[Senate Hearing 117-]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022
----------
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 23, 2021
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10:01 a.m. in room SD-192, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Dianne Feinstein (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senators Feinstein, Murray, Shaheen, Merkley,
Coons, Kennedy, Hoeven, Hyde-Smith, and Hagerty.
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Office of the Secretary
STATEMENT OF HON. JENNIFER GRANHOLM, SECRETARY
ACCOMPANIED BY DR. CHARLES P. VERDON, ACTING UNDER SECRETARY OF ENERGY
FOR NUCLEAR SECURITY AND ACTING ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE
NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
opening statement of senator dianne feinstein
Senator Feinstein. Good morning, everyone. The Subcommittee
on Energy and Water will come to order.
Today's hearing is going to review the fiscal year 2022
Budget Request for the Department of Energy. And of course that
includes the National Nuclear Security Administration as well.
Ranking Member Kennedy and I will each have a brief
statement, which I am in the process of making. And then we
will recognize each Senator for an opening statement, if they
wish to make one. We will then turn to Secretary Granholm to
present testimony on behalf of the Department of Energy.
Welcome, Madam Secretary. It is good to see you again.
At the conclusion of the witness' testimony, I will
recognize Senators for 5 minutes of questions each, and the
usual procedure.
Secretary Granholm, and you, Dr. Verdon, for joining us
today, thank you again. I am particularly pleased to see the
Secretary who got her start at the University of California,
Berkeley, was a Golden Bear, and later returned to the school
as a faculty member. So your California roots are there, and I
thank you for them.
I would like to just quickly begin by a statement--with the
statement on the fiscal year 2022 request for the Department,
which totals $46.2 billion. This represents a more than $4
billion increase over 2021. And that is a lot of money. I
applaud the administration's resolve to follow California's
model and act aggressively to combat climate change.
We are experiencing a climate emergency today, and
California is on the frontline of this crisis as evidenced by
worsening droughts and wildfires. So we need to find those
solutions that can reverse climate change, if that is possible,
and promptly respond to climate-related disasters.
The budget request makes investments in the fields of basic
research and scientific discovery. We face an increasing
challenge from China, which is seeking to supplant the United
States as a leader technology. And so this also must be
addressed. This budget's investment in research and development
includes a $414 million increase for the Office of Science to
make certain advances in priority areas that put quantum
information science, Exascale computing, and artificial
intelligence, and machine learning; we should, I think, go even
further in funding these important areas.
I will put the remainder of my statement in the record,
but, we would like to proceed.
So if I can, let me welcome the witnesses. No, let me
welcome my Ranking Member. Thank you.
statement of senator john kennedy
Senator Kennedy. Thank you, Madam Chair. I will try to be
brief.
Mr. Under Secretary; welcome Madam Secretary. Welcome. I
don't know whether to call you Secretary, or Governor, or
general, as in attorney general, or professor. I think I will
stick with Secretary.
I am not going to concentrate as much on the arithmetic
today, because I think we all know the President, whatever
President, submits a budget and Congress kind of does what it
wants. I shouldn't say Congress because I don't know how the
House works. I have learned a little bit about how the Senate
works. Senators are like cats. They do what they want.
Sometimes it works out, sometimes it doesn't.
But we are in the process of putting together a budget, and
I don't think I am going out on the limb by saying it will be
different than the President's submission. That is not personal
to President Biden. That is always the case.
I want to say a word about our energy policy. I know a lot
of Departments touch on it, but I am pretty much an-all-of-the-
above-energy type guy. I believe in fossil fuels. I believe if
we can produce wind and so more efficiently, gosh, we ought to
pursue it. I believe in hydrogen, the potential there, or
hydroelectric potential, and nuclear.
And I mean it. I am kind of an all-of-the-above guy. I just
think we ought to pursue whatever works and whatever is most
efficient. I will just make two quick points. I get concerned
about the administration's hostility toward fossil fuels. I do.
I think, not all, but I think with many members of the
administration, it is more of an emotional reaction than a
rational reaction, in my judgment.
As a result of natural gas, we are one of the few major
countries that has reduced our carbon emissions. And that is
just a fact. And we did that because of natural gas. Some
people who believe that we need to--well, they believe we need
to start over with our energy policy, and get rid of fossil
fuels, and if we do that, it is going to be pretty expensive.
And I think for a fraction of the cost, we can try to make
our fossil fuels cleaner. And I am talking about carbon
capture, storage, and utilization. And it makes sense to me to
pursue that. And I think a rational person will pursue that.
Now, somebody who sees climate change, I don't mean this in a
pejorative sense, but somebody who sees the climate change
issue as a religion, is probably not going to look at that. But
I don't think that is rational.
Point two: I think nuclear can be a part of our mix, it is
expensive but it is clean, and it is much safer. And I hope we
can talk about that a little bit today. I watched with
amazement when, Mrs. Merkel in Germany, who I think has done a
pretty good job running her country. It is not my place to say,
but I have got an opinion like everybody else; but I looked in
amazement when she got rid of all of her nuclear and said the
solution to our energy needs is to buy the gas from Russia. And
it never made sense to me. But I guess none of us are perfect.
But I wanted to share those thoughts with you. And I hope
we can talk about some of them today. And welcome to both of
you.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much.
Senator Hyde-Smith, Senator Hagerty, if you would both like
to make opening statements. And, obviously the woman first,
please.
statement of senator cindy hyde-smith
Senator Hyde-Smith. Thank you, Madam Chairman, for that
opportunity because I would, and I will be very brief.
Thank you to both the witnesses that are here today that
will testify. And, Madam Secretary, as you are well aware,
energy issues continue to dominate the national agenda. And as
Senator Kennedy spoke, you know, it is very much talked about
right now, and in a concerning way to me as well, but as
appropriators, it is our responsibility to find ways to keep up
with the world's ever-extending energy demands, and while also
increasing our capacity, and our security here at home.
And one way that we can expand our power capacity is to
increase the use of nuclear energy in America, in my opinion.
And I am proud to highlight that the Grand Gulf Nuclear Site in
Port Gibson, Mississippi, and I hope nuclear energy will play a
larger role as clean, efficient energy source. And I have
always supported energy diversification, and the development of
energy sources that will expand our supply, but Mississippi has
a diverse energy portfolio. But I believe it is critical that
we recognize the important role fossil fuel resources will play
in meeting the demands of Americans.
But fossil fuels such as coal, and offshore, and oil and
gas, they have been a main source of power for this country.
And it is crucial that we find new ways to increase the
potential by making fossil fuels cleaner, as Senator Kennedy
mentioned, and to use them, but to not eliminate them
altogether. That is a great concern of mine. Thank you.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you.
Senator Hagerty, would you like to make an opening
statement?
statement of senator bill hagerty
Senator Hagerty. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I appreciate
the opportunity. Ranking Member Kennedy, thank you as well; and
I appreciate your comments.
I would just like to echo, Secretary Granholm, we have
talked about this, but echo the points raised by my colleagues
that our energy security is a critical element of our national
security. As we have discussed before in my previous role as
U.S. Ambassador to Japan, I worked very hard to get our allies
to work with us, to be our partners in energy security.
America's energy independence is a vital component of our
national security. And I think that our allies benefit from our
ability to actually export energy to them so that they are not
reliant on countries like Russia.
And as I mentioned to them on numerous occasions in Japan,
we are not only talking about exporting energy, we are talking
about exporting freedom. So the national security elements of
this I think are critically important, and I am very dismayed
about the posture that the administration has taken against
fossil fuels.
The prices at the pumps today have gone up significantly. I
am from Tennessee. We commute in our State, and the average
person is seeing prices at the pumps rise more than 30 percent
since the Biden administration has come into office. This is a
tax on our middle-class, it is a tax felt by all, and it is
going to create great economic pain, even if it is not included
in the CPI (Consumer Price Index), every good has got to be
transported in America.
