural gas produced in the U.S. is
already moving among the cleanest in the world, would you agree
that there is more that we can do to reduce methane emission
even further?
Secretary Brouillette. I didn't hear the last part.
Mr. Upton. Would you agree that it would be advisable to
reduce methane emission more than what we do today and to be
able to work with the states?
Secretary Brouillette. Yes. Yes. I do agree. Methane is a
very intense carbon or a very intense greenhouse gas, and I
think it is important that we reduce the emissions. While I
recognize as you pointed out this may be an issue perhaps
better addressed in the EPA world, I would also report to the
members of the committee that we are working with the industry,
and we have looked at various technologies that might help with
methane emissions.
I was just recently in Pennsylvania. I saw some product
there that is actually made from coal. After the refining
process in coal, you are left with a very fine powder which can
be added to a natural gas pipeline, which actually works to
seal the pipeline in a manner that contains the methane. So
perhaps it will help the industry over the long term to reduce
these types of emissions.
Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
recognizes the Chairman of the full committee, Mr. Pallone, for
5 minutes for the purposes of questioning the witness.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, I
wanted to try to get in this 5 minutes some questions about the
Secretary's or your role or authority over NNSA, and then I
wanted to ask a little bit about the appliance efficiency
rules. So I will try to get through it.
Mr. Secretary, there has been efforts over the years as you
know to strip away the Secretary of Energy's authority over
NNSA, and most recently to strengthen the Nuclear Weapons
Council's authority in determining NNSA's budget within the
Secretary's own Department. Just tell me why you think this is
a wrong approach.
Secretary Brouillette. Well sir, let me see where I can
start with that. I think it is important to recognize as I
think Chairman Rush mentioned and Chairman Walden alluded--
Ranking Member Walden alluded to, not many people understand
the Department of Energy and its actual mission. They don't
know the breadth of the portfolio or the breadth of the
mission.
Every year the Secretary of Energy along with the Secretary
of Defense must certify the stockpile and, in essence and plain
language, ensure to the President that it will do what he or
she would like it to do if they needed to use it. That
certification process is signed at the Cabinet level, and it is
important that the Secretary of Energy see the entire process
for the development of the budget, the operations within NNSA,
all of the activities that occur within the national weapons
labs in order to remain comfortable that that certification is
in fact solid, for lack of a better term. It is very important
that I see that.
The Chairman. And then I think this is extremely helpful. I
am concerned about the impact that these, you know, that what
the NNSA, you know, what the Nuclear Weapons Council is trying
to do is going to have a negative impact on DOE and its budget.
But from a broader perspective, some argue the NNSA mission is
more aligned with the Department of Defense.
Why should NNSA be housed in the Department of Energy? Why
would you disagree that it should be more defense-oriented?
Secretary Brouillette. Well you know, the security of the
national security enterprise, writ large, it has always been
firmly to ground and always been firmly grounded. If you look
back at the history of the Department, all the way back to the
Atomic Energy Commission, our predecessor, it is grounded in
the science, the technology, the engineering, and the
manufacturing expertise of the DOE national laboratory system.
And NNSA draws heavily upon the various elements of all of the
DOE laboratories and the sites, and it creates a synergy that
can't be replicated anywhere else in the U.S. Government. It
certainly can't be replicated within the DOE complex.
The Chairman. All right. And then I wanted to, just in the
last two minutes about the appliance efficiency rules. We have
already had a little discussion. How many efficiency rules do
you expect to finalize between now and the end of the year, and
how many response to statutory deadlines and how many are
discretionary?
I know that this problem was inherited by you. I am not
suggesting that you created it, but I would like to know how
many efficiency rules you do expect to finalize between now and
the end of the year, and how that--which ones are statutory and
which ones are discretionary, if you could.
Secretary Brouillette. To be honest and to be just point
blank, sir, I will do as many as I possibly can. I know this
has been an issue for you. I know that you have raised it with
our under secretary, Mark Menezes. I appreciate the concern you
have. I reviewed Mark's answer before the committee. I agree
with it. I think he is correct about some of those things. But
I just want to let you know that I will do as many as I can
before the end of this year.
And I will just tell you really quickly, thus far in 2020,
we have published 18 notices that are related to conservation
standards, and nine notices that are relating to test
procedures, and that is about three times more than what we did
in 2018. So we are beginning to make some real progress here
and you have my firm commitment that we will move as
aggressively as we possibly can.
The Chairman. Well I appreciate that. And again, the number
of missed legal deadlines for new standards has grown from
three to 26 since President Trump took office. I don't blame
you because you haven't been there that long, but I do blame
the Trump Administration in general. And I would like to see
you focus more on meeting legal deadlines and less on
discretionary rules that undercut energy savings, but thank you
for that response. Thank you for being with us today.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
recognizes the ranking member for 5 minutes for the purposes of
questioning the witness.
Mr. Walden. Well thank you, Mr. Secretary, for your
leadership of the agency and your commitment to meeting these
deadlines. As you know as I mentioned, Chairman Pallone and I
have jointly teamed up on an amendment that integrates
personnel of DOE and NNSA so legal budgetary and other mission
support functions operate more effectively across the DOE
enterprise, and the Administrator can focus more effectively on
mission execution consistent with DOE authorities.
So, my question is, why does it make sense from your
perspective for the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of
Energy to co-chair the Nuclear Weapons Council, the NWC? Why
does that make sense?
Secretary Brouillette. Well Mr. Walden, thank you for that.
I think the first reason it makes sense is because it
recognizes the prioritization and the importance the nation
places on our nuclear deterrent. It elevates the visibility and
frankly the accountability of our nuclear deterrent, and it
better ensures the fidelity of the budget process in both of
our agencies.
I think it is important to recognize that, you know, for
instance, the Secretary of Energy not only has the
responsibility for the warhead program, I also have the
responsibility ultimately for the cleanup of the manufacturing
processes that are used in the development of the warheads
under our Environmental Management program. Both of these are
funded with Defense dollars, 050 dollars.
And if you think about it as a pie, what I think some of
the Senate language would do is to, if you think about it as a
pie, if you make, if you take one piece and make it bigger, the
other pieces are typically going to get smaller.
So in the case of the Environmental Management program, if
you have a sub-Cabinet council within the Department of Defense
focused exclusively on the weapons portion of the budget, what
might happen is that the weapons program gets much, much larger
at the expense of the Environmental Management program.
Only the Secretary of Energy is in the position to balance
the needs all across the programs. Now with that said, I think
it is important to, you know, to suggest that look, I am a very
strong supporter of the weapons program. That deterrent is
critical to our national security. It has to be robust. There
are many things that we have to do to improve its performance.
But at the same time, it is also important, it is imperative
that we honor our moral obligations to clean up the facilities
once we are done with the manufacturing.
Mr. Walden. Well I appreciate that. And you know,
representing a district that is right across the river from
Hanford where there are, I think 140-some enormous big buried
tanks of nuclear sludge left over from the Manhattan Project,
and some of these tunnels have collapsed at times and released
radiation. That clean-up effort is essential to the public
health.
Mr. Rush. Will the ranking member please yield?
Members who are on the--who are participating remotely,
will you please mute your phone until you, I ask you to unmute.
Will members please mute your phone, those who are remotely
participating in this hearing. We are getting feedback. The
gentleman will proceed.
Mr. Walden. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate
that. Anyway, I am very concerned about making sure we stay on
pace to get the Hanford mess cleaned up that dates clear back
to World War II.
On another matter, can you describe how you work with the
Defense Department to plan and budget for the nation's defense
nuclear programs?
Secretary Brouillette. I am sorry, Mr. Walden. I didn't
hear that.
Mr. Walden. Yes. If you can talk about how you work with
the Department of Defense on the budgeting----
Secretary Brouillette. Sure.
Mr. Walden [continue]. For the nation's nuclear defense
programs, that would be good. And does the language in the
NDAA, does that make you subordinate, a Cabinet Secretary, to
an under secretary at DOD?
Secretary Brouillette. Well I think some of the original
drafts of the amendment perhaps would have done that. The way
it typically works is that the DOD sets the requirements, the
military requirements that it wants, and it does it through the
Nuclear Posture Review in the case of the warhead program. What
we do at DOE is match our manufacturing capabilities to their
military requirements.
This is coordinated through the Nuclear Weapons Council,
which is chaired by an under secretary of Defense and then the
Under Secretary of Energy who runs the NNSA is also a member,
as well as the Chairman of STRATCOM and other important members
of the military complex. Together they review those
requirements and then we establish a budget based upon their
requirements.
My understanding of some of the early Senate language is
that I would be required to submit the DOE budget to the
Weapons Council. So in that sense, the Secretary would be
subordinated to a sub-council within DOE, and I think the
language would have further required that I accept their
recommendations, and further send those to OMB and then
ultimately to Congress for consideration. As I mentioned
earlier, if that were the process that the Congress were to
adopt, it would present some unique problems to the clean-up
facilities all across the world.
You asked earlier though about the importance of, you know,
the elevation and maybe moving this to the Secretary's level,
and perhaps providing both the Secretary of Defense and the
Secretary of Energy some additional line of sight. I think it
is also important to remember that, you know, as direct reports
to the President and as members of the National Security
Council, perhaps the both of us are in the best position to
balance the needs of our respective Departments.
Mr. Walden. All right. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, and I have
run out of time. Thanks for your leadership and for answering
our questions. We appreciate it.
Secretary Brouillette. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. Peters, for 5
minutes. I see Mr. Peters is not available. Now the Chair
recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Doyle, for 5
minutes.
Mr. Doyle. Thank you, Chairman Rush and Ranking Member
Upton, for holding this hearing. And thank you, Mr. Secretary,
for joining us today. We are anxious to get you down to the
NETL in Pittsburgh, and I can promise you some Primanti
Brothers sandwiches and Iron City beer after the meeting, so
hope we can set that up soon.
This pandemic has upended everyone's life, and it is
causing tremendous damage to every part of our economy, the
energy sector included. We need a national strategy not only to
combat climate change, but to help our economic recovery once
it is safe to do so. And I believe there are many pathways that
we can take towards rebuilding our economy and creating a
sustainable future, and I hope we can count on the Department
of Energy's extensive capabilities to be a partner in these
efforts.
Mr. Secretary, not only has this pandemic resulted in over
a million energy sector jobs being lost, but it has also
brought much lower wholesale energy prices. Even before this
drop, many nuclear power plants were struggling to stay open.
Tell me, what policies can we enact to ensure that we don't
shut down more well-run nuclear power plants, and how can we
ensure as advanced nuclear technology becomes commercialized
that we are building these plants and communities that have
been hurt by the closing of industry or fossil fuel plants?
Secretary Brouillette. So thank you, Mr. Doyle, for that
question. I appreciate your concern. I have a similar concern
as well. I think that in the case of nuclear we have too many
facilities that are closing at a much too earlier, a much too
aggressive rate.
We have begun a process, I just a visited a facility down
in Florida, to help permit life extension permits for these
facilities. The one that I visited in Florida is now authorized
to operate for up to 80 years--very, very safely, I might add.
It is very important that we look at these facilities and grant
those types of permits, and we will be working closely with our
colleagues at the NRC and others to ensure that that moves
forward. That is one step.
The second step is to follow up on the outline or the
strategy that we put forth in our Nuclear Fuels Working Group.
You know, in that working group we are developing various
proposals; there are about 10. It is, one, to address what we
can see as a concern in America related to the front end of the
fuel cycle.
We want to develop our mining capabilities in uranium. We
want to establish a uranium reserve. We importantly want to
develop conversion and enrichment services here in America so
that the civilian fleet can buy from American fuel supply. We
think that adds to our national security.
It is also important that we address some of the needs for
advanced reactors and that is also part of this working group's
report, is that we are going to develop accident-tolerant
fuels. We are going to develop what is known as high assay LEU,
low enriched uranium. It is important for us to develop this
fuel because it is what will allow the smaller reactors to come
online, and hopefully we can catalyze enough investment and
enough market interest in these that we can have them replace
some of these older, aging, and in some cases, too large
facilities.
Nuclear has a unique characteristic or a unique challenge,
I should say, at certain times. They produce an enormous amount
of electricity, and it is all not always needed. As these
communities begin to develop, it is not always needed. We don't
need one gigawatt of power perhaps as we move to a more
distributed electrical grid all throughout the country. We need
perhaps smaller forms of generation.
Mr. Doyle. Well thank you. You know, as we add more
intermittent power to the grid, flexibility seems to be vital
in to making sure the grid is reliable, and energy storage
obviously is key to that. Can you provide us with a quick
update on the ongoing activities being undertaken by the
Department's Grand Energy Storage Challenge? What specific
actions are going on right now?
Secretary Brouillette. Sure. Well what we have announced is
a Grand Challenge. What we are looking for is a next generation
of grid-scale storage or the next generation of battery
storage. But importantly, we need to find battery technologies
that would allow us to bring to market grid-scale storage. It
is critical that we do this very, very quickly so that we can
continue to see the implementation and development of renewable
technologies.
If we are going to lose our baseload power at the rate in
which we are losing it, at some point I am afraid that we might
have a gap. And as you know and as members of the committee
know so very well, today at least with the technologies that we
have, renewable power depends almost entirely upon the
provision of baseload electricity all throughout the country.
So if we are going to lose that baseload at the rate in which
we are losing it, and we are not going to be able to build
enormous nuclear plants as we just discussed, then it is
important that we develop the battery technologies.
We did announce the launch pad out at PNNL. It is going to
be a brand-new facility, a brand-new laboratory that we will
use to help develop some of these newer battery technologies.
Mr. Doyle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And Mr. Secretary,
thank you. Look forward to seeing you in Pittsburgh. And Mr.
Chairman, I will yield back.
Secretary Brouillette. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
recognizes the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Latta, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Latta. Well thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you very
much for holding today's hearing. And thanks very much to the
Secretary for appearing before us today. We really appreciate
it.
Even before the outbreak of COVID-19, the United States was
faced with a range of challenges that threatens stability and
security over energy interests, including the threat of cyber--
attacks to our grid security, nuclear supply chain
vulnerabilities, and threats to the competitiveness of our
domestic nuclear industry. Unfortunately, COVID-19 has only
made these problems worse.