This has inflationary impacts that go well beyond the
immediate strategy, I think, to make fossil fuels less
desirable and create an economic subsidy for alternative fuel.
So I am for all of the above, in terms of energy strategy. I am
pleased to be from a State like Tennessee that has a great
background in nuclear energy. And I look forward to talking
more about Oak Ridge National Lab when I come back to
questions. Thank you for being here.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much.
Senator Merkley, do you want to make an opening statement?
Senator Merkley. No, Madam Chair. I think I am happy for us
to proceed. Thank you.
Senator Feinstein. And Senator.
Senator Shaheen. No. I would like to talk about energy
efficiency, which I think is one overlooked energy source, but
I will save that for my questions. Thank you.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much.
Secretary Granholm, please make your opening statement, and
we welcome you here.
summary statement of hon. jennifer granholm
Secretary Granholm. Great. Thank you so much for inviting
me to testify. Thank you to Chair Feinstein, and Ranking Member
Kennedy, and to the other members of the subcommittee. It is
truly an honor to serve as the 16th Secretary of the Department
of Energy, and to make comments about the President's 2022
budget request for the Department of Energy.
I am very pleased to report that since January 20, we at
the Department of Energy have taken important steps toward the
Department's priorities. Our budget request, obviously, would
help us to further the activities that we have already begun.
So far we have invested $1.5 billion to strengthen our
national security, and to accelerate progress toward a net-zero
economy, and much of that has gone toward improving and
deploying existing market-ready solutions, setting new goals,
for example, to cut solar in half yet, again, adding 30
gigawatts of offshore wind capacity by 2030. So, that is
existing, but at the same time we are supporting breakthroughs
in clean energy.
So our new Energy Earthshots Initiative will set a series
of ambitious, achievable targets for commercializing emerging
zero-carbon technologies. The first one, Senator Kennedy, you
will be happy to know is our Hydrogen Shot. And that is setting
a goal of getting the cost of clean hydrogen down to $1, for
one kilogram, in one decade.
And I would also note that last week we announced $12
million funding opportunity to advance direct air capture
technologies. And yesterday we announced a new $61 million
investment on nuclear energy, which was distributed throughout
the country, 30 States, 99 entities got money to advance
research in advanced nuclear technology. Both of these are
priorities that have been outlined in the budget proposal as
well.
So, Chairwoman Feinstein, these droughts, and these heat
waves, and these wildfires that are plaguing the west and
straining our energy system, remind us yet again, of course, of
the need to enhance our power grid and expand resiliency on
that grid, especially to all forms of extreme weather. And that
is why we announced in April that we are making $8.25 billion
available in loans to improve our Nation's transmission
systems, and of course the ransomware attacks on Colonial
Pipeline underscores the need for investment in cyber security
on our Nation's energy infrastructure as well.
We are engaging with the private sector around strategies
for hardening the critical infrastructure against ransomware,
and these evolving 21st century threats. We are also
strengthening our energy security through a multi-agency effort
to bolster domestic supply chains like for lithium batteries
that we need for storage, and for electric vehicles.
We released a report and a series of actions on this exact
topic a couple of weeks ago. Since January 20th, our Vehicle
Technologies Office has already made $362 million available for
projects that advance battery technology, and reduce emissions
from light- and heavy-duty vehicles.
So we are proud of our work so far. We are grateful to this
subcommittee for making this work possible through last year's
appropriations. And we look forward to building on the
progress. And let me just say, we know that if Congress were to
pass the American Jobs Plan, or an iteration thereof, we would
be able to, exponentially, expand on that work.
But as the Chairwoman noted, in the meantime, our budget
request would invest $46 billion in these key priorities,
including a 65 percent increase in our Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, and a record $1.8 billion for
our nuclear energy program, which will, of course, all help us
to deploy clean and cheap power on a reliable and resilient
grid.
The budget would also support greater research in clean
energy and carbon reduction at the national labs, and usher in
greater diversity in the STEM (Science, Technology,
Engineering, and Mathematics) fields. And here I want to thank
the Senate for passing the U.S. Innovation and Competition Act,
which authorizes the Department $17 billion in support of our
efforts to keep the country competitive in a global economy.
And that funding, coupled with our budget request, is going
to help the Department, and our 17 national labs put America at
the forefront of clean energy innovation worldwide. And of
course the budget would also strengthen the Department's
nuclear security mission. And I am so glad that Dr. Verdon is
here to talk about that today. And our Environmental Management
program, for which we have asked for one of the highest levels
of annual funding, and that would facilitate progress on our
cleanup sites.
All told these all represent a down payment on a cleaner
and more prosperous future, but one that will not truly be
fulfilled without that American Jobs Plan. The infrastructure
bill that you all are negotiating, which would position our
country to compete in a global clean energy market, and it
would confront the climate crisis and create millions of good-
paying jobs. And it would also, I would say build--lift up
disadvantaged communities, including Tribal nations and
communities of color that have been historically burdened by
pollution.
And I would say this, too. It would provide the
Department--it would bolster our Department's ongoing efforts
to provide fossil energy workers with real opportunities to
forge careers in cleaner fossil, and clean energy. And that is
what it means to build back better.
So I know the request is large. We do believe the need is
urgent. DOE (Department of Energy) will use the funding
effectively, if appropriated, to tackle these big challenges. I
am humbled by the opportunity to lead the Department.
And I look forward to working with you all. And happy to
answer any questions you may have.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Secretary Jennifer M. Granholm
Chairwoman Feinstein, Ranking Member Kennedy, and Members of the
Committee, it is an honor to appear before you today to discuss the
President's FY 2022 Budget request for the Department of Energy (``the
Department'' or ``DOE'').
It is a privilege to serve as the 16th Secretary of Energy and have
the responsibility of leading the Department in delivering
technological advancements, scientific discoveries, and advancing the
energy, economic, and national security of the United States.
I am proud to say we have accomplished a lot in my first few months
at DOE.
In addition, of course, to continuing to advance our core science
and security missions, we have jump-started efforts to create jobs and
build the clean energy economy of the future, an economy that works
better for American families and an economy that works for all kinds of
communities with jobs for all kinds of workers. We declared to the
world that America is back at the table for climate action and followed
it up with new funding opportunities for technologies ranging from
carbon capture to geothermal energy to extracting critical minerals
from coal waste. And we set ambitious new goals to cut solar costs by
more than half and add 30 gigawatts of offshore wind capacity by 2030.
We will deliver these goals while addressing long-standing and
persistent racial and environmental injustice and taking action to
benefit disadvantaged communities.
We announced over $1 billion in new funding opportunities, grants,
and awards for projects with the potential to punch through obstacles
in our way to a net-zero carbon future by 2050. These new funding
opportunities, grants, and awards for projects include developing
cutting-edge solar technology, improving vehicle efficiency,
modernizing water infrastructure, and
researching everything from microelectronics that can launch the
next digital revolution, to powerful particle accelerators that can
help us answer some of our biggest questions about the universe. This
funding also included $109.5 million in funding for carbon capture,
critical mineral recovery, and geothermal energy projects that directly
support job creation in coal communities impacted by changes in the
energy economy.
We announced multiple funding opportunities that provided
demonstration and deployment support to the sustainable transportation
sector, totaling $224M. This includes funding for bioenergy pre-pilot
technologies to pilot scale and/or demonstration scale projects that
support sustainable aviation and marine fuels, CO2
conversion, waste and underutilized carbon feedstocks. This funding
will demonstrate efficiency improvement and emission reduction
opportunities in medium- and heavy-duty trucks and their associated
freight systems.
We launched the Energy Earthshots Initiative, an all-hands-on-deck
call for innovation, collaboration and acceleration of our clean energy
economy by tackling the toughest remaining barriers to quickly deploy
emerging clean energy technologies at scale. The first Earthshot
focuses on hydrogen, sets an ambitious yet achievable cost target to
accelerate innovations and spur demand of clean hydrogen. We also
announced new immediate policy actions to scale up a domestic
manufacturing supply chain for advanced battery materials and
technologies to accelerate our efforts to decarbonize the economy.