On the issues of the nuclear supply chain and the need to
maintain a durable domestic nuclear industry, we need to pursue
policies that will be good for our economy and consistent with
our security policies to counter Russia and China. These
policies include building robust sources for domestic uranium
and conversion. I am pleased to see DOE's efforts to support
the establishment of a uranium reserve, and I appreciate the
assistance your staff has provided my office as we draft
legislation to authorize this reserve.
We must also support efforts to improve our nation's grid
security and resiliency against cyber threats. Two bipartisan
bills that I have led on, H.R. 359 and H.R. 360, along with my
good friend, the gentleman from California, Mr. McNerney, have
helped DOE in this effort, and I hope the Chairman will work
with us in a bipartisan way to see these bills soon come to the
floor for a vote.
Mr. Secretary, on the nuclear issues I have raised, how
vital is it that the United States build up its own domestic
nuclear supply chain, and how will a strategic uranium reserve
help us do this?
Secretary Brouillette. There it goes. The button wasn't
coming on there for a minute. As I mentioned earlier, I think
it is absolutely critical that we develop and more further
develop the front end of the fuel cycle here in America. You
know, we have lost our leadership edge in America with regard
to the provision of nuclear power. And today, I don't have the
exact number, but the vast majority of the fuel that is
purchased by the civilian nuclear fleet here in the United
States is purchased primarily from Russia and they supply the
fuel chain.
So if we were to lose that, I think we endanger Americans
all across the country, and it is very important for us to
address. That is what we are attempting to do. We think we
should create a reserve, a uranium reserve that includes not
just pulling the uranium out of the mine, but all of the
processes that go along with it--so the conversion process, the
enrichment process. We think we need to bring these businesses
back to America to ensure the security of our fleet and to
ensure the security of the provision of electric power here in
the United States.
So that is the commitment of our Administration. That is
what we are looking for, support for in this Nuclear Fuels
Working Group.
Mr. Latta. Well thanks very much, because I appreciate what
DOE is doing. And would you support legislation then that would
ensure the durability of a program like this by specifically
authorizing it?
Secretary Brouillette. Sure. Yes.
Mr. Latta. OK, great. And I really appreciate that. On the
grid security issues, in your testimony you reference the
Administration's concerns about securing the bulk power system,
as evidenced by the President's executive order in May. How
important is it to secure the bulk power system against cyber
threats, and do you believe legislation like H.R. 360, which
establishes a voluntary cyber sense program to test the
cybersecurity of products and technologies intended for use in
the bulk power system, would be helpful in this effort?
Secretary Brouillette. I would certainly work with you to
develop legislation and look for the authorities that might be
helpful. I feel that we have most of what we need at this
moment in time, but I would be very much agreeable to working
with you on a potential bill that might further address some of
the issues.
With regard to the bulk power thing and what we are seeing
all throughout the industry, and what we have noticed in some
of the power marketing administrations that we run at DOE like
BPA and what is known as WAPA, the Western Area Power
Administration, we have noticed that much of the manufacturing
for the equipment that goes into our system is being made in
China. And China as we know has changed its doctrinal approach
to the United States, and they have become more and more of an
adversarial nation.
And what we are beginning to be concerned about is perhaps
the provision of some technologies within the equipment that we
are purchasing that allows communications back to Beijing or
may allow some manipulation of the electric grid because of the
equipment that is being placed into things like transformers.
So we have identified this. We are working very closely
with one of our national laboratories. We are evaluating a
certain piece of equipment right now that is in the public
domain. And we look forward to providing some reports not only
to the intelligence community within the interagency, but also
to the United States Congress as well as to our findings there.
Mr. Latta. Well thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. Mr.
Chairman, my time has expired, and I yield back.
Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
recognizes Mr. Sarbanes of Maryland for 5 minutes. Mr.
Sarbanes, are you there?
The Chair now recognizes Mr. McNerney for 5 minutes.I
understand Mr. Sarbanes is having some problems unmuting his
microphone. Mr. Sarbanes, we will return to you as soon as you
are ready. Mr. McNerney, are you there?
Mr. McNerney. Yes. I am unmuted now. Can you hear me?
Mr. Rush. All right. Mr. McNerney, you are recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. McNerney. Well I thank the Chairman and the ranking
member for the hearing. It is a very timely topic, and I thank
the Secretary for showing up and helping us understand what is
going on out there in the Department of Energy. You know, the
Lawrence Livermore Lab and Sandia Laboratory, national
laboratories, are just outside of my district. Mr. Secretary,
could you go over a little bit of what these two laboratories
are doing with regard to the pandemic?
Secretary Brouillette. Sure. There we go.
So yes, sir, and I will get you a very detailed report on
some of the activities that are occurring in those labs. But in
a very high-level way, I will tell you that both labs have been
engaged. What we have done is we have utilized the bioscience
capabilities in particular of those two labs to help identify
the proteins that are unique to this particular coronavirus.
And as we have done that, we have been able to advise some
of the doctors about the reactions to certain drugs. We have
been able to predict in certain cases the spread of the virus.
Both labs have very capable artificial intelligence experts
there and they have helped us design predictive modeling in
certain cases that can, in certain cases, go all the way down
to the county level. And they have been very, very aggressive
in doing that and we appreciate their support.
Mr. McNerney. Well, good. I look forward to the detailed
reports that you have there, Mr. Secretary.
As you noted in your testimony, our nation's electric grid,
the bulk power grid, is coming under increasing pressure. This
has been discussed by a couple of other of our members here
this morning. I am concerned that the executive office is not
doing enough to counter the threat beyond the issuing the
executive order. Can you provide us as a committee an update on
Russia's cybersecurity capability as they relate to the grid,
and why hasn't the President been more aggressive on addressing
their capabilities?
Secretary Brouillette. I didn't hear the first part of that
question. I apologize.
Mr. McNerney. Well, basically, the nation is coming under,
our bulk grid is coming under increasing threat particularly
from Russia, and what I would like to know is what is Russia's
capability and what has the administration done to counter that
other than just issuing an executive order?
Secretary Brouillette. Capabilities with regard to what?
Mr. McNerney. The cyber attack capabilities on our
nation's----
Secretary Brouillette. Oh, cyber attack. I am sorry. I
didn't quite catch that when you first asked the question.
Russia is a very sophisticated cyber actor in the marketplace.
What we have done at the Department of Energy is to utilize our
supercomputing capabilities in places like Oak Ridge, at PNNL
out in Washington State, and we have begun very aggressively
applying things like artificial intelligence to cyber
technologies. And what it has allowed us to do is to blunt many
of the attacks that we see coming from places like Russia. And
I would daresay that they are perhaps the most sophisticated
cyber actor in the marketplace today, perhaps followed very
closely by China, and then by Iran.
But that is our contribution to this national effort that
is being led by a number of different players including the
U.S. Department of Defense Cyber Command.
Mr. McNerney. Well, honestly, I haven't seen any evidence
of aggressive administration action to counter that threat, so
I think it would be in the nation's interest to acknowledge
that threat publicly so that Americans are aware of it and also
to help identify what we can do to prevent that and to counter
that.
Going on, as you may be aware, I am the lead sponsor of the
Nuclear Waste Amendments Policy Act of 2019 along with Mr.
Shimkus. The bipartisan bill passed out of committee
unanimously, which shows that there is a significant supporting
in the House and in this committee to move forward with nuclear
waste handling.
So what I am wondering is considering the decades-long
standstill over the debate on the Yucca Mountain, how does the
administration envision developing a science-based solution
that can earn the approval of the states involved?
Secretary Brouillette. Yes, sir. With regard to your first
question, I would be happy, sir, to come up and brief you in a
classified setting on some of the activities around Russian
cyber activity. I would be happy to do that at your
convenience, so I will reach out to your office and schedule
something, if you don't mind.
Mr. McNerney. OK. I appreciate that.
Secretary Brouillette. With regard to, you know, spent fuel
storage, you know, as you know the Congress has been deadlocked
on funding for that particular program for many, many years.
Our authority to do anything is restricted somewhat by the
Nuclear Waste Policy Act. We are using the scientific
capabilities within the Department of Energy, our nuclear
expertise, to potentially explore other options. We are
somewhat limited. We can look at interim storage ideas, but
only within a very small window and a very small window of
authority in the current law. So I am happy to share those with
you. I will come back and brief you at your convenience on that
as well.
Mr. McNerney. OK. I will be glad to work with you on that,
Mr. Secretary. It is an important issue that we need to solve,
so thank you. I yield back.
Secretary Brouillette. Sure.
Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
recognizes the gentlelady from Washington State, Ms. McMorris
Rodgers, for 5 minutes.
Mrs. McMorris Rodgers. Thank you, Chairman.
Thank you, Secretary Brouillette, for being here today,
being with us today.
Good morning, everyone.
I appreciate the work of the Department of Energy and what
you are doing to secure America's future and ensure the safety
of our grid from foreign adversaries whether it is Russia or
China or others. I share some of my other colleagues' concerns
about provisions in the Senate NDAA that threatened to
undermine the Secretary of Energy's management and oversight of
our nuclear weapons program. As has been pointed out, this
misguided effort would erode the Secretary's budgetary
oversight of the National Security Administration, the Nuclear
Security Administration, with the unprecedented insertion of
the Nuclear Weapons Council into DOE's budget preparation and
oversight process.
The American atomic energy programs have been under
civilian control since the end of World War II and the
establishment of the Atomic Energy Commission, DOE's
predecessor, I believe, maintaining clear civilian and Cabinet-
level oversight of our nuclear weapons program is essential for
our nation. Moves that insert the Defense Department into DOE's
planning could also have a harmful impact on other important
priorities like the ongoing cleanup of our country's nuclear
production complexes.
Just outside my district near the Tri-Cities in Washington
State is the Hanford site, which others have mentioned, and it
produced plutonium for the Manhattan Project during World War
II. The inventions in nuclear technology at Hanford helped end
the war and begin our nation's global leadership in nuclear
energy. However, these early developments in nuclear technology
came at a cost, and after 40 years of production Hanford now
has to undergo a massive, ongoing cleanup of radioactive
material.
Secretary Brouillette, thank you for your leadership in
ensuring authority and control over nuclear weapon programs
remain fully within DOE under your Cabinet-level control. Could
you explain how the provisions in the Senate NDAA would have
negative consequences for cleaning up former nuclear production
such as at Hanford or other important priorities?
Secretary Brouillette. Yes, ma'am. I will do exactly that,
I think. I need to go and look and see what is the current
status of the NDAA in the Senate and see what language. I know
that there were a few amendments offered just prior to the
bill's consideration on the floor. I will go and do that.
But, importantly, as I understand the first drafts of the
NDAA as we saw it in the public domain, it would have
subordinated the Secretary of Energy and perhaps even the
Secretary of Defense at some level to the Nuclear Weapons
Council. And what it did was it would have required me to
submit the U.S. Department of Energy budget to that council for
their consideration and they would provide the recommendations
to the Department, of which I would be required under the
original drafts to submit that to the OMB and potentially to
the Congress as well.
In that case, what we would have is sub-Cabinet-level
officials determining not only the weapons program budget, but
perhaps disastrously altering other programs within not only
the Department of Energy but the Department of Defense as well.
As I explained in one of the earlier questions, if we think
about the budget as a pie, if you make one piece bigger,
because of the budget caps that are in place in the federal
law, by definition, the other pieces of the pie have to get
smaller.
And because the Environmental Management program is also
funded by Defense dollars, making the weapons program bigger
without some adjustment to the cap would, by definition, make
the environmental management or the cleanup portion of that
particular budget smaller. And I think that as the Secretary of
Energy, I am perhaps in the better position to make that
judgment about what balance should be struck between these two
important programs.
I fully support----
Mrs. McMorris Rodgers. OK.
Secretary Brouillette [continue]. The weapons program, but
I also understand the moral obligation we have to clean up
sites like Hanford.
Mrs. McMorris Rodgers. Thank you. I look forward to working
with you on that.
Also, another critical issue is the national security
around safeguarding our grid, and I am especially concerned
about potential vulnerabilities in critical components
manufactured by foreign adversaries such as China and Russia. I
applaud the administration's swift action to protect the grid
from these foreign threats by prohibiting such critical bulk
power components from being installed in our grid through the
executive order signed by President Trump back in May. I
believe the Federal Government needs to involve the energy
sector, including domestic vendors and manufacturers, to ensure
this order is implemented effectively.
Mr. Secretary, would you commit to working closely with the
stakeholders at DOE to develop the further rulemaking to do so?
Secretary Brouillette. Yes, absolutely. Absolutely. You
have my commitment for that.
Mrs. McMorris Rodgers. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Rush. The gentlelady's time is up. She yields back. The
Chair now--I understand that Mr. Sarbanes is ready for his 5
minutes. He is recognized for 5 minutes for questioning the
witness.
Mr. Sarbanes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Can you hear me?
Mr. Rush. We hear you quite well.
Mr. Sarbanes. OK, thanks very much. There is an echo, I
think. There we go. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the hearing.
Obviously, this pandemic has had a profound effect on the
economy. The energy sector has certainly felt that as well. And
as we look to stimulate the economy moving forward and recover,
we can build on an economy that is more equitable, more
resilient, and promotes a cleaner and healthier future for our
communities. I know we feel strongly about that.
I wanted to focus my questions for the Secretary today on
renewable energy, specifically solar energy. The Office of
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, EERE, has been a smart
return on investment for taxpayers. A net benefit, I think, of
about $230 billion. And particularly for low income families,
these kinds of programs in EERE help reduce barriers, allow low
income communities to reduce energy consumption which also
saves money.
In fact, ACEEE has found that for families living in large
cities, the average low-income household's energy burden was
more than three times as high as that of non-low income
households--seven percent compared with about two percent for
their wealthier counterparts. And, certainly, during this time
of economic instability, reducing that energy burden and cost
savings is one way we can help those communities move forward.
Solar energy in particular has been an economic driver,
employing over 240,000 Americans, generating $17 billion in
investment in our nation's economy. Unfortunately, with COVID-
19 we have deployed 37 percent less solar capacity than was
forecasted and developers have had difficulty securing
financing under these conditions. And again, it
disproportionately impacts small businesses, newer companies,
and ultimately impacts households.
Secretary Brouillette, in your testimony you mentioned the
administration's support for solar in the portfolio, but I have
to say that the administration's budget doesn't reflect that
support. There was a proposed cut of over 70 percent in the
EERE and the Solar Energy Technologies Office, which we tried
to reverse, I am pleased to say, in the House appropriations
bill that has been released.