We kicked off a 100-day plan to address cybersecurity risks to the
U.S. electric system. And we witnessed Perseverance roving around the
surface of Mars, powered by tech produced in our National Labs.
Internally, we held our very first Jobs & Justice town hall,
spelling out what it means to center job creation and equity in all of
our work.
We have kept our country safe by supporting a safe, secure, and
effective nuclear stockpile, and a continued modernization program. And
all the while, our labs continued working toward groundbreaking
discoveries, including in the fight against COVID-19.
But these investments are really just a down payment on what we
need to do as a nation. To really build an economy that positions
American families and American communities to thrive, we need the
resources the American Jobs Plan and the FY 2022 Budget request will
provide to take us further.
the american jobs plan
In March, President Biden released the American Jobs Plan. This
represents the biggest investment in America since World War II and is
a once-in-a-generation investment in our nation's economy. Especially
in our energy infrastructure and our ability to win the global energy
market. This plan will put millions of people to work and lay the
foundation for economic growth for decades to come.
Globally, there is a $23 trillion market for clean energy products
and for products that will reduce carbon pollution. This is a massive
opportunity for this country. Other countries are seeing that
opportunity as well, and our economic competitors are working to corner
the market on those opportunities. The question is: Where are those
products going to be built, and who will build them?
Through the American Jobs Plan, our country is going to corner the
market and lead on manufacturing these products, providing good-paying
jobs to the American people. It's going to take a lot of work, but the
pay-off will be worth it. It will provide millions of people in the
United States opportunities to build clean energy technologies, energy
products and energy infrastructure that not only will make our country
stronger, but will allow them to support their families and strengthen
their local economies. And we all know that, in the 21st Century,
making sure that we have the right infrastructure is critical.
Infrastructure is roads and bridges, it is the electrical grid that
keeps the lights on, it is ports, airports, and trains, it is pipes
that pump water into our homes, and it is the broadband that both
brings the world and learning to our children and brings opportunity to
our businesses. Infrastructure is so broad that it creates jobs in all
pockets of America.
I want to work with you to make these investments so that together
we deploy the energy infrastructure that our economy needs now, while
at the same time advancing cutting-edge clean energy technologies,
creating millions of good-paying union clean energy jobs, and building
an equitable clean energy future.
fy 2022 president's budget request
President Biden's proposed FY 2022 Budget request for the
Department of Energy invests $46.2 billion to advance key priorities
including creating jobs through clean energy projects, bringing America
to the forefront of clean energy innovation, tackling the climate
crisis with the urgency that science demands, investing in communities
that have been left behind, and ensuring the safety and security of the
nuclear stockpile.
Creating Jobs through Clean Energy Projects and Energy Efficiency
Retrofits-
The budget request supports the President's vision of achieving
carbon pollution-free electricity by 2035 while creating good-paying
jobs by investing $1.9 billion in a Building Clean Energy Projects and
Workforce Initiative at DOE. This investment will support programmatic
infrastructure for a new energy efficiency and clean electricity
standard, a new Build Back Better Challenge Grant competition to
support novel State-, local-, and tribal-level approaches to clean
energy deployment that provides benefits to marginalized and
overburdened communities and streamlined transmission investment. These
investments will develop and deploy technologies that will deliver a
clean energy revolution resulting in cheap, abundant clean power
delivered on a modern energy grid that is resilient and reliable.
Spurring Innovation in Clean Energy Technologies
Within DOE, the budget request invests more than $8 billion for
applied energy programs with a focus on clean energy and climate
innovation. From investing in advanced nuclear, electric vehicles, and
an Energy Earthshots Initiative, to funding innovative approaches to
air conditioning and refrigeration, the FY 2022 request puts the Nation
on a path to quadruple clean energy research in four years, emphasizing
U.S. pre-eminence in innovating the technologies needed to tackle the
climate crisis.
Applied energy investments include:
--$4.732B for the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy to
jump-start progress toward the goal of a carbon pollution-free
electricity sector by 2035 and net zero emissions, economy-
wide, by no later than 2050.
--$1.851B for the Office of Nuclear Energy, a 23% increase over FY
2021 funding levels, to extend the impact of research,
development, demonstration & deployment funding by leveraging
mechanisms such as competitive awards, technical assistance,
and programs targeted to small businesses. This enables the
commercialization of climate change and clean energy
innovations.
--$890M for the Fossil Energy and Carbon Management Research and
Development program to conduct research, development, and
demonstration projects for technologies that help to ensure
clean and affordable energy for all Americans; facilitate the
transition toward a carbon-pollution-free economy, including by
addressing the emissions and other environmental impacts of
fossil fuel; rebuild a U.S critical minerals supply chain; and
retain and create good paying jobs.
--$327M for the Office of Electricity to lead the Department's
efforts to strengthen, transform, and improve energy
infrastructure so consumers have equitable access to resilient,
secure, and clean sources of electricity.
The Budget also includes $201M for the Office of Cybersecurity,
Energy Security, and Emergency Response (CESER), which leads the
Department's efforts to secure U.S. energy infrastructure against all
hazards, reduce the risks of and impacts from cyber events and other
disruptive events, and assist with restoration activities.
These investments will leverage the tremendous innovation capacity
of our 17 National Laboratories, America's universities, and
entrepreneurs to transform our power, transportation, buildings, and
industrial sectors to clean, emissions-free power sources and help
achieve a net- zero emissions economy by 2050. The budget request
advances us toward these goals by building on the basic science
breakthroughs at our National Laboratories; and employing the resources
that turn those science breakthroughs in energy and deployable
technologies like those supported by the Advanced Research Projects
Agency-Energy (ARPA-E).
Meanwhile, the Department's energy programs, which run the gamut
from renewables to efficiency, carbon capture to hydrogen, and grid
technology to storage are going to make it their mission to bring clean
energy solutions to life. Building on ARPA-E's success, the budget
request also includes funding to establish the Advanced Research
Projects Agency for Climate (ARPA-C), to develop transformative
solutions for the climate crisis through R&D support for high-impact
innovative technologies to address adaptation and resilience
challenges, as well as non-energy emissions mitigation. ARPA-C will
work with other Agencies to lay the foundation for future climate
change solutions across the Federal Government.
Revitalizing the Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management while
Supporting Coal and Power Plant Communities
The budget request supports increased funding for a revitalized
Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management that will advance carbon
reduction and mitigation in sectors and applications that are difficult
to decarbonize, including the industrial sector, with technologies and
methods such as carbon capture and storage, hydrogen, and direct air
capture--all while ensuring the reduction in pollution and cumulative
impacts to overburdened communities.
The budget request also helps DOE build the energy economy back
better in a way that lifts up communities who have not yet seen a
future for themselves in the energy transition and those who have just
been left behind for far too long. This includes funding DOE's role in
supporting the newly established Interagency Working Group on Coal and
Power Plant Communities and Economic Revitalization. By supporting the
POWER+ Initiative, DOE will help communities impacted by the energy
transition and ensure their success. DOE programs can support fossil
fuel workers translating their skills to new positions in various
areas, from extracting critical minerals from coal mine sites and
upgrading pipelines to reduce methane leakage to building carbon
capture and hydrogen systems on existing industrial and power plant
facilities; from building zero-emissions buses and upgrading the power
grid to drilling for geothermal energy. Their predecessors built the
U.S. economy of the 20th Century; they will power the economy of the
21st Century.
The Department will also support communities of color living with
the toxic legacy of air pollution, those who are still paying too much
for their energy, and who are often the first and worst impacted by the
climate emergency. With targeted investments, DOE will help communities
impacted by the energy sector and advance environmental justice and
equity.