But in the face of such economic uncertainty, I would hope
that we could count on DOE to promote solar energy which has
all of these benefits that are related to workforce, cost to
consumers, and so forth. I feel this particularly because in
Baltimore we have worked in the past with the Department of
Energy to bring this potential to low income homeowners through
a program called Baltimore Shine, and it would allow all
communities to take advantage of low-cost solar energy.
Mr. Secretary, will you commit to ensuring that
communities, especially low income and vulnerable communities,
are able to take advantage of the low-cost energy and skilled
job opportunities offered by solar technology as we are trying
to recover from the COVID-19 pandemic?
Secretary Brouillette. Mr. Sarbanes, yes, I can. And as a
resident of Maryland that hits particularly close to home for
me. So thank you for your service. Thank you for the question
and I look forward to working with you on this.
We do support solar technologies and I will just tell you
really quickly what we are looking at. We are looking at some
of the next generation of solar technologies. Much of what is
on the market today, photovoltaic-type technologies, I don't
want to call them antiquated. They are not completely
antiquated, but they have been around for a very long time and
they are somewhat mature.
So when we look at investing research dollars at the
Department of Energy, we have made a decision that perhaps
rather than continuing investments in mature technologies like
photovoltaics, we want to move to the next generation. And we
will work very closely with our National Renewable Energy
Laboratory out in Golden, Colorado, to develop things like
perovskites, which is a fascinating technology, and it
increases the efficiency of the solar panel itself.
So I would love to have you out there. We have technologies
where literally you paint a window and the window itself
becomes a small electric generation machine or it is able to
develop enough electricity to power some small appliances. It
is a fascinating technology. It is that type of technology I
would like to see come to market much more quickly.
With regard to energy efficiency, it is also important that
we balance not only the energy savings that are developed by
these types of newer technologies, but also the cost of the
appliance or the cost of the generation itself. In our view, we
agree with the energy efficiency goals that the Congress has
set. We have no disagreement there. But it doesn't do us much
good to save two dollars on the electric bill if it is going to
cost us many thousands of dollars to buy the new appliance or
buy the new generation facility. In our view, we have not done
low income families much justice in that case.
So we want to balance the equation very appropriately and I
would look forward to working with you on that.
Mr. Sarbanes. Thank you, Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Olson, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Olson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And a big ole Texas
welcome to a friend, Energy Secretary Dan Brouillette. Dan, I
am so sorry we missed each other last week at the SPR there in
Texas. I suspect you are even more sorry because you didn't get
to relive the Gulf Coast heat of summer. No Thibodeaux or
Boudreaux, no sucking crawfish heads like you did with Mr.
Tauzin, so let's make that date again sometime in the future.
I have one question for you, Dan. It is not about COVID-19.
It is about a local issue. I want to ask about the disposal of
Americium-241. It is a byproduct of weapons-grade plutonium
production. It is used for smoke detectors and downhole oil
well logging. It is very radioactive and cancer-causing.
America stopped producing this product in 2005 despite the fact
that we still had domestic demand and so for 15 years we have
been importing this product.
In 2015, my hometown of Sugar Land had a little bout with
this product, a small spill that released some Caesium-137 and
Americium-241 half a mile from my son's high school in Sugar
Land, Texas. But since this radioactive isotope came from a
foreign source, we can't store this, Dan, in the WIPP, the
Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, so there it sits, a national
security risk and an environmental risk if it spills.
So, I have three questions for you about this issue. Number
one, can you assess the risk of letting it sit all across the
country; number two, can the WIPP handle all this isotope we
have in America; and do you support my bill giving your
Department more authority over getting this stuff out and store
it in the WIPP?
Secretary Brouillette. Mr. Olson, it is great to see you
again and I am sorry I missed you last week. It was great to be
back in my adopted home of Texas and it was pretty hot down
there, but it was fantastic to be home. I hope that we can get
together again very soon down in Texas or elsewhere.
But with regard to your question on Americium, yes, I have
not reviewed your bill in detail, but if it is to provide the
authority for us to receive this Americium and store it in the
WIPP, it would be something that I think we would probably
support. I would like to take a close look at it. I am familiar
with the situation that you face down in Sugar Land and you
have identified the problem for us, is that we don't know the
source of that particular product and we are prohibited by law
as a result from accepting it into the WIPP facility in New
Mexico.
But perhaps through legislative changes or perhaps some
other process, we can move forward to accept that material and
put it into the WIPP facility. It is very important that we
remove this from the communities. And your community is not
unique in that sense. I mean there are many communities across
Texas as well as other parts of the United States where the
sources--it is known as a source--are still sitting, in some
cases in strip malls, without much security. So it is very,
very important that we remove this product and store it safely.
Mr. Olson. Can WIPP handle these products, Dan? Does it
have the capability to handle all these products or is that
just--I have heard it is overfilling. I think that is a red
herring. Can you confirm that? You got the room to store this
waste?
Secretary Brouillette. I would have to double check on the
room. I am assuming we do. But we certainly have the technical
capability of storing Americium, yes.
Mr. Olson. And one final question. And, Dan, this is about
the Federal Reserve's Main Street lending program. This program
is essential for mid-size people involved in oil and gas
operations. They have to have this money coming through because
they are getting hammered by COVID and this pricing war going
on between Saudi Arabia and Russia.
So, can you talk about how important this project is, this
program is for the suppliers of energy, the midstream guys in
particular, and how this should be open to them as well?
Secretary Brouillette. Sure. I have worked closely with
Secretary Mnuchin to ensure that all of the programs that under
all of your leadership you passed and made available to
American businesses including the energy business. I have had
many conversations with the midstream producers, the
independent producers out in the Permian Basin of Texas. Some
of them have availed themselves to these programs, and I think
it is important that we continue that good work.
We are in a unique situation here with this pandemic, you
know, Texas has long experienced boom and bust cycles in the
oil business; you know how to handle that very, very well. But
we have never experienced a situation in which we had a market
event like what happened in Saudi Arabia and Russia or under
the auspices of OPEC combined with a lack of demand that was,
you know, generated by this pandemic, you know, with economies
around the world appropriately closing or slowing down. We have
never seen that before in U.S. history. We have never seen it
in the oil business so it presents a unique challenge.
But I am fully supportive of what the Congress did to make
these programs available to not only all American businesses,
but in particularly the energy businesses as well.
Mr. Olson. Thank you, soldier. I am a sailor. Join me in
saying, go Navy, go Army. Best Air Force.
Secretary Brouillette. Go Army.
Mr. Olson. I yield back.
Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
recognizes the gentleman from New York, Mr. Tonko, for 5
minutes.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Can you hear me?
Mr. Rush. Quite well.
Mr. Tonko. Well, great. Thank you.
Secretary Brouillette, welcome back to the Energy and
Commerce Committee. Mr. Secretary, the administration's budget
request once again has zeroed out funding for the
Weatherization Assistance Program, a critical program that we
know is there to support the health and safety and energy
efficiency of low-income Americans as they maintain their
homes.
Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, we know more people are
unemployed and staying at home. We also know that state budgets
have realized great shortfalls. Given these conditions, do you
see some additional value in federal weatherization dollars
that could be used once the economy is reopened and retrofits
can resume safely?
Secretary Brouillette. Sure, I do. And thank you for your
conversation yesterday. I appreciated the opportunity to trade
some notes on some of these important programs and I appreciate
the concern that you have about the President's budget with
regard to the weatherization program in particular.
I think it is important for us to remind ourselves from
time to time though that, you know, what we do at the DOE is we
look all across the enterprise. And we just talked about energy
efficiency and that is a very important component of the
weatherization program. We have what is called cross-cutting
programs where we take money not only from EERE, but we use it,
we take money from the science labs and other places where we
can develop technologies that are ultimately put into the
marketplace that will increase efficiency. So while you may see
a reduction in the actual weatherization program, I want to
assure you that the work on energy efficiency is broad-based.
It is not just one bucket or one line item in a budget that
reflects the commitment to energy efficiency.
So with regard to COVID and efficiency, we have taken some
initial steps and extended some of the grant programs until we
can do some more analysis, but, you know, to make it just more
available to people who are utilizing the program. I think what
we have done is appropriate and, you know, I would be more than
happy to come up and spend more time with you and go through
the exact steps that we have taken so far.
Mr. Tonko. OK, thank you. We are certainly going to be
quite active on behalf of our households that require the
weatherization program.
I also want to focus on the role DOE can play in reducing
costs to encourage deployment of existing energy technologies.
And, for example, DOE has identified inconsistent permitting
requirements and processes as a significant cost to residential
energy installations. The patchwork of permitting requirements
across thousands of local jurisdictions causes unnecessary
delays and certainly adds administrative costs.
This not only increases energy prices for our consumers but
also stifles homeowner and business investments in these
technologies such as rooftop solar. Other countries like
Germany and Australia, as we all know, have sought ways to
streamline permitting. The average cost of a residential solar
installation in Australia is less than one-half the cost in the
United States.
So, Mr. Secretary, DOE and NRO have worked on reducing
these permitting costs. Do you believe DOE or another federal
entity can continue to play a role in helping to streamline the
permitting process for residential energy systems?
Secretary Brouillette. Absolutely. I don't think there is
any doubt about that. I think, you know, the challenges I hear,
you know, have to do with not only solar but also offshore
wind. For instance, we have seen some challenges with
permitting some of the facilities both on the East and West
Coasts. And I think it is--you know, look. It is very important
that we have community involvement in the permitting process
and I am not suggesting for a second that we deny individuals
or communities an opportunity to be a part of a permitting
process. But we should look very closely to see if there are
certain redundancies or certain things in the process that are
not conducive or not constructive or not allowing the process
to move forward in forthright and transparent way. And I would
be open to that type of conversation with you or your staff or
anyone on the committee.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you.
Finally, I believe the Advanced Manufacturing Office is an
incredible resource for our United States manufacturers to
become more competitive and sustainable. The industrial sector
is responsible for roughly one-fifth of greenhouse gas emission
and consumes roughly one-third of the primary energy here in
the United States. In recent years, Congress has taken a bigger
interest in these challenges. The Clean Industrial Technology
Act has bipartisan support and this committee's climate
legislation discussion draft has suggested creating a new DOE-
assisted secretary of industry. I know other groups have called
for reorganization of DOE to better reflect the challenges our
nation faces.
Do you have any thoughts, whether through reorganization of
the Department or otherwise, on the need to give greater
emphasis and resources for DOE's manufacturing programs?
Secretary Brouillette. That is an interesting idea. I would
love to take a look at your bill and talk to you more about the
organizational construct of DOE.
You know, the importance of advanced manufacturing cannot
be understated, however, especially as we start to look at more
of these energy-efficient or the renewable technologies that
are coming online. I did have an opportunity to talk to
Representative Kennedy, for instance, about some of the
manufacturing processes and some other things that he would
like to bring to his congressional district.
We are going to focus on the funding opportunities that we
have at the Department of Energy. We just released
approximately $44 million, give or take, over the course of the
last few weeks and it is focused almost exclusively on advanced
manufacturing techniques and capabilities. It is a very
important role for the DOE to play. Our Oak Ridge National
Laboratory in particular has been a world leader in developing
3D printing as well as other technologies that allow advanced
manufacturing to occur more efficiently.
But with regard to your bill, I will take a look at it,
sir. And if I might reserve the right to perhaps respond to you
in writing, I would more than happy to do that.
Mr. Tonko. Sure. We would love to host you for a tour of
what is happening in our district. So thank you, Mr. Secretary.
And, Mr. Chair, I yield back.
Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
recognizes Mr. McKinley of West Virginia for 5 minutes.
Mr. McKinley. Thank you, my friend, and for having this
hearing.
And welcome back, Mr. Secretary. A series of questions, if
I could. Many of them are just yes and no. Under President
Obama, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Dempsey,
once said that ``improving our energy security improves our
national security.'' Do you agree with him?
Secretary Brouillette. Yes.
Mr. McKinley. If gas-fired power plants provide nearly 40
percent of America's energy, do all gas-fired power plants get
their natural gas from pipelines?
Secretary Brouillette. Yes, in America, pretty much.
Mr. McKinley. Thank you. In America.
Mr. Cohen. Yeah.
Mr. McKinley. So now, and if 90 percent of our natural gas
is transported by pipelines, is it fair to say, therefore, that
pipelines are an essential part of our national security?
Secretary Brouillette. Yes.
Mr. McKinley. Thank you. But the environmental left doesn't
seem to agree with you and they just, they posted this headline
the other day about delay wins the day. They want a delay, and
what they are referring to are the delays that occurred over
the Dakota Access Pipeline, which was operational as you know
for three years.
Secretary Brouillette. Sure.
Mr. McKinley. The Atlantic Coast Pipeline that went through
17 permits, federal government, and 16 state permits. It even
went to the Supreme Court and got approval with it. And now
they are even challenging the Mountain Valley Pipeline that is
transporting gas from West Virginia to other states.
My question is, could the loss of these pipelines that we
just mentioned, could they pose a challenge to our national
security?
Secretary Brouillette. In my view, yes.
Mr. McKinley. OK.
Secretary Brouillette. And I think----
Mr. McKinley. And it appears that some of our governors
like Cuomo and Inslee may be abusing their 401 permitting--
authority. Because of Cuomo, states in the Northeast--Maine,
New Hampshire, Massachusetts--have to get their electricity
from Canada and their natural gas from Russia. So whose economy
is Cuomo helping? Is it Putin's? It is certainly not ours.
So if I could, Mr. Secretary, as you know the
administration is about to finalize a new NEPA reform,
significant rewrite of NEPA, and it is my understanding that
nothing in the reforms get rid of any existing rules but,
rather, you all have developed as something that might
streamline the permitting process and primarily so that the
environmental left can't weaponize the permitting process.
Now let me switch gears just for a minute. The government
has called on manufacturers to produce more PPE, hundreds of
millions, hundreds of millions more of respirators, plastic
face shields, gowns, gloves, all are going to be necessary.
They are all produced from this. This is natural gas. This is
resins from natural gas. Won't we need pipelines to produce
more PPE?
Secretary Brouillette. Yes, sir. Ultimately, we will.