Expanding Foundational Research, Emphasizing Climate and Clean Energy
Science
The budget request invests $7.4 billion, an increase of more than
$400 million over 2021 levels, in the Office of Science to better
understand our changing climate, identify and develop novel materials
and concepts for clean energy technologies of the future, advance
artificial intelligence and quantum science, as well as the world's
most advanced computing to enhance prediction and decision-making
across numerous environmental and scientific challenges, and of course
to support the national research community with cutting-edge scientific
facilities. This investment in foundational research will support
America's first-rate scientists, engineers, and entrepreneurs, who
develop and deploy technologies that improve our lives and jumpstart
new industries.
Investing in Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Minority
Serving Institutions
The FY 2022 Budget request creates and enhances research funding
opportunities and invests in infrastructure such as laboratory
facilities upgrades for Historically Black Colleges and Universities
(HBCUs) and other Minority-Serving Institutions (MSIs). It also
increases resources for workforce development programs to augment
pathways to good-paying Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math
(STEM) careers for students attending these schools. New grant awards,
including a research center focused on climate, will expand research
capacity, and create new opportunities at HBCUs and other MSIs. The FY
2022 Budget request will build on the Department's existing
relationships with HBCUs and MSIs, establish new partnerships with
these institutions, and include them in our efforts to target
disadvantaged communities for new clean energy investments, jobs, and
businesses, while doubling down on our commitments to racial justice.
Cybersecurity Activities
The FY 2022 Budget Request proposes to invest $642 million in
cybersecurity activities, an increase of $189 million over the FY 2021
Enacted level. This will enable the Department to make significant
contributions toward modernizing cybersecurity defenses by protecting
federal networks and strengthening the United States' ability to
respond to incidents when they occur.
The Department will be guided by the key areas, as identified in
Executive Order 14028, which include; remove barriers to threat
information sharing between government and the private sector;
modernize and implement stronger cybersecurity standards; improve
software supply chain security; improve investigative and remediation
capabilities; and improve cybersecurity threat hunting and response
through improved logging and data analytics.
Sustaining Investment in Environmental Cleanup
The Office of Environmental Management (EM) supports DOE to meet
the challenges of the Nation's Manhattan Project and Cold War legacy
responsibilities. The FY 2022 Budget Request includes $7.6B for EM to
continue making progress in addressing millions of gallons of liquid
radioactive waste, thousands of tons of spent (used) nuclear fuel and
nuclear materials, large volumes of transuranic and mixed/low-level
waste, huge quantities of contaminated soil and water, and thousands of
excess facilities.
Building on past successes, the FY 2022 request supports EM as it
enters a new era of cleanup. The request includes approximately $2.5B
for cleanup at the Hanford site in Washington state, and supports
continued progress to initiate tank waste treatment by the end of 2023
through the Direct Feed Low Activity Waste approach. The request will
also enable progress in key risk reduction activities at Hanford,
including work to transfer radioactive capsules to dry storage and work
to remediate contaminated soil under the 324 Building.
The request includes $1.75B for cleanup activities at the Savannah
River Site in South Carolina, which supports efforts to ramp up tank
waste treatment, as well as the safe storage, stabilization and
disposition of EM-owned nuclear materials and other risk reduction
activities.
At the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in New Mexico, integral to both
the Department's legacy cleanup mission and ongoing national security
work, the request would provide $437M for facility operations and
continued infrastructure activities. The request would provide $334M
for legacy cleanup activities at the Los Alamos National Laboratory.
At the Oak Ridge site in Tennessee, the request would provide $561M
to support slab and soil remediation activities at the East Tennessee
Technology Park, along with work to address high-risk excess facilities
at the Y-12 National Security Complex and Oak Ridge National Laboratory
and continued efforts to disposition the remaining uranium-233 stored
at the site, among other activities. The request also includes $381M
for cleanup activities at the Idaho site that will complete buried
waste exhumation and treatment of contact-handled sludge waste, ending
a decades-long effort to treat legacy waste at the site.
Strengthening the Nation's Nuclear Security
The Department of Energy's (DOE) National Nuclear Security
Administration (NNSA) is responsible for maintaining a safe, secure,
and effective nuclear weapons stockpile; reducing global nuclear
threats; and providing the U.S. Navy's submarines and aircraft carriers
with militarily effective nuclear propulsion. The President's FY 2022
Budget Request of $19.7 billion, maintains the historic level of
investments in NNSA and includes an increase of $10.8 million over the
FY 2021 enacted level.\1\ This reflects this administration's
commitment to maintain and modernize the nuclear stockpile through our
life extension and alteration programs; make substantial progress on
maintaining, repairing, and recapitalizing NNSA's deteriorating
infrastructure; provide policy and technical leadership to address all
aspects of the nuclear threat reduction mission; and deliver nuclear
propulsion that meets the U.S. Navy's operational requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The FY 2021 Enacted level does not include the mandated
transfer of $91 million from Naval Reactors to Nuclear Energy for the
operation of the Advanced Test Reactor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weapons Activities
The FY 2022 budget request for the Weapons Activities account is
$15.5 billion, an increase of $139.3 million, or 0.9 percent, over FY
2021. This request supports stockpile management to maintain our
existing weapons; design and production work on five programs of
record; production modernization; and stockpile research, technology,
and engineering (SRT&E).
NNSA's major stockpile modernization programs stand at different
levels of maturity, each one responding to a different Department of
Defense (DoD) requirement. Some programs, such as the W93/Mk7 are in
the initial phases of feasibility and design, while others are in
production phases, such as the B61-12 gravity bomb. Together, these
programs bolster the United States' long-term commitments to allies and
partners while ensuring safety and reliability. NNSA continues to focus
on the production capabilities of nuclear weapons components critical
to weapon performance and is requesting funds to support the urgent
need to recapitalize plutonium pit production fabrication at Los Alamos
and Savanah River. SRT&E covers many critical programs for the nuclear
security enterprise that allow the nuclear deterrent to be certified
without the need for nuclear explosive testing. Capabilities include
the Enhanced Capabilities for Subcritical Experiments (ECSE), the
Exascale Computing Initiative (ECI), and the Inertial Confinement
Fusion (ICF) program. Each of these are needed to support weapons
design, warhead assessment and certification, and continued development
of the underpinning science needed to support the nuclear stockpile
long-term.
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation
NNSA's Office of Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation (DNN) is critical
to implementing the President's call to ``lock down fissile and
radiological materials around the world.'' The FY 2022 budget request
for the DNN account is $2.3 billion, an increase of $4.0 million, or
0.2 percent, over the FY 2021 enacted level.\2\ DNN works worldwide
with our partners to prevent state and non-state actors from developing
nuclear weapons or acquiring weapons-usable nuclear or radiological
materials, equipment, technology, and expertise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The FY 2022 amount does not include the proposed cancellation
of $330 million of prior year balances from the Mixed Oxide Fuel
Fabrication Facility project.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Complementing the work of DNN is the Nuclear Counterterrorism and
Incident Response (NCTIR) Program, which includes the Emergency
Operations and Counterterrorism and Counterproliferation subprograms.
NCTIR provides capabilities to counter and respond to nuclear incidents
and accidents worldwide. The FY 2022 request for NCTIR is $370.8
million, a decrease of $6.7 million, or 1.8 percent below, the FY 2021
enacted level.
Naval Reactors
The Office of Naval Reactors remains at the forefront of
technological developments in naval nuclear propulsion, with an
unparalleled record of over 169 million miles safely steamed on nuclear
power and over 7,300 reactor-years of operation. The FY 2022 budget for
Naval Reactors is $1.9 billion, an increase of $182.7 million, or 10.8
percent, over the FY 2021 enacted level.\3\ The budget request supports
Naval Reactors' three major projects--COLUMBIA-Class reactor plant
development, the refueling overhaul of a research and training reactor
in New York, and the construction of the Naval Spent Fuel Handling
Facility in Idaho.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The FY 2021 Enacted level does not include the mandated
transfer of $91 million from Naval Reactors to Nuclear Energy for the
operation of the Advanced Test Reactor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NNSA Workforce
To manage this broad portfolio, NNSA depends upon recruiting,
training, and retaining a highly technical Federal and M&O workforce.