And to address your national security concerns at least
with regard to the Atlantic Coast Pipeline, you know, it begs
the question. We have an enormous naval facility down at
Norfolk and we have an enormous Army facility in North
Carolina, the home of the 82nd Airborne. It is very important
that these facilities have ready access, reliable access to
electricity because they depend upon the private grid for the
purposes of their power generation.
Mr. McKinley. Thank you. I have a couple more questions if
I can just ask quickly.
Secretary Brouillette. Sure.
Mr. McKinley. Wall Street as you know works on certainty.
They depend on it. And the litigation and delays created by the
environmental left have created the opposite, especially as it
relates to what happened to coal. Are we about to see the same
thing on Wall Street developing concerns about pipelines and
natural gas? Do you think there could be a threat?
Secretary Brouillette. And perhaps we are. The regulatory
uncertainty will lead to certain investors to back away from
these types of projects.
Mr. McKinley. So my last question, if 70 percent of our
energy comes from fossil fuels and if Wall Street stops
financing gas-fired power plants and has an aversion to funding
pipelines because they don't know whether they are going to be
built or not because of regulations, is this a positive or a
negative sign for our national security?
Secretary Brouillette. In my view, it is a negative sign.
Mr. McKinley. Thank you. So, in the six seconds left, can
you explain a little bit about maybe what DOE is doing to
address the streamlining process and prevent the abuse?
Secretary Brouillette. Well, through the interagency
process we are contributing to the NEPA efforts, which I
understand are going to be released very, very shortly. And to
your point, they are not to reduce in any way, shape, or form
the environmental concerns that the American people have
raised. What we are simply doing is eliminating redundancies.
I will tell you really quickly in the case of DOE, I made a
decision very early that if another agency had conducted a
NEPA, you know, analysis with regard to perhaps, say, an LNG
export facility, which we have some regulatory responsibility
for, that the DOE would rely upon the other NEPA analysis. FERC
is quite capable, for instance, in conducting NEPA analyses. So
if they have already done the work once, there is no need for
DOE to do a second NEPA analysis. Eliminating that step will
save, you know, an enormous amount of money for the applicants
who are looking to build these export facilities for LNG. It is
just one small example, but it is a step in the right
direction.
Mr. McKinley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
recognizes Mr. Loebsack for 5 minutes.
Mr. Loebsack. Thank you, Chairman Rush and Ranking Member
Upton, for holding this hearing today.
And thank you, Secretary Brouillette, for testifying today
as well. As you know, the RFS is a key economic driver in my
home state of Iowa and actually throughout farm country, and
the biofuels industry has been hit hard by the COVID-19
pandemic. Of course, the pandemic only exacerbated the pain
that this industry had already been experiencing in no small
measure due to the explosion of small refinery exemptions
granted by this administration which have wiped out over four
billion gallons of biofuel from the marketplace since 2016. In
January, as you know, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals found
that in order for a small refinery to be eligible for an
exemption, the law requires that that refinery have an
exemption in place to extend, meaning that they must have
received an exemption each year in order to be eligible for a
future exemption.
Unfortunately, rather than adhere to the ruling of the
court, many small refineries have submitted retroactive waiver
petitions dating as far back as 2011, in an attempt to fill in
the gaps in years where they did not receive a waiver.
According to EPA's own data, by the ruling of the 10th Circuit
there should be no more than seven refineries eligible for
future exemptions, and yet EPA recently confirmed that it has
received 52 so-called gap years' small refinery petitions
which, if granted, would equate to a loss of an additional two
billion dollars of biofuel demand.
So, Mr. Secretary, I have a series of questions here. I am
going to try to get through all of them and if I cut you off, I
apologize, but I want to get through as many if not all of
these I possibly can. The first question is, have those gap
year petitions been scored by DOE and sent back to EPA, and, if
not, when will that happen?
Secretary Brouillette. Thank you, Mr. Loebsack. I
appreciate the opportunity. And thanks for your conversation as
well earlier this week by telephone. You know, I will get back
to you on the 50-plus applications that, you know, may have
come from EPA. I am not quite sure where we are in the process.
I will just state that, you know, there are differing legal
opinions about this 10th Circuit case. I think some are reading
it as an opportunity to file these gap applications, if you
will. I will also just, you know, state for the record that if
EPA sends us the application we are required still to evaluate
it, so I am assuming that we are doing that today and I will
get you a precise answer as to where we stand in that
particular process.
Mr. Loebsack. I want to ask you for your opinion. Do you
believe that the law does allow EPA to grant these gap year
petitions?
Secretary Brouillette. I am sorry. Say again, sir.
Mr. Loebsack. Do you believe that the law allows EPA to
grant these gap year petitions?
Secretary Brouillette. Well, that is a good question. I am
not quite certain about that. I would have to review the case
very closely and I am not an attorney so I would hate to give
you a legal opinion.
Mr. Loebsack. Yeah, because my next question has to do with
that, actually. Will DOE ensure its review of these petitions
conforms with the Court's decision?
Secretary Brouillette. If I understood you correctly, would
you just say the last part of that again?
Mr. Loebsack. Yeah. Well, I will do the whole question.
Will DOE ensure its review of these petitions conforms with the
Court's decision?
Secretary Brouillette. Oh, sure. We will do everything
according to the law and our understanding of the law. There is
no question about that. I will get with--Bill Cooper is our
general counsel at the Department of Energy, and we will
ensure, you know, whatever analysis we are required to conduct
under the law and whatever we send to EPA is going to be fully
compliant with not only the 10th Circuit decision but also the
federal statute.
Mr. Loebsack. And you may or may not be able to answer this
next question, but has EPA sent you any exemption petitions
from refiners who had previously submitted a petition for the
exact same year but were denied a waiver the first time around?
Secretary Brouillette. I don't know the answer to that
question, but I will find out and get right back to you.
Mr. Loebsack. And do you know if DOE has changed its
methodology or approach for scoring small refinery exemption
petitions?
Secretary Brouillette. No, we have not. We conduct this
analysis the same way we always have and that we provide our
findings to EPA for their ultimate decision on the application.
Mr. Loebsack. Well, if it has not changed the methodology,
then doesn't it stand to reason that DOE would have no choice
but to score these do-over gap year petitions exactly the same
way as the Department did the first time?
Secretary Brouillette. Yes, sir. We have not changed our
methodology. I mean we have done this in the same manner in
which we have done since the creation of the program back in
2005.
Mr. Loebsack. OK. And other than the 52 gap year waiver
petitions, EPA reports 27 waiver petitions pending for the 2019
RFS compliance year. Has DOE completed review of those
petitions and made recommendations to EPA?
Secretary Brouillette. Yes. I will get you an answer on
that, sir. I would have to check the status of those
applications.
Mr. Loebsack. OK. Yes. Well, I look forward to the answers
and I did appreciate our conversation we had prior to this
hearing. I appreciate what you are doing at the DOE and I know
you have a lot of great history with the committee and I
appreciate that.
But we have to make sure that we are doing the right thing
for these biofuels folks and we have to make sure that EPA and
DOE are complying with this 10th Circuit Court decision making,
sure that everyone is abiding by the law, and I know you agree
with that as well. So thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. And I
yield back.
Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
recognizes the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Griffith, for 5
minutes.
Mr. Griffith. Mr. Chairman, how are you this afternoon?
Mr. Rush. Good, thanks.
Mr. Griffith. All right.
Oh, Mr. Secretary, one of my priorities as we have
discussed in the past is research parity between the renewable
research and our fossil fuel research. And as we look at the
many issues that we are discussing today, including resiliency
and the reliability of our grid as well as the global
environmental well-being, it is critical that we continue to
invest in the research and development for fossil fuels as well
as renewables.
As you and I have discussed previously, of course, you
know, sub-Saharan Africa, Asia, developing nations are using
their coal supply and they are going to use their coal supply.
And one of the things I would hope that we would do is figure
out how to use that the most effectively so that we can then
move forward, not just in the United States, but globally, to
reduce emissions coming from coal-fired power plants and other
fossil fuel burning plants.
Do you agree that we should strive for parity and continue
to invest in fossil research and development here in the United
States?
Secretary Brouillette. There we go. Can you hear me, sir?
To answer your question----
Mr. Griffith. I can.
Secretary Brouillette [continue]. Yes, I do. I think we
need to continue our research and development in areas like
CCUS for the purposes of making coal not only more efficient
but cleaner, because, as you point out, developing nations will
continue to use this very important resource that they have
around the world.
Our own EIA, the Energy Information Administration,
projects that the use of fossil fuels will continue at very
high levels well into the 2040s, perhaps even out as far as
2050. And if that is the case, then I think we have an
obligation to develop the technologies that are necessary to
use those fuels very cleanly. So things like CCUS R&D work at
the Department of Energy, work related to carbon capture
utilization, sequestration, are very, very important, and I
think we should continue that work.
And if it is, you know, if it is the direction of Congress
to increase that type of work, which I would hope it would be,
we would certainly welcome that opportunity.
Mr. Griffith. Well, and I appreciate that. And, of course,
I am excited about some of the things that are happening here
in my district which is a coal-producing and natural gas-
producing area.
We have MOVA Technologies out of the New River Valley that
is doing some flatbed technology where they run the gases
through various substrates. And this is a very crude analogy,
but they run it through the substrates and it pulls out
individual pollutants so that you don't have an issue with, you
know, a series of things that have to be done afterwards. They
can actually be sold commercially. I also think that the
chemical looping still has great promise, and then, you know,
anything that we can do to find additional uses for coal
products as we move forward.
Is there anything in particular that you have looked at
that you find to be an interesting and exciting new technology?
Secretary Brouillette. Yes. Actually, I was just up in the
western part of Pennsylvania visiting a coal facility there and
I saw technologies that to me were absolutely fascinating.
Going back to your first question though on the use of
coal, I want to point out that I think it is also important
because we have enormous reserves here and obviously your
district is a big part of that in the United States. The export
opportunities for coal are enormous around the world and that
means jobs here in the United States. So I would hate for us to
close off that opportunity for the use of this product because
it creates so many jobs not only in Virginia, but also West
Virginia, and out in Wyoming as well. You know, many, many
states produce coal. So my point is that let's continue the
clean technologies that we need to make this product cleaner as
we export it around the world.
But with regard to the new uses for coal, we are now
extracting some critical minerals. We are beginning to figure
out how to extract rare earth elements which are absolutely
vital for the development of battery technologies. So as we
look at the future and perhaps see more and more use of
renewable energies and we try and reach that holy grail of
grid-scale battery storage, it is going to be perhaps our
knowledge and perhaps the research that we do today on coal
that might allow us to break some of the supply chain
restrictions and vulnerabilities that we are currently
experiencing today.
China as you perhaps know, I think, from our conversations
you well know this, is that, you know, China, today, owns about
80 percent of the rare earth element market, so we are
incredibly dependent upon, as I pointed out earlier, an
adversarial nation to the United States. If we can develop
these products from coal, we have strengthened not only our
energy security but our national security as well.
Mr. Griffith. And I appreciate that. And they are doing
that work down Virginia Tech is working on that as well. So,
there is a lot of new technology out there and I appreciate
your leadership on those issues.
And, Mr. Chairman, I see my time is up and I yield back.
Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
recognizes the gentleman from Vermont, Mr. Welch, for 5
minutes.
Mr. Welch. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you, Mr. Secretary. It is terrific to see you.
Sorry we are not all there with you.
I wanted to ask you questions in two areas. One is the
energy and water efficiency audits, and then second, staffing
levels in the Department of Energy that are essential for us to
pursue energy efficiency. First of all, on the energy audits,
my understanding is your report shows that only 43 percent of
the federal agencies have actually completed their audits and
only six out of twenty-eight have done it fully.
And as we all know, there is immense opportunity for
savings through energy efficiency, and there is $7.8 billion of
efficiency measures that have been identified which would
result, as it is part of your report, $800 million in financial
savings. What are the obstacles? What is the problem with
getting these energy and water audits done? Can you speak to
that?
Secretary Brouillette. I am sure there are many reasons why
they are not being done, sir, but what I will do is I will go
back and I will ask for my own independent audit and get an
update for you so that I can figure out exactly why this is not
getting done in the manner of which I know you want it done and
I know the committee wants it done. We have the tremendous
opportunity here as you point out. I mean I am looking at some
of the data here in front of me, especially with regard to the
federal facilities. We are looking at roughly the savings to
the government, according to the data that I have here they are
in the billions of dollars. It is enormous.
Mr. Welch. Right.
Secretary Brouillette. So, I think we ought to proceed at a
very aggressive rate. I will commit to you here publicly that I
will get back to you very, very shortly with an update on those
audits.
Mr. Welch. All right. Well, I appreciate that. And I think
there is a lot of bipartisan support on our committee for these
audits and the savings we can get. And let me just state,
candidly, my sense about the failure of this to have happened
before is that it reflects a slow walk approach towards getting
this done. So I really will appreciate you getting back to us,
but I think all of us would really appreciate getting the
audits done. So when you get back with your report, the
question is not so much why they aren't getting done, but when
will they be done. Does that sound fair?
Secretary Brouillette. It sounds very fair. And I will
commit to you here that we will get you an answer within the
next, I will just say, would ten days be appropriate for you?
Mr. Welch. It would be great. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Secretary Brouillette. OK.
Mr. Welch. Also there is this question of staffing. You
know, as an example, again on energy efficiency, Mr. McKinley
and I, for years, have been working on the HOPE for HOMES Act
which would allow homeowners to do installations for energy
efficiency, get some help from the government, and it has a
real benefit of putting local contractors to work.
This won't work, even if we are successful as we think we
will be in getting the money, unless there is staffing in the
appropriate departments of the Department of Energy for energy
efficiency. And our sense is that or actually our information
is that we have been very slow to fill the positions that are
available. Can you speak to that and what steps will be taken
to fully staff up, and that is in anticipation that we are
actually going to be moving forward on energy efficiency.
Secretary Brouillette. Sure. Yeah, I am happy to address
that. That issue was raised in another hearing. It came to my
attention very recently. And, you know, I am not happy with the
answers I received, but there were some initial delays with
things as simple as badging of employees. It would take an
enormous amount of time just to get people through the
employment process and provide them with a badge to do the work
that we were attempting to hire them to do.