The FY 2022 budget request for Federal Salaries and Expenses (FSE) is
$464.0 million, an increase of $20.8 million, or 4.7 percent, over the
FY 2021 enacted level.
conclusion
In conclusion, I am humbled to reaffirm my commitment to lead the
Department of Energy. I look forward to our continued partnership to
achieve these ambitious yet necessary goals.
Thank you for the opportunity to be here today. I am happy to
answer your questions.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much.
Dr. Verdon, my understanding is that you are here today to
answer questions. If you wish to make a brief statement, we
will entertain that now.
Dr. Verdon. That is okay. Thank you.
Senator Feinstein. Okay. Thank you very much.
Let me then begin the questions. Madam Secretary, this
budget puts a heavy emphasis on deployment of climate
solutions. There is $2.5 billion or a 45 percent increase in
funding across the Department's applied energy programs
compared to fiscal year 2021, and a $400 million request to
create a new office of Clean Energy Demonstrations.
Could you please explain to us, with as much detail as you
can; how these new funding requests will translate into more
clean energy development?
Secretary Granholm. Sure. Thank you for the question. You
know, we know that there are a lot of technologies that are on
the shelf and that can be deployed. And so your question about
a deployment is a key one, as well as demonstration. Those are
the latter two stages, obviously, in the development of these
clean energy technologies, and we should be really doing
everything we can.
So, for example, in the budget, you will see an almost 1000
percent increase in the Federal Energy Management Program. And
that of course helps to guide and ensure that all of our
Federal agencies are deploying the best solutions for reducing
our Federal carbon footprint. And that is a significant
priority of the Biden administration, to make sure we lead by
example, and make sure that our procurement also creates a
market for clean energy products that are made in America. So
that is a big example of deployment that we intend to do.
Second, we see a significant increase as well in the
Weatherization Assistance Program. That is a deployment
strategy as well. We will be able to weatherize thousands more
homes using again, we hope, products that are made in America,
again creating markets for American businesses to be able to
provide for weatherization of homes.
In the budget as well, we have a component that is
providing grants, State-based energy grants to States, and
those energy grants will be tied, again, to making sure that
demand is created in those States for clean energy products
made in America, but also to help them achieve higher
standards, whether it is on clean energy standards, or on
building, building codes, et cetera.
So we want to reward the States and localities for taking
action. And that is also a deployment component that is in this
budget. Bottom line is you will see this big plus-up in all of
these lines. We have a whole deployment strategy for each of
them. That is just three examples.
Senator Feinstein. One other quick question, if I may?
Congress included $20 million in last year's appropriations for
consent-based siting of nuclear waste. This is something that
concerns me a great deal. And I would like to ask if you can
briefly elaborate on how you intend to break the stalemate on
nuclear waste disposal, and what you plan to do in the near
term to move that forward.
Secretary Granholm. Yes. As I know you are aware, there was
a 2012 commission on nuclear waste, and that that Blue Ribbon
Commission recommended a consent-based siting strategy. And we
are beginning that process this summer, we will be issuing a
Request for Information, obviously, the States or localities
that are willing, because we want to work with them, who are
willing to be able to house this waste, it will----
Senator Feinstein. I don't mean to stop you.
Secretary Granholm. Yes.
Senator Feinstein. But what I am asking for is: What is the
administration's plan to deal with nuclear waste?
Secretary Granholm. That is the plan is to get another
site, not Yucca Mountain, but to get another place that is
willing to be the home of nuclear waste. Obviously it will
require some compensation for that local entity to be able to
do that. There is some interest out there. We just have to make
sure we complete this consent-based siting process and,
hopefully, near term rather than long-term.
Senator Feinstein. And when will that be developed into a
proposal?
Secretary Granholm. Well, the Requests for Information are
going out within the next month. And so, hopefully, in the fall
we will have a sense of what the landscape looks like, but this
year we want to solidify the strategy.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you.
Senator.
Senator Kennedy. Thank you, Madam Chair. As you could
probably guess from my opening comments, Madam Secretary, I see
the climate as a discrete scientific issue. I think it is a
mistake to approach it with too much emotion. Passion is good,
but not when it interferes with your judgment. I have got a
couple of 30,000-foot--feet questions.
How much money in public and private dollars does the
Department think it would take to make the world carbon
neutral?
Secretary Granholm. I don't have a number for that, but
probably a lot.
Senator Kennedy. Yes. Hundreds of trillions of dollars, do
you think?
Secretary Granholm. It would be a lot, for sure.
Senator Kennedy. Okay. How much money in public and private
dollars does the Department think it would take to make the
United States carbon neutral?
Secretary Granholm. Again, it would be a lot.
Senator Kennedy. Hundreds of trillions?
Secretary Granholm. I don't know about hundreds of
trillions, but it would be a lot of money.
Senator Kennedy. It would be in the trillions?
Secretary Granholm. Yes.
Senator Kennedy. Mid-trillions?
Secretary Granholm. I don't know.
[Laughter.]
Senator Kennedy. I understand. Here is my question, to make
the United States carbon neutral based on the administration's
plans, I think it would be fair to say it is going to cause
displacement, major displacement. Now, I don't use that in a
pejorative sense. I think it is just an accurate description.
It is going to change our economy dramatically. Many people are
going to gain, and many people are going to lose. And that is
what I mean by displacement.
If we, today, spent these, to be fair, tens of trillions of
dollars that I think many members of the administration would
like to spend, and make the United States of American carbon
neutral, and nobody else has our aggressive--adopts our
aggressive approach, and they only make modest gains in
CO2 emissions. How much is it going to lower the
world temperature, and how much of it--how much are we going to
reduce carbon emissions?
Secretary Granholm. I want to say that the administration
has a really firm commitment to communities to be able to take
advantage of that economic opportunity and in energy that means
the----
Senator Kennedy. I know, Madam Secretary, forgive me for
interrupting, but we both know--now I really want to try to
probe your mind here--we both know this is going to cause major
displacement, let us don't kid each other. You are not going to
turn coal miners into coders overnight, and you are not going
to turn fossil fuel workers into solar experts overnight, and
there are not as many solar jobs as in oil and gas. So I don't
want to get off into that. And I am not trying to be critical
of the administration, but these are important questions.
If we become carbon neutral, and we don't get cooperation
from China and India, what have we accomplished?
Secretary Granholm. The goal is to get cooperation from
China and India.
Senator Kennedy. I know, but what if they don't?
Secretary Granholm. Well----
Senator Kennedy. What if we go spend these tens of
trillions of dollars and President Xi Jinping--the people of
China are wonderful people, by the way--President Xi, lies like
he breathes. We know that. The Communist Party, they are
gangsters. What if they--I mean, they have probably built a
coal power--a coal-powered power plant while you and I have
been talking. What have we achieved?
Secretary Granholm. The administration has a strategy to
make sure that all of our--all of the people who have signed on
to this Paris Agreement meet the goals that they have
articulated. And that means working with allies, and that means
the strategy, and amount that----
Senator Kennedy. I get it. I get it, but I am asking a very
practical question. My son, who I love dearly, has a strategy
to have his dad buy him a 911 Targa Porsche. It is not going to
happen. And I am raising a very legitimate question I think. If
we spend these trillions of dollars, and we go through all this
displacement, and we don't get cooperation from China and
India, what--is the pain worth the gain? And how do we know?
Secretary Granholm. I would say, we have a strategy to get
those countries on board. And if we don't pursue this strategy,
what then? Then you have climate disasters that are upon us.
California is now--could be on fire again this summer. And if
we don't take action, then where are we with respect to the
other disasters? So we have to approach our allies with the
strategy----
Senator Kennedy. Let me ask you one last question.
Secretary Granholm [continuing]. And do our own.
Senator Kennedy. I get it. I get it. Yes.
If you can indulge me, Madam Chair? If we spend all the
money that the Biden administration wants to spend, let's take
in its current infrastructure bill to reduce CO2
emissions, what percentage of the increase in carbon emissions,
worldwide, not the United States, is going to be reduced?
Secretary Granholm. All of these countries have signed on,
all of them have.
Senator Kennedy. No. I am talking about--I know when you
are trusting----
Secretary Granholm. No, verified.
Senator Kennedy. But I believe in metrics.
Secretary Granholm. Yes.
Senator Kennedy. If you spend a lot of taxpayer dollars,
you ought to know, first of all, what you expect to get, and
realistically assess whether you are going to get it. I don't
want a go to--let me ask you one last question. How come your
budget doesn't request any funding for the Yucca Mountain
licensing?
Secretary Granholm. The President's--the administration
doesn't support Yucca Mountain as a solution for nuclear waste.
Senator Kennedy. Okay. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you.
Senator Shaheen.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you.
And thank you, Madam Secretary, for being here today, and
for all of your hard work. And Dr. Verdon, we are delighted to
have you here as well.
As I said I really want to talk about energy efficiency,
because I think it is the stepchild of energy use. It gets
short shrift, and yet it is the cheapest, fastest way to deal
with our energy needs. I was really glad to hear you talk about
reducing the Federal carbon footprint, because the Federal
Government is the biggest user of energy in the country. And we
have got to do a better job.
I would start with the Architect of the Capitol and see if
he can't get climate controls in all of the rooms on Capitol
Hill, because it is ridiculous that we can't control the
temperature in the rooms, in this building, and throughout The
Capitol. So that is just an aside.
But one of the things that I would urge you to look at is
the scoring for Energy Savings Performance Contracts, ESPCs.
When I was Governor, we were able to significantly reduce the
cost of heating our buildings and save on carbon emissions
because we used ESPCs, and yet the way we score those here is a
cost, not a savings. It is nuts that we don't recognize that we
can bring in private contractors to do that and save us
significant dollars. And yet when we do it, the scores charge
us for that rather than looking at savings. And that is why it
is so difficult to get done.
But I want to go to the budget, because this budget calls
for $16 million for building codes within the Building
Technologies Office, and we know that our buildings use about
40 percent of energy use in this country. Percentage-wise, that
number is a big increase from the $10 million provided in 2021,
but it is still a relatively small program. And when we know
there are substantial energy savings being left on the table,
it seems to me that that is an area that we ought to really
take a hard look at. So can you talk about what we could do if
we can increase that amount in terms of energy savings?
Secretary Granholm. Yes. Thanks so much for that question
and for your leadership in this energy efficiency space. This
is a plus-up for this, and we want to be able to take it to the
next level with respect to not just the Federal buildings, but
State and local buildings, and assist those State and local
entities in how they can achieve greater efficiency with new
building codes, upgraded building codes, which we are in the
final process of putting out through our Building Technologies
Office.
But you are right that it is a drop in the bucket, and if,
for example, we were able to achieve the kind of investment
that is seen in the American Jobs Plan, for example, that would
allow us to really push this much further providing incentives
to States, to really up their game on building codes and
allowing us to up our game on advising and giving the technical
assistance that is necessary to all of these local units of
government to do the same.
And as we know, I agree with you on your ESPCs, but this
whole thing is such a big job provider upgrading the building
envelope footprints.
Senator Shaheen. Absolutely.
Secretary Granholm. A huge opportunity for putting people
to work.
Senator Shaheen. And as you point out, building codes are
really a low hanging fruit that we ought to be taking a look
at. And it is disappointing to me that we have seen efforts in
Congress blocked, Congress after Congress, by the home builders
who don't want to spend a small additional amount, which over
the lifetime is going to really provide savings to consumers.
I want to talk about appliance standards also, because the
appliance standards program has saved consumers, tens of
billions annually on their utility bills. By 2030, it will have
avoided a cumulative 7.3 billion tons of carbon dioxide
emissions. That is an amount in excess of a year's worth of
emissions for the entire U.S. economy. So going forward,
updating standards could save an additional 1.2 to 2.9 billion
metric tons, and achieve cumulative utility savings of another
1.1 trillion by 2050. That is according to the American Council
for an Energy-Efficient Economy.
Unfortunately we saw the previous administration did not
keep pace with the statutory deadlines to update appliance
standards. So can you talk about what the status is of your
review of that, and where you expect to go to make sure we get
back on track with respect to appliance standards?
Secretary Granholm. Yes. I agree a thousand percent on this
as well. We have, I think, so far filed over 50 notices in the
Federal Register of rolling back the rollbacks, essentially,
and continuing the progress that was made. You listed a number
of statistics in terms of savings. And for the average family,
just on the basics, it is about $400 per year. And then you add
another $400 perhaps for LED lighting. You can see significant
savings from these on a very granular basis as well. We are
completely committed to progressing significantly on the
appliance standards issue.
Senator Shaheen. Well, thank you. I look forward to working
with you, and the Department on improving support for energy
efficiency in the country.
Secretary Granholm. Thank you.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Hyde-Smith.
Senator Hyde-Smith. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Madam Secretary, the Gulf of Mexico is one of the Nation's
most important regions for energy resources and accounts for a
large portion of our crude oil, our Federal, offshore, natural
gas production. What efforts are being taken by the Department
to advance cleaner technologies for domestic fossil fuel
resources?
Secretary Granholm. Yes. We have a program that really
works with the private sector to ensure that the existing
production is both efficient and clean, as clean as it can be,
including making sure that there is integrity at the wellbore,
making sure that produced water is clean, et cetera. And we are
going to--that is under our Fossil Energy Office, and we will
continue to work with the private sector on making sure that
that happens even as we transition to more, not just fuel
efficient, but electric vehicles, et cetera.
Senator Hyde-Smith. Thank you for that answer. And I am
addressing my next question to both of the witnesses. And as I
mentioned earlier, Mississippi is home to the largest U.S.
nuclear power reactor, in terms of generating capacity, and
with the administration's heavy agenda on cutting carbon
emissions, what do you believe are the most promising nuclear
efforts in our Nation right now?
Secretary Granholm. First of all, I agree with everything
that has been said about nuclear. That nuclear must be a part
of our strategy to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, and
that we also should be doing everything we can to keep existing
nuclear plants online. And we also need to be doing research
into advanced nuclear demonstration projects, which we are. Our
nuclear request in the budget is significantly more than last
time. I want to say, it is maybe 28 percent, or something like
that, above last year's effort, because we want to continue to
work on these advanced nuclear designs.
The modular reactors, the small modular reactors, as well
as making sure that we can assist in whatever way possible to
keep these plants online. Let me say, our budget doesn't
subsidize existing nuclear plants that are already running,
but, you know, if in the infrastructure package that is being
negotiated, there is, or at least in the American Jobs Plan,
there was a provision to help keep existing plants online, and
as well as making sure that nuclear is part of the clean energy
standard which would----both of which would be significantly
for ensuring that we continued to keep the existing fleet
operating as well as create new.
Senator Hyde-Smith. And Dr. Verdon.
Dr. Verdon. The Secretary covered it. There is nothing more
to add.
Senator Hyde-Smith. Okay. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Senator Feinstein. Senator Merkley.
Senator Merkley. Thank you. And it is so good to have you
here, Madam Secretary. Following up on my colleague from New
Hampshire's point about energy efficiency, the fiscal year 2020
Appropriations Bill required a study to lay out the investments
needed in energy efficiency, and conservation to give us kind
of a comprehensive view to help us guide legislation. And we
have not received that report. The Trump administration dropped
the ball. We have been in contact with your Department about
it. Can you pick up that ball and, and help us get that clear
understanding?
Secretary Granholm. It was an energy efficiency study?