And as a result, you know, people have these very
specialized skills, very technical skills. In many cases they
were taking jobs, other jobs that were available to them at the
moment. We simply lost out on the competition. It is
disheartening and disappointing and we have taken steps to
address very simple measures like that. I can also get you an
update on the staffing that we have done since that hearing and
since that last conversation with Assistant Secretary Dan
Simmons who was here before the committee.
Mr. Welch. OK. Thank you very much.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
recognizes the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Johnson, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And, Mr. Secretary, it is good to see you this afternoon.
Thanks for taking time out of your schedule to brief us on your
Department's important activities around this COVID-19
pandemic. You know, you and your team at DOE have done some
tremendously helpful work, work that has benefited all
Americans. I commend you for your work filling the Strategic
Petroleum Reserve to the brim, securing the electrical grid,
and as you noted in your testimony, we are utilizing some of
DOE's most advanced, world-class laboratories and
supercomputers in the fight against COVID-19.
COVID-19, there is no question, and its associated economic
challenges has put America on its heels, and our adversaries
are looking to exploit this crisis, so it is critically
important that we as members of this subcommittee don't lose
focus on maintaining our global energy leadership. My time is
limited so I want to get right into my questions.
As you know very well, Mr. Secretary, my district in
eastern and southeastern Ohio is blessed with an abundant
supply of oil and gas in the Marcellus and Utica Shales. This
is an economic lifeline to my constituents, and not only that
but this cheap and abundant resource, if it is able to be
efficiently transported and brought to market, for example, in
the form of liquefied natural gas, it enables America to
project power and push back on adversaries like Russia and
Iran. As lawmakers, we need to focus on cutting unnecessary
Washington red tape and burdensome regulations. This is why I
recently introduced the Unlocking our Domestic LNG Potential
Act to do just that.
So two questions in one here. Can you explain, Mr.
Secretary, in your dealings and negotiations on the global
stage, why it is so important for us to maintain a strong
domestic energy sector here at home and what benefits do
Americans see from exporting some of our excess energy
resources such as LNG in the global marketplace?
Secretary Brouillette. Yes, sir. I am happy to. I will just
give you the latest example of the importance of having a very
strong and diverse energy sector here in the United States.
We mentioned earlier the conversations that were occurring
and, frankly, the dispute that occurred between Saudi Arabia
and Russia just recently in the OPEC-Plus conversation. The
President directed me as soon as we saw that there was a
dispute--importantly, when we saw the reaction of one of the
parties to that dispute and the reaction was very plain, they
both increased their production and lowered the price which we
feel was intended perhaps toward Russia, but the impact was
felt here in the United States--the President immediately
engaged and said reach out to your counterparts, work this out,
figure out what is going on. It became pretty clear in that
conversation that it was not going to get resolved at the
ministerial level, my level with my counterpart. It got
elevated to a head of state level.
When the President engaged, he did so with a position of
strength that was not available to Presidents, you know, when I
was growing up as a young kid in Louisiana. When we were an
importing nation not an exporting nation, we didn't have the
authority, we didn't have the positioning in the world
marketplace that would have allowed a President then to do what
this President did, and that was to bring these parties
together and resolve this dispute immediately, which brought
stability to the world energy markets and the world oil
markets.
It is that availability to provide leadership in a foreign
policy context that, you know, makes us understand why is it
important that we have this energy industry.
Mr. Johnson. Yeah. And I agree with you a hundred percent.
And another corollary to that is commercial nuclear energy and
our commercial nuclear entrepreneurs. We have got to win that
battle with the Chinese and the Russians as well.
Under your leadership, DOE has launched a variety of new
initiatives including the Advanced Reactor Demonstration
Program to accelerate the commercialization of new designs that
are cheaper and smaller with additional safety benefits. And I
was proud to reintroduce the Strengthening America Nuclear
Competitiveness Act to help streamline the export of U.S.
civilian nuclear technologies.
So how does your work to formulate more bilateral nuclear
cooperation agreements, recent International Development
Finance Corporation action to repeal its limitation on nuclear
deals, and legislative Part 810 reforms that I have proposed,
how does that fit all together to position American nuclear
entrepreneurs to seize this immense global economic opportunity
and why is it important for us?
Secretary Brouillette. Sure. Well, in a nutshell, sir, it
is very important for us to export U.S. nuclear technology
around the world because it comes with it as you point out
certain restrictions. Things like 123 restrictions, Section
123, it is part of the U.S. Code that restricts the use of
nuclear fuels for the purposes of developing warheads, so a
very important nonproliferation aspect to the export of U.S.
nuclear technologies. China and Russia doesn't recognize that.
They don't have those types of restrictions. So to the extent
that countries want to buy those technologies we also accept
the risk that they may develop a warhead, so it is very, very
important to our national security that we export U.S. nuclear
technology.
You mentioned the other things that we are doing in our
national laboratories. We are moving forward with things like
the Advanced Test Reactor which allow us to develop not only
the, you know, the reactor technologies, but also the materials
that are needed to build these reactors and the nuclear
components. If we can do that with the Advanced Test Reactor,
if we can develop, potentially under the auspices of the laws
that were passed recently, a versatile test reactor, if
Congress chooses to fund that we can test materials that make
the U.S. technologies even cheaper and more competitive on the
world market.
And as we do that, again, we create economic opportunity
here. We create national security because those technologies
will come with the nonproliferation safeguards that the U.S.
law requires.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you very much.
Mr. Chairman, thanks for indulging. I yield back.
Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
recognizes Mr. Kennedy for 5 minutes.
Mr. Kennedy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, good to see you and thank you for being
here. I am glad to have this opportunity to speak directly with
you about an issue that I believe this country must make a
priority. It is not going to be a surprise to anybody in this
committee--offshore wind development. As members of the
committee well know this has been a priority of mine since I
first arrived in Congress. I have had the opportunity to
discuss this issue with a few of your predecessors, Mr.
Secretary, and I look forward to this conversation as well.
The research, development and, critically, the deployment
of offshore wind in the United States holds immense promise.
From the clear climate benefits of utilizing an abundant,
renewable natural resource, the economic impact on ratepayers
to the benefits are undeniable. In New England, and in
Massachusetts in particular, we pay amongst the highest retail
electric rates in the lower 48 states. Taking advantage of a
renewable natural resource that we have right off the coast
makes perfect sense.
In March of 2020--oh, excuse me. But beyond the climate and
economic benefits, the promise of offshore wind is the growth
and incubation of an entire new industry. It includes direct
and indirect jobs, many of which will require high-skilled,
American, union labor and to realize its immense potential.
In March of 2020, the American Wind Energy Association
released its U.S. Offshore Wind Power Economic Impact
Assessment. Among the findings we estimated that, quote,
developing 30,000 megawatts of offshore wind along the East
Coast could support up to 83,000 jobs and deliver 25 billion in
economic output by 2030. And that is just the potential on the
East Coast.
As you know, the Federal Government is currently evaluating
proposals off the coast of Massachusetts. So my first question,
Mr. Secretary, is how is DOE coordinating with other federal
agencies, including the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, to
address the jurisdictional issues surrounding offshore wind?
Secretary Brouillette. Thank you, sir, and I appreciated
the opportunity as well to catch up with you by telephone over
the weekend. I enjoyed our conversation and I look forward to
working with you.
You know, we work closely with EPA, the Department of
Interior in certain cases if it is dealing with offshore wind,
to ensure that the permitting processes are streamlined. We
mentioned earlier our need for efforts and other things that we
are working on. We are going to continue that effort because we
do recognize that, you know, the provision of wind energy, the
provision of solar energy, the provision of nuclear energy, the
provision of, you know, other forms of energy, hydro, are key
to our energy diversity here in the United States.
And as we talked about earlier, with regard to national
security it is that diversity that allows us the strength that
we need in America to continue growing the economy at the pace
in which we are going to grow it. I am very supportive of your
efforts there locally. I am happy to help you in any way that I
might be able to.
Mr. Kennedy. I appreciate that, sir.
So building off that, I want to get a sense of what DOE is
doing to ensure that offshore wind not only connects to the
grid, but then get that grid to power of load center given the
permitting issues that you have discussed.
Secretary Brouillette. Sure. We need to continue to develop
infrastructure here in the United States, transmission
infrastructure, distribution infrastructures so that we can get
the power where it needs to be.
You know, we have unique challenges here in the United
States with the provision of renewable energy. If you think
about it, it becomes very logical. There is lots of sunshine in
places like Arizona and New Mexico and the southwest part of
the country. Getting that electrical power to perhaps Chicago
or high-density areas in the United States can be a bit of a
challenge.
And, you know, while we are very sensitive to the ability
of local communities and states to be a part of the regulatory
process or the permitting process, I should say, it is also
important that we find a path forward to develop the
infrastructure that we need to move the power from where it is
generated to where it needs to be. And it is an ongoing effort
not only at the Department of Energy, but the EPA, Department
of Interior, other bodies, state and local institutions as
well. And it has been a very robust conversation and I look
forward to being an even larger part of it.
Mr. Kennedy. And, Mr. Secretary, just because my time is
running a bit short here, I wanted to flag that you and I had
discussed previously about taking advantage of the potential of
offshore wind development in the Northeast and the economic
impact that this would have along these coasts and in
particularly southeastern Massachusetts.
About a Center of Excellence on Offshore Wind, I had sent a
letter to the Assistant Secretary of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy a few weeks ago and would love to get a
response and keep in contact with your agency to figure out
what we can do to make that come about.
Secretary Brouillette. Sure. I will certainly follow up
with Dan Simmons and get you some additional information.
But I would also like to get together with you, and I would
also, if I might, sir, take this opportunity to invite you to
our National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden, Colorado. I
think you would be pleased with that particular Center of
Excellence. That is one of its focal points.
Mr. Kennedy. I look forward to it, sir. Thanks very much,
Mr. Secretary.
Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
recognizes Mr. Bucshon from Indiana for 5 minutes.
Mr. Bucshon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you, Secretary. I would like to focus on grid
reliability and resilience. Some of this has already been
discussed, but, you know, the COVID-19 impact has made it even
more front and center. And as you know, a key principle to a
resilient grid is the need for diverse fuel and generation
supply for the electrical sector. And I am a supporter of the
all-of-the-above energy approach and I believe each fuel mix
plays a key role in our grid especially during a public health
emergency.
However, it is important that we don't forget the critical
role baseload energy such as coal and natural gas play to our
grid reliability. And it is more important than ever that our
grid has a reliable backbone to make sure the lights always
stay on and our frontline workers have the electricity they
need.
I want to applaud the DOE at remaining committed to clean
coal in our energy mix, as you have discussed earlier during
the hearing, and by you recently announcing the Coal FIRST
Initiative which will work to make coal plants flexible,
innovative, resilient, small, and transformative with the goal
of one day having these plants be emission-free. In Southwest
Indiana that I represent, we have all the coal in the state of
Indiana. Our state at one point had about 85 percent of its
power from coal. It is now quite a bit less, but still
substantial based on our expansion of renewable energy sources.
But a couple of things, questions I have. Can you explain
maybe what, if any, lessons you learned and are continuing to
learn during the COVID-19 pandemic that can help ensure our
grid remains reliable and resilient?
Secretary Brouillette. Sure, I am happy to do that. I mean,
you know, it is the most, I think, striking example, obvious
example is the importance of electricity to everything we do. I
mean if we take a step back and just imagine for a moment the
horror that would result from a loss of power in, say, New York
City or one of our major cities where the pandemic was
particularly acute at least in the early stages, the loss of
power there would just be devastating.
Our ability to replace the power is somewhat limited. I
mean some of these folks have backup generators and what not,
but those are very short in nature. So just the importance of
the electricity grid is just, you know, first and foremost. And
it forced us to recognize, you know, as I mentioned to Mr.
Kennedy and others, the need for additional infrastructure here
in the United States, the additional emphasis that we placed on
cybersecurity throughout this pandemic because if you were an
adversary you would look at this as potentially an opportunity
to do some damage to the grid and to the American economy, so
our vigilance has been raised as a result of this pandemic.
Sir, to your question about clean coal and the
announcements that we made with Coal FIRST, I think that is a
fascinating program at the Department of Energy. It is designed
to bring the next generation of coal generation to market. The
facilities that we are looking at are smaller. They are much
more efficient. And, importantly, when they are combined with
things like biomass and the technologies that are available to
us in the Coal FIRST, actually have the ability to have a net
negative carbon emissions footprint.
So it is a fascinating technology that we want to continue
to work on and develop and potentially see moving to the
private sector at some point in the future. So thank you for
your interest in the program and I look forward to keeping you
updated on it.
Mr. Bucshon. Well, thank you. And again, thanks to the what
the Department of Energy is doing in the research realm. And I
want to reiterate what other members have said and I think you
have said during this hearing is that it is important that we
don't limit ourselves to research and development in only one
area of energy generation.
And I think, you know, there is a push right now to forget
about coal, forget about natural gas and other fossil fuels,
whereas, with innovative research and development this can be a
substantial contributor as far as our lifetimes and probably
into the future and also be a major contributor to making sure
that we have a more reliable and resilient grid that will help
protect us as you mentioned on the national security front, but
more importantly improve the lives of the citizens that we
represent.
So, thanks for your work and continue the good work you are
doing more broadly across the energy space and I hope the
Congress continues to support that.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
recognizes the gentlelady from New Hampshire, Ms. Kuster, for 5
minutes.
Ms. Kuster. Great. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr.
Chair. Sorry, I am having a little difficulty with my computer.
Just trying to get to my remarks. Oh, well.
I wanted to ask a question today about the responding to
COVID-19 and the economic recovery from COVID-19. And thank
you, Mr. Secretary, for being with us. It is important for
Americans to see that their government is doing everything in
their power to help keep them safe, and I know from our
discussion yesterday that you, the Department of Energy, has
been helpful in combating COVID-19 directly. And I think my
constituents would be pleased to hear how the Department of
Energy is leveraging the full range of its facilities in the
fight against this terrible disease that has been so disruptive
in our country.
So how are researchers at the Department of Energy using
the massive computing power at their disposal to help us
understand COVID-19 and explore potential treatments and how
might this research help us get this pandemic under control?
Secretary Brouillette. Sure. I am happy to address that.
The national laboratories have been front and center on some of
the early findings with regard to COVID. So, for instance, at
Argonne National Laboratory they use very high powered light
beams and light sources and x-ray technologies, and what they
are able to do is identify certain protein strains that would
further lead to potential drug compounds that would have
positive impacts on this particular virus, this COVID-19.