Senator Merkley. Yes.
Secretary Granholm. I have not--read in on it, but I will
definitely get back to you on it.
Senator Merkley. And conservation. Thank you.
Secretary Granholm. And conservation.
Senator Merkley. Second, my colleague from Louisiana talked
about displacement. I saw displacement first-hand last year
when we had fires sweep through the west side of the Cascades,
and town after town was burned to the ground, and it was like
walking in on the towns that had been firebombed in World War
II, or something. It was just incredible. And we are seeing a
huge impact on our rural communities from the impact on
forests, on farming, and on fishing.
And, so I just wanted to note that displacement is real
right now, and not just from the fires in Oregon, but also from
all kinds of other economic effects that are taking place, and
more severe storms. So those costs are going to be
extraordinary and it is only by the U.S. setting an example,
and then working in partnership with the world that we have
some way of turning the curve on this.
I was very disturbed at the increasing pace of carbon
saturation in the atmosphere. We hit a record last month of 419
parts per million, way up from the 180 to 280 parts that
characterized the last 800,000 years. We haven't been this
level for 8 million years. The planet is in big trouble. I just
want to keep emphasizing that. I know you understand that.
Secretary Granholm. Thank you for that.
Senator Merkley. Thank you. Turning to a piece of that
clean electricity standard, do you think natural gas should be
included in that standard?
Secretary Granholm. I think that if you combined natural
gas with carbon removal so that it really was clean and that
you had zero carbon emissions, then it could be.
Senator Merkley. But only under that condition?
Secretary Granholm. Yes.
Senator Merkley. The condition is that it is not carbon
capture just to redeploy in gas fields where it will leak out,
but true absolute capture?
Secretary Granholm. And sequestration, yes.
Senator Merkley. Yes. Thank you. And I doubt the costs of
that are going to be less than the costs of renewable energy
from solar and wind, plus battery storage, if you will. So I am
certainly hoping that we don't create some false solution,
research on it, great, pursue it if it is economical, and it is
truly effective. But that is my concern.
I am excited that Oregon is pioneering the use of electric
tractors, we have three of them in operation. I invite you to
come out and see them, see them in operation. And I am trying
to figure out how electricity can start to be used in places
where diesel has been used, is another piece of this frontier
of conversion. And can DOE support efforts like that on new
uses of electricity?
Secretary Granholm. Of course, a thousand percent, that is
what we do. In fact, as I speak, I think we have a funding
opportunity request out for off-road vehicles, tractors would
qualify for electrification.
Senator Merkley. I think you are going to see a request in
that regard from my State. Turning to plastics: plastics are
not reduced, reused, recycled; they are burned, buried, and
borne out to sea with huge environmental consequences. Because
plastics are primarily a stream of natural gas, because a
natural gas system leaks enormous amounts of methane, because
methane is an incredibly powerful global warming gas, plastics
are a climate problem, as well as a direct problem for human
health, and great problem for ecosystems. I just wanted to
raise this and see if you have some thoughts on that topic.
Secretary Granholm. We are--the administration is looking
at this methane issue very seriously. You are probably aware
there was a vote, and a reversal of a rule that was lessened in
the last administration on methane. Obviously this is in the
EPA's (Environmental Protection Agency) jurisdiction in terms
of the regulatory side. But in terms of the technology side, we
want to be partnering to make sure that, oil and gas companies,
one, do monitoring of methane leakage, and two, do closing of
methane leakage. And this whole issue of methane is extremely
high on the priority list, both of the Department of Energy,
and of the EPA, and of the Biden administration as well. So
stay tuned on that for more.
Senator Merkley. Thank you very much. Because I think it is
an under-recognized part of the challenge and is inherent in a
system with millions of miles of joints in pipes, as well as
abandoned wells, the leak never properly sealed, and so forth.
And I know the administration is working on that. So thank you.
I will just close by shifting to nuclear weapons. People
forget that nuclear weapons are a huge part of energy
portfolio. And we haven't had the nuclear evaluation, the
Nuclear Posture Review, yet. But the administration has put
forward in its budget funding for the W76 low-yield warhead, a
warhead President Biden called a bad idea because of its impact
on potential nuclear war.
And also on the B83 mega weapon, if you will, and we are
not talking about small dollars, we are talking about the
administration proposing $100 million to fund the program. I
hope that many of these projects, which seemed to have, kind of
a nuclear industrial complex momentum, get evaluated very, very
carefully, both because of their costs, and because of their
risk.
Secretary Granholm. Well, clearly then, because as you have
noted, the Nuclear Posture Review is just starting. That will
be looked at, they will be looked at, but I am wondering if Dr.
Verdon has any follow-up on the two specific programs that you
mentioned.
Dr. Verdon. Yes, both programs will be looked at for a
posture review, but right now we had to put forward----
Secretary Granholm. You have to turn on your mic, I think.
Dr. Verdon. Is it on?
Secretary Granholm. There you go.
Dr. Verdon. Both will be looked at as part of the posture
review, and we put forward the budget that was required by the
current program or record, to support the weapons that the
STRATCOM commander identified were necessary. So that is why,
you know, they are in the budget right now, but they will be
examined. The whole portfolio will be looked at.
Senator Merkley. Thank you.
Senator Feinstein. I believe the next few names, based on
arrival, Senators Hagerty, Coons, Murray, and probably there is
more.
But Senator Hagerty.
Senator Hagerty. Thank you, Madam Chair. And again, thank
you Under Secretary Verdon, and Secretary Granholm. I
appreciate your being here today.
As I mentioned in my opening remarks, I would like to turn
our conversation Oak Ridge National Lab, which is the largest
multipurpose energy and research laboratory that the Department
of Energy supports. It is a true gem of Tennessee, $5.6 billion
of economic impact every year is the estimate, and some 34,000
jobs are supported by Oak Ridge National Lab in Tennessee,
touching 50 of the 95 counties in my State.
So it has an incredible economic impact. And I think a
tremendous impact on advancing our Nation in terms of basic
research. Beyond the great work that happens in Tennessee on
nuclear energy, which I look forward to working with you on, I
would like to talk for a moment about supercomputing.
And one of the critical missions of Oak Ridge National Lab
is the Summit supercomputer. It is the second fastest
supercomputer in the world. And I am very pleased at Oak Ridge
is going to unveil this year, an exascale computer called
Frontier, which will be the fastest in the world, right in my
home State of Tennessee.
And we have talked about this before Madam Secretary, but I
would like to join with my colleagues, Senator Blackburn and
Congressman Fleischmann, to invite you to come and visit us at
Oak Ridge National Lab, to see what is happening there, and to
deepen our working relationships so we can continue to make
these advances. So I hope you will be able to find time in your
schedule soon to join us there.
Secretary Granholm. I would very much like to do that,
especially with the unveiling of the exascale computer. And I
know that that is scheduled for early fall, and I am excited
about seeing the incredible complex that is there.
Senator Hagerty. Well today the fastest computer in the
world is in Japan, and I have a fondness for that nation, but
also a highly competitive nature. So I am delighted that we are
going to retake the high ground on this, and given where the
world is headed in computing, I think it is more than fitting
that we be a leader in the world, and that Tennessee be at the
forefront there.
Speaking of Tennessee, I would like to share with you some
insights from my predecessor, Senator Lamar Alexander, I know a
good friend of the Chair, and many people on this committee. He
has talked with me at length about what he has called the Oak
Ridge Corridor. It is a way to capture the tremendous brain
power that exists in Oak Ridge and the surrounding area.
In fact, when you land at the Knoxville Airport near Oak
Ridge, it welcomes you as the gateway to the Smokey's and to
the Oak Ridge Corridor. It is something I think that we should
market as an innovation hub. We have such incredible
technologies. We draw from the Federal Government, we draw from
my alma mater, Vanderbilt University, from the University of
Tennessee, from the Tennessee Valley Authority, State and
private industry.