They were able to do that because of the supercomputing
capacities at Argonne and Oak Ridge and some other national
laboratories in very, very short amounts of time. So, you know,
the very, you know, practical or, you know, for myself, a
layman's way of understanding it, rather than taking a year or
two to go through perhaps billions of pages of academic
research to find the most relevant articles, they could do that
in a day or perhaps two days by using the speed of the
computers to sift through it.
The same thing with drug compounds, they were able to look
through several thousand, perhaps even more, drug compounds to
find the first 70 or 77 or so that they could identify as
having a potential positive impact on this virus. So it is
using that ability that allowed the CDC, allowed the
researchers and the doctors at HHS and other interagency
partners to make those key first decisions and potentially
limit the impact of this pandemic.
Ms. Kuster. So I want to direct my comments to the
disruption that has been caused by COVID-19. You and I
discussed yesterday the opportunity to build back better than
before and I would love to hear your thoughts on the dramatic
advancements that have been made in increasing solar and wind
energy production and how we can envision a rule for renewable
energy that will place our economic recovery from the COVID-19
pandemic and keep us moving forward so that we can not only
rebuild our economy, but come back stronger with jobs here in
America.
Secretary Brouillette. Thank you for the conversation
yesterday. I really enjoyed that.
You know, with regard to the future of some of these
renewable technologies, I do think we have an opportunity in
America not only as a result of the pandemic, but I think just
as a result of the changing consumer desires to develop some
advanced technologies. For instance, you know, the solar world
in which we had discussed yesterday and I may have mentioned in
the earlier part of this hearing, you know, we at the DOE, we
look at photovoltaics as somewhat antiquated. It is a very
mature technology. If you want a solar panel you can usually
get one in America. You can usually get it installed on your
house very, very quickly. I know that there has been some
slowdown as a result of the pandemic, but nonetheless the
technology is available to most U.S. consumers or world
consumers.
What we are looking at is the next generation of solar
technology, the use of perovskites, the use of other materials
that perhaps are organic here in the United States or around
the world, or they may be manmade technologies or manmade
materials that we use to make the next generation of solar
panels. If we can unlock that, if we can move forward with that
type of technology and, more importantly, get it to the
marketplace through either our Office of Technology Transitions
or other methodologies to get it to the marketplace, then we
have an enormous economic opportunity ahead of us.
And, you know, with regard to our support here at the DOE,
we support all forms of energy. We will continue to do so
because as I mentioned earlier, we feel very strongly that adds
not only to our economic and energy security, but our national
security as well.
Ms. Kuster. Thank you very much. My time is up. I did have
a question on negative emission technology and direct air
capture, but I will submit that for the record. Thank you. And
I yield back.
Mr. Rush. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair now
recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Flores, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Flores, please unmute your microphone.
Mr. Flores. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Secretary
Brouillette. It is great to have you testifying again to us
today. I just wanted to let you know it is a hundred degrees
here in my part of Texas and my solar system is producing 100
percent of my energy needs. So, I am doing my part for the grid
and also for the emissions of the country.
Mr. Secretary, as you know we have talked quite a bit today
about maintaining national security and maintaining U.S. energy
dominance and that those are key inputs for continued economic
opportunity for hardworking Americans. And as you pointed out
in one of your earlier responses, we need to aggressively
support innovation and private sector partnerships,
particularly when it comes to the use and development of
advanced nuclear reactors to regain our global leadership role
when it comes to nuclear energy.
You also mentioned the critical need to make sure that high
assay, low enriched uranium or HALEU, as we all call it, is
available in sufficient quantities. You did say earlier that
the Department of Energy is working on trying to make this fuel
source available. Can you give us a little bit more detail, a
little bit more substance about what the Energy Department is
doing so that we can regain that leadership role in the nuclear
space?
And then also if you think there is additional legislative
support that is needed, share that information as well. Thank
you.
Secretary Brouillette. Thank you, Mr. Flores. Keep that a/c
on. It gets really hot. It gets really hot down there. It was
great to be in Texas last week. I am sorry I missed you.
With regard to the HALEU project that you are talking
about, what we have instituted is a pilot project. We are going
to do the supports with Ohio where we had an existing facility
so we didn't need to construct new facilities to do this. Our
intent is to spend about $115 million that was appropriated by
the U.S. Congress to take some centrifuges that we had down in
Oak Ridge, move them to Ohio, and create this high assay LEU
which is enriched to a range somewhere around 19 percent.
We hope that this will catalyze--and that project is
underway. The casings have moved to Ohio. We have some
additional construction to do inside of the facility, but we
hope to have this completed by sometime midpoint next year,
perhaps at the end of next year, and begin producing in limited
quantities this particular fuel source. We are also at the same
time using our Idaho National Laboratory to move forward with
some research and development and potentially some more
aggressive work, actually deployment of a small modular reactor
which doesn't use this type of fuel, but is nonetheless a newer
technology that we would like to see come to market soon.
With regard to the HALEU fuel that I mentioned earlier,
what we will use that for is an advanced or a micro reactor and
INL is at the tip of the spear force in the development of that
technology as well, so we are going to work closely with them.
We are going to work closely with the U.S. Department of
Defense who has indicated an interest in the small nuclear
reactors for perhaps some deployment to remote locations where
radar stations are, you know, located around the world and,
quite candidly, they don't have access to energy sources as we
do in the lower 48 perhaps. I am thinking about Alaska, places
like the Aleutian Islands.
So we are moving very aggressively to move this technology
out to the marketplace.
Mr. Flores. OK, very good. And as you know, my HALEU bill
has passed the House not only in the last Congress but also in
this Congress and it helps give you the statutory authority you
need for the development and transportation of this fuel and by
setting public-private partnerships. We are hoping the Senate
will act soon. What other legislative support do you need to
help us regain our dominance in this area?
Secretary Brouillette. Well, that bill is very important,
so thank you for your leadership there and thank you for your
support of both the technology as well as the program within
DOE. I look forward to supporting that all throughout the
process.
With regard to other legislative authorities, at this point
in time I don't have anything for you in terms of a specific
need, but I am happy to discuss this with you further and look
through our legal authorities and see if there might be
anything that might present a roadblock to us in the future for
the development of this type of fuel or the advanced nuclear
technologies that we just discussed.
Mr. Flores. OK. And thank you for your testimony and thank
you for your answers to my questions. And let me know when INL
is opened up for congressional visitors again because that is
on my wish list of places to visit. Thank you.
Secretary Brouillette. Love to have you. We would love to
have you.
Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
recognizes the gentlelady from Illinois, Ms. Kelly, for 5
minutes.
Ms. Kelly. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. Thank you for
convening us.
And thank you, Mr. Secretary, for spending part of your day
with us. I wanted to ask you about the Department of Energy
envisioning creating jobs through modernization and all kind of
jobs whether you have a high school diploma or you have your
masters. What are you thinking about that?
Secretary Brouillette. What am I thinking about in terms of
the economic development or the----
Ms. Kelly. What will be opportunities?
Secretary Brouillette. I am sorry. I didn't quite get that.
I apologize.
Ms. Kelly. No, that is OK. How is DOE envisioning creating
jobs through the grid modernization, whether it is you just
have a high school diploma or you have a master's degree, what
type of jobs will be available?
Secretary Brouillette. Sure. Yeah, I am sorry. I couldn't
quite catch the first part of your question.
You know, at the DOE what we are very interested in doing
is creating opportunities not only for scientists, you know,
the vast bulk of the population and the workforce at DOE
including our contractor base, are, you know, PhD-level
scientists. They are nuclear engineers, nuclear physicists,
other types of scientists throughout our laboratory system.
What we need to do though is perhaps be more aggressive in
developing the pipeline for that sort of talent. And what we
are now focused on is development of programs, internships,
fellowships, that would be used by even high school seniors, or
high school juniors in some cases, to come and spend a summer
with us, come and spend a few weeks with us and let us show you
what it is that we do. And through that process perhaps
generate some interest in STEM education curriculums that
perhaps would lead to these students coming back to us as
perhaps post-docs ten years later.
So we are very aggressively pursuing that. We are also
looking for opportunities to partner with private industry as
well because we don't pretend to have a monopoly on the
development of talent here in America at the Department of
Energy, although I think we do a pretty good job of it. We do
want to partner with our colleagues in private industry and
work with them to develop STEM curricula in certain cases and,
importantly, just develop the opportunity for students to come
in at a very early age and see what it is we do.
Ms. Kelly. That is wonderful. And I hope when you are
thinking of that, that you think about a diverse pipeline also.
Then I wanted to move to empty buildings and working with
our cities and towns to think about reconfiguration of existing
buildings so they are healthier, they incorporate more
touchless techs, create better air ventilation and spacing. So
what do you recommend to cities and towns to, I guess, just to
have healthier buildings, more green buildings?
Secretary Brouillette. As we discussed earlier, I mean
focusing on efficiency, focusing on the programs that we have,
you know, we have the federal energy program, FEMP as it is
known, for federal buildings, but focusing on energy efficiency
and what we might do to improve the efficiency of some of these
buildings is clearly important.
But I might add that, you know, this is going to be a much
larger issue for us perhaps in the next few months or perhaps
years as we, you know, address the changes in society as a
result of this pandemic. I have talked to several colleagues in
private industry who have already indicated to me that perhaps
telework may be the future for many of the employees at their
respective companies. If that is the case, we are going to have
some additional space available in these buildings all around,
including in the small communities that you mentioned earlier.
Ms. Kelly. If you, I don't know if you know the answer, but
if you were to give, I know there is not one grade of A through
F, but how do you feel like our towns and cities are doing as
far as greener, cleaner, more technically sound buildings? Do
you feel like we have lots and lots of work to do or we are
halfway there?
Secretary Brouillette. I don't know with regard to specific
buildings or towns. I couldn't provide that kind of grade. I
will provide a pretty high grade though for the development of
the technologies that are leading us to more efficient use of
energy all across the country.
What private industry is doing, I think is absolutely
remarkable. As we mentioned earlier in this hearing, what our
scientists are doing at our national laboratories, the
development of new solar technologies, the development of new
technologies that allow us to capture carbon in certain
instances, not only from fuels like coal but perhaps even
natural gas and others, I give them very, very high marks for
the work that is being done there.
Ms. Kelly. Well, thank you. Thank you for your work and
thank you for joining us and I yield back.
Secretary Brouillette. Thank you.
Mr. Rush. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair now
recognizes the gentlelady from California, Ms. Barragan, for 5
minutes.
I am sorry.
Ms. Barragan. Mr. Chairman, am I up?
Mr. Rush. I am sorry, no. The Chair recognizes Mr. Hudson
for 5 minutes. Mr. Hudson?
Mr. Hudson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being here with us today. I
also just wanted to thank you and President Trump for your
incredible leadership on behalf of our energy sector during
this most trying time for our country.
As you know, I represent the amazing men and women of Fort
Bragg in North Carolina. These include the nation's immediate
response force, the 82nd Airborne, our Army Special Forces, and
other critical military components. As we face threats around
the globe, it is of paramount importance our bases at home and
our foreign and remote operating bases have the sustainable
energy supply they need to keep us safe. You and President
Trump have made this a priority and for that I am very
grateful.
As this committee and your Department develop new energy
technologies to adequately supply our armed forces, I believe
the future of our defense energy supply and our focus should
reside with small modular and advanced nuclear reactors. In
fact, back in 2018, I had an amendment to the National Defense
Authorization Act that requires the Department of Energy and
the Department of Defense to develop guidelines for a pilot
program for the development of micro reactors at critical DOE
and DOD sites.
I am very interested in this report's recommendations for
our forward operating bases and for increasing energy
resilience at bases like Fort Bragg. But, unfortunately, the
report is still at OMB, so I would appreciate anything you can
do to assist me in getting this report finalized so we can move
it forward.
Just to get to my questions, build a little bit on what Mr.
Flores was asking you about, there was a recent report from the
Nuclear Fuel Working Group which outlined how America could
reestablish itself as a global leader in nuclear technologies.
This report supported next generation nuclear reactors. Can you
comment on this report and some of your work on small modular
and advanced nuclear reactors?
Secretary Brouillette. Sure. I am happy to do that, sir,
and thank you as well for the conversation that we had recently
on the telephone. I appreciated learning more about your
congressional district, and I might also--I am a little bit
envious of your representation of Fort Bragg. As a former Army
tank commander and drill sergeant, I spent a little time down
in North Carolina and I miss my days there. So thank you for
your service and thank you for your representation of that
important Army installation.
With regard to your question about the Nuclear Fuels
Working Group, what we had discussed earlier, I think, is very
important for the future of nuclear energy not only here in the
United States but around the world. As I mentioned in one of
the earlier questions, we have lost our leadership in America
on nuclear power. We are losing it very quickly to places like
China and Russia. In the case of China, they are using
technologies that I think can be fairly characterized as
American technology.
Westinghouse is perhaps the world's leader in the
development of advanced nuclear technologies. They created a
reactor. It is called the AP1000. It is a fantastic product.
China developed a reactor that looks awfully similar and we are
seeing them deploy that around the world. And, importantly, as
I mentioned earlier, they deployed around the world without the
safeguards, without the nonproliferation safeguards that we as
Americans feel is very, very important. To the extent that we
don't focus on that we only increase our defense needs around
the world.
You know, if we allow rogue nations to develop this
technology and from that develop warhead programs, we only
increase our need for a strong defense here in the United
States. So it is very, very important that we connect these
things together in a way that allows us to move forward and
perhaps regain our leadership in this nuclear area. The Working
Group is the first step of that. We have many steps to go. But
we do feel it is a very credible strategy that lays out a road
map for America to retain, or regain our leadership in this
case in the nuclear space.
Mr. Hudson. Well, I agree with you and I think that work is
very important, and I appreciate your leadership. But as you
know, in order to effectively run an advanced reactor, you must
have the necessary fuel. This committee has done work on
advanced fuels, Mr. Flores and Mr. McNerney, and as Mr. Flores
mentioned right before me, on high assay, low enriched uranium
fuels. Can you talk about what DOE is doing to help with
accident-tolerant fuels which are critical for existing and for
these advanced reactors?
Secretary Brouillette. Sure, absolutely. The accident-
tolerant fuels are absolutely necessary, in my view, not only
for the development of the advanced reactors and the smaller
reactors that we talked about earlier, it is important as well
for changing the public perception about nuclear power in the
first instance.
We are still dealing with the overhang in America of things
like Three-Mile Island. We obviously are dealing with the
overhang of international events like Chernobyl and Fukushima.
We all know about those horrible accidents. If we can develop a
fuel that allows us to develop a technology that in certain
cases you can turn the cooling off to the reactor and nothing
happens, it simply shuts down, it is completely accident-
tolerant, that is important to changing that public perception
and perhaps will increase public acceptance of this important
energy source.
As I mentioned earlier as well, it is important that we
have all forms of energy, but nuclear in particular because it
provides such an important baseload component to our electric
grid here in the United States. And until we have the battery
technologies that we are all working on, then there is no
physical possible way for us to move to a one hundred percent
renewable world, if that is what some are pursuing. We can't do
it today without baseload electricity, and nuclear energy is
just such an important component of that.
Mr. Hudson. Great. Well, thank you, sir. I appreciate it
and look forward to continuing these discussions.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
recognizes the gentlelady from California, Ms. Barragan, for 5
minutes.
Ms. Barragan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you, Mr. Secretary, for joining us. My first
question is, over 620,000 clean energy workers have lost their
jobs since the start of the pandemic including over 100,000 in
California. You were vocal in your testimony about supporting
the fossil fuel industry. Can you tell me what you are doing to
help the clean energy industry rebound?
And if you could try to do that in 60 seconds, I have a
number of questions I am trying to get to, Mr. Secretary.
Secretary Brouillette. Yes, ma'am. I am happy to do that.
Yes, I have been very vocal in my support for the energy
industry, but all forms of energy. The pandemic has hit all
sectors of the U.S. economy. I don't know if it has been an
equal distribution, but the pain has been felt all across the
United States. And I am supportive of, you know, the programs
that you and your leadership in Congress, others in Congress,
have done in the last 2 perhaps 3 months in passing programs
like the CARES Act, other steps that you have taken to
stabilize the U.S. economy as we deal with this pandemic.
I want to ensure that--
Ms. Barragan. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. If I could just
interrupt you, I am trying to get to the questions. Is there
anything specifically you can tell me about what you are going
to do to help the clean energy industry rebound, anything
specifically you might be able to mention?
Secretary Brouillette. Well, I think, you know, under the
energy efficiency program at the Department of Energy we are
going to continue to invest through our funding opportunity
processes. We have released, I think, in the last 2 or 3 months
we have announced that we have about $220 million in funding
opportunities that are coming exclusively out of the clean
energy space in our energy efficiency programs. We are going to
continue to make those available to the private sector and make
those available so that they can move forward with some of the
newer technologies that they want to bring to market and
hopefully that will add some economic assistance to their
businesses as well.
Ms. Barragan. OK, thank you, sir.
It was reported in April that your agency is holding back
$43 billion in loan guarantees earmarked by Congress for clean
energy projects. Why withhold support for the clean energy
projects?
Secretary Brouillette. Well it is--I would disagree
slightly with the characterization. It is a loan program that
is available within the Department of Energy, but it is not
available exclusively to clean energy so we are not withholding
that money from the clean energy industry. What I have done is
undertake a review of the loan program, because coming from the
banking industry I was a little concerned about some of the
requirements that were being put in place that might prevent
loans from being made.
That review is still in process and I hope to complete it
very, very shortly and at some point in the future we will move
forward with this lending program.
Ms. Barragan. Well, I hope you will work as quickly for the
clean energy projects and sector as you have been for the
fossil fuel industry, sir. I happen to represent a district
that is almost 90 percent Latino/African American. They are
surrounded by three freeways, the port, and urban oil drilling.
Mr. Secretary, what is environmental injustice or
environmental justice mean to you?
Secretary Brouillette. It means the availability of energy
to all sectors of our nation and all communities in our nation.
My commitment to environmental justice is very broad. We talked
a lot today about energy efficiency and making energy cheaper.
I think that is very important for us to do. That is part of
this program.
And it is my commitment to you, it is my commitment to this
Congress to pursue those types of technologies that allow the
distribution of energy very, very efficiently in America and,
importantly, very cheaply in America.
Ms. Barragan. Well, sir, much like your predecessor, when
asked this question you were talking about consumer pricing.
But let me just tell you, environmental injustice is when there
is a disproportionate impact to our communities of color, our
black and brown communities that are suffering a much higher
rate of air pollution.
And so when you talk about rolling back air standards, when
you talk about making it easier for the fossil fuel industry,
you are talking about harming the health of our communities of
color. And then COVID hits, and guess what? They are dying at
higher rates because they have higher asthma and they are more
exposed to this air pollution. And so it is very challenging.
If you haven't noticed, there are protesters all across this
country right now demanding justice and that includes
environmental justice. And so I would ask you to take a very
serious look at efforts that you can take to help fix this huge
problem that we have.
Do you believe in environmental racism?
Secretary Brouillette. Well, I understand your concern and
I think we happen to agree on the need for cleaner technologies
going into the marketplace. But I would add that, you know,
what is important is that we not only have the development of
the technologies so that we can--
Ms. Barragan. Mr. Secretary, the question was whether you
believe in environmental racism.
Secretary Brouillette. I am not sure what you mean by that.
Ms. Barragan. Do you, yes or no?
Secretary Brouillette. I don't know what you mean by that.
Ms. Barragan. Well, it is a term to describe environmental
injustices that occur across our country to certain communities
including black and brown communities that are
disproportionately impacted.
Secretary Brouillette. I believe that there are communities
that are perhaps disproportionately impacted, I just don't
understand what you mean by the term ``environmental racism.''
Ms. Barragan. OK. Well, I can certainly follow up with you
and we should have this conversation because it goes hand in
hand about what is happening across this country and why our
communities of color are disproportionately impacted.
And, sir, I know my time has expired but I will welcome
that conversation.
Mr. Rush. The lady yields back.
Ms. Barragan. And with that I yield back.
Mr. Rush. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from
Michigan, Mr. Walberg, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Walberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being here, and I think
it is very apparent that you have reached out. Like the
administration does, you have reached out to talk to us,
members of this committee and subcommittee and on both sides of
the aisle, and I appreciate that openness to hear our concerns,
our ideas, and get to know us a little better as well.
Secretary Brouillette. This committee, you have trained it
very well.
Mr. Walberg. Well, I appreciate the fact that you will be
coming to Michigan later this week also. And on the glide path
in the airport, most likely, you will look down and you will
see my district and you will see why it is the energy district
of the state with the nuclear, with the coal, one of the most
up-to-date, modern coal plants that is still allowed to
function as well as natural gas and manufacturing of wind
energy as well in my district.
So, we are delighted to have you there. Plus, unlike some
of my Texas colleagues, you are not going to find hundred-
degree weather. In fact, when I left the airport today it was
70 degrees, very low humidity, blue skies, and pure Michigan,
and we look forward to sharing that with you.
Four years ago, FERC held a technical conference to discuss
a needed modernization of rules relative to PURPA, a law that
is a 1978 law that had very strong, positive results in moving
us toward renewable energy and doing it in such a way that
right now it has worked so well that all energy providers have
moved into that realm. But it is also in its present format
causing unnecessary billions of dollars to be paid by consumers
because of the outdated law.
And so as you know, I have been heavily involved for years
now in trying to reform that and I am pleased that FERC had
undertaken four years ago an attempt to modernize it and is
currently preparing to adopt critical components of reform
included in legislation that I have championed over the past
several Congresses. Due to COVID-19, utilities in my home state
in Michigan have reported an increase in residential usage due
to more people staying at home.
Mr. Secretary, in your opinion, what impacts would reforms
to PURPA such as waiving the mandatory purchase obligations for
qualified facilities have on lowering utility costs for
consumers at a time when domestic demand for electricity
increased in this new stay-at-home economy?
Secretary Brouillette. That is a great question and
probably requires a more thoughtful answer than I am going to
be able to provide you in 30 seconds. But look, I think
generally, sir, you know, PURPA needs to be reformed. It was
written many, many years ago, I think 1978 or so to be exact.
You give or take a few years from there, but I think it is
1978, and much has changed, you know, since then.
We talked about technology today quite a bit, but the
markets themselves have changed. Back in that point in time,
you know, utilities were vertically integrated. Today they are
not. We have very competitive markets. And I think it is, you
know, appropriate for Congress, for FERC, for others to go back
and take a look at this law and see if it still meets the needs
of the American people.
I might suggest that there are some changes that are long
overdue with regard to PURPA, so I would support a review of
the law.
Mr. Walberg. We appreciate that and I am glad to see what
is being done with FERC. I do believe that, ultimately, we need
to do it legislatively, so it is permanent, but it has some
flexibility in it, unlike the 1978 law.
Secretary Brouillette. Sure.
Mr. Walberg. The Office of Cybersecurity, Energy Security,
and Emergency Response, CESER, leads the Department of Energy's
emergency preparedness and coordinated response to disruptions
to the energy sector including physical and cyber-attacks,
natural disasters, and manmade events.
Two questions. The first is, can you please describe the
role of the CESER Office over the last few months as it relates
to COVID-19 outbreak?
And, secondly, Mr. Rush and I, Chairman Rush and I have
introduced the Energy Emergency Leadership Act which would help
ensure the durability of DOE leadership in energy emergencies.
As the House considers future measures in response to COVID-19
outbreak, would DOE be better positioned to carry out these
functions in the long term if the Assistant Secretary of CESER
were made permanent in the DOE Organization Act and had clear
authority through congressional authorization?
Secretary Brouillette. The answer to your last question, I
think I would answer that question yes.
And I want to say thank you to both you and Chairman Rush
for your support of that particular office. It has been
absolutely essential. And as we saw in this particular
pandemic, it has become increasingly important not only for
purposes of its role with regard to cybersecurity, but its role
with regard to the catastrophic response efforts. It was the
CESER Office that provided the masks and provided the testing
kits and delivered those to the utilities.
It was the CESER Office that worked closely with the CEOs
of the utilities all across the country to ensure that the
control room personnel in particular were quarantined and had
done the proper social distancing so that we didn't lose them
at some point in this pandemic. Very critical role within the
Department and I think a very critical role within the industry
itself. And I think if you mentioned this to other utility CEOs
you will find a similar response.
Mr. Walberg. Thank you. I appreciate it.
And, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
recognizes Mr. Peters from California for 5 minutes.
Mr. Peters. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you to the Secretary for being with us today.
During this administration, sir, there has been a shift in what
to do with nuclear waste. Can you tell us what you think is the
appropriate path forward on spent nuclear fuel storage? Right
next to my district is the San Onofre facility which is now
closed, for better or worse, and leaving it on the coast near a
military base and near that population just doesn't make any
sense.
Secretary Brouillette. Sure. Yes, sir. I am happy to
address that. We feel very strongly in the administration that
we have to address the issue of spent nuclear fuel that is
currently being stored at all of these utilities all across the
country. You mentioned San Onofre. That is a familiar site for
me and a familiar topic of conversation for me inside of the
DOE.
It is important that we address this, but it is also very
clear that Congress has chosen not to fund any activity related
to what was designated as the final repository, Nevada, many
years ago, and as a result of that we are prohibited from
moving forward with that particular repository and we won't
move forward with that repository until Congress decides that
it will, you know, it may want to do that.
In the interim, however, we will focus on some measures
that we might take to provide interim relief from the private
storage or the storage that currently exists today. We have
just begun that process. It will be open. It will be inclusive.
I want to work not only with the policymakers here in Congress,
but also with the governors and the local officials as well so
that together we might find an appropriate solution. But for
the moment, we are frozen by the Congress and the lack of
funding for anything related to the final repository.
Mr. Peters. Would you recommend to Congress and request as
part of your budget request that we do fund the next steps in
processing for finalizing the permitting of Yucca Mountain?
Secretary Brouillette. OK. Now it is on.
I think what we have proposed is a request for funding that
might lead us to develop some of these interim options.
With regard to licensing, I will have to go back and look
at the budget request and see what the specifics were and I
would be happy to respond to you in writing with that answer.
Mr. Peters. You take a legitimate shot at Congress. I was
in the last Congress. We had actually passed a bill that would
have moved Yucca ahead and that has been not the case in this
Congress, but at the same time we have heard mixed signals from
the administration itself. And so if you want to get back on
board with Yucca, I would appreciate doing that directly.
A question about transmission of renewable energy. One of
the things I have heard and I want to see too what your opinion
is on this, is that one of the obstacles in getting renewable
energy from wind farms in places like Texas and from solar
farms in places like Arizona is that interstate transmission is
difficult to build. Is that your sense and what is it that
Congress can do, if that is your sense, to make transmission of
those resources easier to places like Chicago and Detroit where
people might need that renewable energy?
Secretary Brouillette. It is my sense. You know, we have
talked about grid modernization for some years and we have
begun some important work to doing that. The example that you
point out, I think, is absolutely on point. You know, we are
developing generation sources all across the country, but we
lack the ability to move the power from point A to point B.
And, you know, much of our electricity grid is, it is many
years old and it is time that we upgrade these facilities. We
have to make them smart. We have to get them permitted.
Importantly, I think, for the transmission of electricity
we need to look at these large infrastructure projects that
would allow us to do exactly that. It is akin to what we
discussed in the other area. You know, America is now the
world's largest producer of energy in terms of oil and gas, and
our challenge today is not the production. Our challenge in
many cases is actually getting the product to the marketplace,
and the same thing exists with electricity.
Mr. Peters. Does the administration support particular
reforms for permitting interstate transmission lines that would
serve those northern cities, say, with renewable sources from
out of state? And if so, what particular reforms would you
support?
Secretary Brouillette. You know, I would really like to get
back to you with a more thoughtful answer because I think there
are some things that we can work together on to make this a
little easier, you know, for the development of this type of
infrastructure. So rather than perhaps giving you an imprecise
or a less than thoughtful answer, I would appreciate the
opportunity to perhaps respond to you in writing.
Mr. Peters. I look forward to that, Mr. Secretary.
And, Mr. Chairman, my time has expired.
Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary, for coming.
And I yield back.
Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
recognizes Mr. O'Halleran for 5 minutes.
Mr. O'Halleran, please mute your phone. Unmute, rather.
Mr. O'Halleran is experiencing some technical difficulties.
Let us move on.
Ms. Blunt Rochester, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Blunt Rochester. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you so much, Secretary Brouillette, for joining
us today.
One of the many things that COVID-19 pandemic has taught us
is the importance of preparation, and as we start to rebuild
our economy from this ongoing public health pandemic, we must
be intentional about how we rebuild. That means rebuilding an
economy powered by clean energy so that we can have safer and
healthier communities and it also means working together to be
better prepared for future public health emergencies.
Last month, I introduced the Open Back Better Act. This
legislation will ensure that our nation's critical
infrastructure like hospitals and schools is more resilient,
more energy efficient, safer, and more reliable to guard
against future threats, and while creating good jobs and
prioritizing the communities hit hardest by this pandemic.
During a national emergency like a pandemic with the
additional risks from wildlife, hurricanes, and other climate
related disasters, we need more resilient infrastructure. These
upgrades are especially important in communities that have been
overburdened by the impact of pollution, public health
emergencies, and natural disasters.
This is why my legislation prioritizes funding for
environmental justice communities who have been
disproportionately impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic and which
we talked about earlier with Ms. Barragan's testimony. As we
emerge from this health and economic crisis, we must do better
and we must ensure that we are better prepared for the
inevitable future emergencies.
Mr. Secretary, can you discuss why resiliency upgrades to
mission-critical facilities such as our hospitals is so
important during the pandemic?
Secretary Brouillette. Yes, ma'am. I can. You know, as we
have seen with this pandemic and, candidly, as we have seen in
other parts of American history, our reliance upon the electric
grid has just increased exponentially over the course of the
last few decades. Almost everything that we do depends in some
way, shape, or form on the provision of energy, and electricity
in particular.
So as we looked at the pandemic, we obviously were
concerned about the hospitals and the provision of healthcare
throughout America, but as now we have gotten beyond at least
some of the initial moments of the pandemic and we start to
look at how the economy is going to change, we are looking at
things like teleworking. And I don't have to remind anybody in
this hearing, because we are doing it today, you can't telework
without wife. You don't have wife without electricity.
So the importance of the grid to our daily life has only
been heightened by this pandemic and we all see it. So it is
important that we think about things like resiliency and
reliability in perhaps a different way than we have in years
past. We have created at the Department of Energy a resiliency
or a resiliency model which is going to allow us when fully
developed, and we are very close to bringing this out, we can
see the entire grid in real time and address challenges that we
may face in almost every part of the country. So be it a cyber
threat or be it a load threat, we work closely with the
utilities and we can see these things in real time and address
them in real time.
And in certain cases, as we further develop the model, we
may be able to predict where we will have load challenges or
particular threats that we need to address so that we can
ensure the safe, reliable provision of electricity.
Ms. Blunt Rochester. Mr. Secretary, thank you for that
answer. And you have kind of preempted one of my questions and
we have many more that we will send to you in writing.
But as you were talking, I am very focused on the future of
work, and as you said, whether it is distance learning,
telework, or telemedicine, telehealth, we have seen an increase
in need. And I am curious. During the pandemic I have been
talking to companies about what has changed in the way that
they operate. Can you talk about what has changed in the way
your Department approach is working with other federal and
state partners to ensure the continued reliability of the U.S.
electric system?
Secretary Brouillette. Sure. I don't know that we have, I
mean the workforce has changed quite dramatically, so I mean we
are in a maximum telework environment now. And I don't have an
exact number for you, but I would be happy to provide you an
update. But if I had to guess today, I would probably suggest
that perhaps 60 percent of the workforce at DOE is now
teleworking. There are certain job functions at the Department,
the delivery of a nuclear warhead to the United States Navy or
the U.S. Air Force, you simply can't do that over the
telephone. You have to physically deliver it.
So we are taking the precaution--
Ms. Blunt Rochester. Are you working differently with other
agencies though? Has anything changed or have you noticed
anything?
Secretary Brouillette. Not so much in that sense. I mean,
you know, we are still very, very interactive. You know, our
teleworking capabilities, we have learned that our networks,
our IT networks are very robust. We have adapted to the new
workplace much like the rest of America has.
Ms. Blunt Rochester. Well, I have run out of time, but I
will follow up with you to ask how does the upcoming hurricane
season impact the electrical system's reliability in this
public health crisis. And thank you so much for your testimony.
And thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Rush. The gentlelady yields back.
Mr. O'Halleran, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Are you there, Mr. O'Halleran? Your audio is not working.
Please unmute.
Mr. O'Halleran, while you are working on your audio, the
Chair will recognize--Mr. O'Halleran, are you there?
The Chair now recognizes two individuals who have waived
onto the committee for the purposes of questioning the witness.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Illinois, Mr.
Shimkus, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Shimkus. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And, Dan, great to have you here. One of my last times to
harass a Secretary of Energy and I had to waive on. I feel like
a freshman. I had to wait like two hours. So, but it is an
important issue and you know the issues. I had to drop off to
talk with the corn growers on fuels and that those questions
have been asked by Dave Loebsack.
So, you also know that a lot of my career has been spent on
nuclear fuel and nuclear waste and I want to talk about, start
with the closing of the fuel cycle and the current federal law
is that the Federal Government should take title to the spent
nuclear fuel and the defense waste. The Nuclear Waste Policy
Act passed in '82 and '87 identified that that was our
responsibility; is that correct?
Secretary Brouillette. It is. Yes, sir.
Mr. Shimkus. And would you also agree that it is the
international scientific consensus that long-term geological
repository for high-level nuclear waste and defense waste is
the international scientific consensus?
Secretary Brouillette. I would agree with that. I think
there is a general consensus in the scientific community that
that is the best long-term way to dispose of the spent fuel.
Mr. Shimkus. Yeah. Britain is looking at it. France is
looking at it. Sweden is looking at it. Finland is looking at
it. So, you know where I am going. It is no surprise that we
have the law of the land for failure of the appropriators to
spend the money. Our spent fuel should be going, and our
defense waste should be going to Yucca Mountain in Nevada,
which has been, done the research, the due diligence, and has
passed the scrutiny of science. So, we will continue to drive
those issues hopefully in other venues.
Let me go to the other really important issue which is the
beginning of the fuel cycle. In the beginning of the fuel cycle
when we are reprocessing, how many plants do we have that
reprocess to help create nuclear fuel in this country?
Secretary Brouillette. I am sorry. I didn't quite hear. How
many plants do we have that reprocess?
Mr. Shimkus. Yeah, or that do the yellow cake into the
process of like we see at Metropolis?
Secretary Brouillette. That do the conversion processes?
Mr. Shimkus. Right.
Secretary Brouillette. To my knowledge I think we only have
one, but I will double check that.
Mr. Shimkus. And that one is, and that one, we believe, is
in Metropolis. And is that operating right now?
Secretary Brouillette. They are in a standby mode, as I
understand. They are not fully operational.
Mr. Shimkus. So, we appreciate this nuclear energy working
group and which addressed the domestic uranium reserve which we
talked about offline, and I appreciate that. And as I raised to
you on our call, there is a gap of work that may help the
reprocessing in the future. Since there is a shutdown now, the
concern is that we are not going to have a facility to deal
with this front end even with this domestic uranium reserve.
Can you talk about some options that might be on the table
to help places like Honeywell in Metropolis, Illinois?
Secretary Brouillette. Sure. I am happy to do that. You
know, as we pointed out in the Nuclear Fuels Working Group, it
is not enough for us just to simply create a uranium reserve.
It is not enough for us to pull it out of the ground and stack
it up someplace and have it available for some future use. You
must convert it. You must enrich it. You must have it available
as fuel for it to have any practical value.
And that is our intent with the Working Group. That is our
intent. That is why we requested $150 million in the
President's budget to establish this reserve. We fully respect
the right of Congress to disagree with that, but we think it is
important for us to do as a nation. With regard to that one
facility, you know, that you mentioned earlier, we think it is
important for us to maintain that type of capability here in
the United States.
And it is my commitment to you, it is our Department's
commitment to you to be focused on that over the course of the
next few days and weeks, because I understand the critical
economic condition in which that particular facility is in and
I look forward to working with you to see what we might do in
terms of finding options or solutions to maintain this
important capability here in the United States.
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you very much.
Chairman, my time has expired. I yield back.
Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. The Chair recognizes
Mr. O'Halleran. Are you there, Mr. O'Halleran?
The Chair now recognizes the final member today who has
also waived on. Mr. Burgess, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Burgess. I thank the chairman for letting me waive on.
I was actually a member of this subcommittee for over a decade,
but when I was called to duty on the Rules Committee, I had to
give up one of my subcommittees and, unfortunately, Energy was
that subcommittee. But happy to be with you, Mr. Secretary. As
we are looked upon by Billy Tauzin's portrait up on the wall,
it is significant that you are here today.
Fascinating discussion hearing you talk about getting
energy from where it is created to where it is needed. Your
predecessor, Secretary Perry, when he was my governor, the
longest-serving governor in Texas history by the way, created
these Competitive Renewable Energy Zones for, as a state
program, but bringing wind energy from West Texas to the
population centers in the eastern part of the state and, of
course, those crossed the district that I represent.
And just like as you might imagine, a pipeline or a highway
bringing those high-tension electrical wires across your
district from west to east can create a great deal of
attention, so it is not just the pipelines. It is not just
other areas, but we are, you know, being in favor of wind
energy means you also need to be in favor of the infrastructure
that is the deliverable to get it to where it is needed. And
again, your predecessor was, when he was Governor of Texas was
certainly very involved in that.
On the issues of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, and you
and I have had an opportunity to talk about this. Can you speak
to where we are with the modernization of the Strategic
Petroleum Reserve and what it, as you see its future utility
might be over and above what its national security implications
have been in the past?
Secretary Brouillette. I would be happy to, Mr. Burgess,
and thank you for your service to Texas. It means a lot to all
of us who live there. Even as an adopted son of Texas, I really
appreciate your service to the state and to the country.
You know, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve is a national
asset and as you well know, because of your long history here
on this committee and in Texas, you know it's important to our
national security. What we need to do with the Strategic
Petroleum Reserve, in my view, is to continue the Life
Extension program that was started some time ago. The facility
has become quite old. It is important that we continue to
maintain it in a way that allows it to continue to be helpful
to the nation.
I would also suggest that the Congress might want to
consider perhaps upgrading some of the facility as well. When
it was designed, it was designed to take in oil. It wasn't
designed to discharge oil. Not very effective. Or, I am sorry,
I had that backwards. It was designed to take it out, not put
it in. And it is very important that we think about, you know,
whether or not we would like to upgrade the facility so that it
would allow us to take in oil even more efficiently than we can
currently do so today.
As you know, you know, the President directed me to fill
the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and we have been doing exactly
that. We are somewhat limited by the amount and the volume of
oil that we can actually take in to the facility itself. So as
we move forward, I would love to work with this committee. I
would love to work with Congress more broadly to think about
how we might upgrade that important facility.
Mr. Burgess. Well, certainly that, in my opinion, was an
oversight to leave the purchase of additional petroleum for the
Strategic Petroleum Reserve out of the CARES Act, and I do have
a bill with Senator Hoeven designed to do just that and I do
want to work with you on that.
Can I just ask you a question? Since I am also on the Rules
Committee, we are going to be hearing about the National
Defense Authorization Act in the Rules Committee at the end of
this week and the whole issue of the authority, taking the
authority from the Department of Energy to some other location
for America's nuclear weapons. Historically, you have
maintained and had the authority over the nation's nuclear
capability. Can you speak to why civilian control of the
nuclear arsenal is so important?
Secretary Brouillette. I think, I don't know that I can
give you all of the details around it, but it is a longstanding
military, it is a longstanding tenet in our national security
apparatus here in the United States. It is one of the reasons I
think, you know, especially when you are talking about nuclear
warheads, I mean we are not talking about side arms. We are not
talking about, you know, 9 millimeter rounds. We are talking
about, you know, weapons of mass destruction. These are very
large warheads.
From its very creation, the Atomic Energy Commission was
created as a civilian agency because it was civilian scientists
who helped develop the technology. It has been those scientists
and their successors who have maintained that capability here
in the United States. It has always been in the Department of
Energy. It has always been in the scientific realm and that is
why we have developed these national laboratories.
It is also why we have developed the supercomputing
capabilities that allow us to simulate things like testing
today. You know, the United States stopped testing its warheads
in 1992. As these warheads now age, it is very, very important
that we monitor that aging process and we ensure the safety and
effectiveness of the stockpile. To do that we rely upon the
national laboratories that are all part of the DOE network and
all part of the DOE enterprise.
And that is why, if Congress is considering a change, I
would urge it leave it within the Department of Energy so that
the NNSA can continue to rely upon these national assets.
Mr. Burgess. I will just commit to you and anything in the
future this committee can do to ensure that the security,
National Nuclear Security Agency stays within the Department of
Energy, I think, is critically important and I will make that
commitment to you as well.
Secretary Brouillette. Thank you.
Mr. Burgess. All right, thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back.
We have some unanimous consent requests that I want to
itemize here and request unanimous consent to enter into the
record a letter from former Secretaries Perry and Moniz to the
Armed Services Committees; a letter from the Secretary of
Energy to Chairman Inhofe; a letter from Chairman Pallone and
Ranking Member Walden to the Armed Services Committee; a letter
from Norm Augustine and Richard Mies to the NDAA Conferees; a
letter from former DOE Secretaries to the NDAA Conferees; a
letter from Ranking Member Upton and former Chairman Waxman to
the Armed Services Committees; a February 2016 memorandum from
the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board; and, finally, a May
2020 op-ed by Secretary Brouillette. And hearing no objection,
the unanimous consent request is approved.
This concludes the witness questioning portion of our
hearing, and I want to thank you, Mr. Secretary, for your
participation in today's hearing. It has been a lengthy
hearing----
Secretary Brouillette. Thank you.
Mr. Rush [continue]. But it has been an excellent hearing
and we thank you for your excellent testimony.
I do remind Members that pursuant to committee rules they
have ten business days to submit additional questions for the
record to be answered by the Secretary who has appeared before
this subcommittee. I ask the Secretary to respond promptly to
any such questions that you may receive.
And at this time, the subcommittee is hereby adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:39 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]