What I would like to ask you, is what role you see,
Secretary Granholm, the Department playing as we recreate
innovation hubs like the Oak Ridge Corridor, in a way that will
support economic growth in underserved communities?
Secretary Granholm. That is a great question. In fact, I
was just on call with all of the lab directors yesterday, on
this very subject.
Senator Hagerty. Perfect.
Secretary Granholm. Is how the labs--and some are doing
more of this, and some are working on it. But how the labs can
really connect, whether it is--you have talked about this as
being a geographic hub, there may be some communities that are
slightly outside of the immediate adjacency that are also
underserved that could benefit.
So one of it, one strategy of course, involves workforce
development. A lot of these labs are looking to develop that
STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics)
pipeline and really want to be in the community to talk about
the importance of science, technology, engineering, and math,
both, you know, starting in high school, through college,
partnering with local colleges and certainly partnering with
the universities that are already there.
So pipeline issues are one, economic development,
technology transfer from the labs to--you know, to perhaps sort
of technology hubs that are related to lab, but could be
commercial--using products that could be commercialized outside
of the lab. So we have a fantastic new leader of our Office of
Technology Transfer, who is really focused on what are those
opportunities to create, perhaps, incubators, either inside the
lab structure or outside in adjacency, to be able to create a
whole cluster of dynamic innovation, creating an innovation hub
in an area that may be seen as often cloistered because it is
inside of, perhaps, fencing, et cetera.
Senator Hagerty. Well, may I extend our invitation to your
head of Office of Technology Transfer to join us as well?
Secretary Granholm. Yes.
Senator Hagerty. Because we are working very hard in
Tennessee to try to create just that type of innovation hub.
Secretary Granholm. Oh.
Senator Hagerty. Bringing the private sector together,
transferring technology more efficiently. It is hard to do, and
it always has been hard to do, but if we can find ways to make
it more efficient, more effective, I think it has a great,
great potential in terms of leveraging the massive investment
we are making in basic research and translating that into
applied results that can make a real difference for our economy
and keep America at the forefront of innovation.
Secretary Granholm. So, with your permission, I will have
her reach out to your office to do a briefing and discussion
with you.
Senator Hagerty. Perfect.
Secretary Granholm. Her name is Vanessa Chin.
Senator Hagerty. Thank you, Madam Secretary.
Secretary Granholm. All right. Thank you.
Senator Hagerty. Thank you. Madam Chair.
Senator Feinstein. Senator Murray.
Senator Murray. Thank you very much, Chairman Feinstein.
Good to see you, thank you for being here today.
Secretary Granholm, let me start with, no surprise to you,
the Hanford Site in Central Washington. As you know, the
Federal Government has both a legal and a moral obligation to
clean up the Hanford Site, and to work in partnership, of
course, with my State of Washington in doing so.
I was really pleased to see this year's request, which is a
rejection of some of the dangerous cuts that were proposed in
the last administration. And I think this year's request is, is
much more realistic and closer to current year enacted levels.
So thank you.
But that being said, there is a laundry list of projects to
be done at RL (Richland Operations Office) and ORP (Office of
River Protection), not to mention the Tri-Party Agreement
milestones already in place that require substantial funding
and prudent financial stewardship. I remain concerned about the
long-term projections for this site. A 2019 DOE report
estimated that the lifecycle cleanup costs could be up to $677
billion. And the work would not be completed until 2078. If
those numbers are accurate, it would mean an average annual
appropriation over $11 billion a year for the next 57 years.
That is a long ways off the roughly $2.5 billion is funded out
right now.
Do you have any thoughts for us on, if there are
opportunities to bring down these lifecycle costs while still
safely, and effectively, and in compliance with the Tri-Party
Agreement, and other legal requirements, to completing this
cleanup?
Secretary Granholm. Yes. This is a great question because,
obviously, as we progress in our research and development, new
strategies become available that we might not know of right
now. There is a lot of being done at the labs, as I am sure you
are aware, on how to best contain, how to reduce, how to
mitigate, et cetera. And we are looking at that all the time.
Right now I don't have the silver bullet that would bring
it, you know, down to a much lower funding level at a much
shorter time. What I can tell you is that we--and I appreciate
you acknowledging that this is in fact the highest amount we
have ever asked for cleanup at Hanford, but we have got a lot
of work to do. I am glad we have been able to achieve some
milestones. I look forward to coming to celebrate some of those
milestones.
Senator Murray. Great.
Secretary Granholm. But milestones are just that. It is not
the end goal. And so it is our desire as well to accelerate. It
is our desire to find solutions that are less costly, but also
safe. The point is we will continue to work with you and the
community, which is really important to us that we do it in
partnership and not in opposition with the community so that we
can achieve our mutual goals.
Senator Murray. Well, thank you for that. And of course we
will be working with you on that goal. Let me turn to a related
Hanford question. The payment in lieu of taxes, PILT: This
year's request specifically propose to eliminate PILT funding,
and just for the Hanford and Savannah River DOE sites. PILT
funding is intended to compensate local governments for taxes
they cannot collect because the land is Federal property. And
they use that money to support their schools, and their
hospitals, their libraries, emergency services, things like
that.
I have heard a lot of great things about your, and the
Department's support for communities adjacent to DOE sites, so
that was really surprising to me, and just not acceptable. PILT
funding has long been an issue here, and I want to be clear, it
cannot be eliminated or cut back in any way. The Tri-Cities
really rely on that funding, and they are owed this funding, as
a result of the sacrifices and commitments that community made
during World War II, it is simply not their fault that hundreds
and hundreds of square miles in Washington State are not
taxable, lowering their ability to fund basic services.
So can you explain to me what DOE's rationale for proposing
to eliminate PILT payments, and why were Hanford and Savannah
River specifically targeted?
Secretary Granholm. I would say that, I know that
historically the Department presents a budget that doesn't
include PILT, and that Congress, that your leadership insists
that it is included. And all I want to say is, I look forward
to working with you on that.
Senator Murray. Okay. And we would like to see it in the
budget.
Secretary Granholm. Yes.
Senator Murray. Let me just finish by saying, I really want
to thank you for spending some time with Pacific Northwest
National Lab during your virtual visit.
Secretary Granholm. Yes.
Senator Murray. I hope you can come and visit in person
someday. They are really a leader in climate science, and I was
pleased to see the robust funding increases to the Biological
and Environmental Research Program. As well as the--final year
funding for the Grid Storage Launchpad. They are a leader
nationally in the fight against climate change, and I really
look forward to working with you on that. So thank you for
that.
Secretary Granholm. Okay. Thank you.
Senator Murray. And Senator Coons, thank you for graciously
allowing me to go ahead of you. Thank you.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Coons.
Senator Coons. I believe it is Senator Hoeven's turn.
Senator Feinstein. Yes. Senator Coons.
Senator Coons. Fine. Senator Hoeven, thank you. I am happy
to take the opportunity. Thank you.
Chairwoman Feinstein, and absentia Ranking Member Kennedy.
Thank you, Senator Granholm, and Dr. Verdon for testifying.
And Madam Secretary, it is great to be with you in person.
And I am so grateful for the job you have been doing as part of
the Jobs Cabinet. Helping the American people understand the
connection between combating climate and creating good, high-
paying jobs.
I enthusiastically support the President's vision,
particularly with regards to the Department's budget and look
forward to making sure that it is adequately funded to meet the
challenges of this century. Just a few things I might, first on
carbon capture utilization and storage. I was encouraged to see
a revitalized Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management,
CCUS, as a critical part of our strategy for moving forward.
I have a bill with Senator Cassidy, the SCALE act, which
would support wide-scale CCUS deployment by connecting sites of
carbon dioxide capture to places where it can be stored and it
would create thousands of jobs. Could you briefly discuss: the
importance of carbon dioxide, transport, and storage
infrastructure for both meeting our climate and job creation
goal?
Secretary Granholm. Yes. Thank you for asking this because
I think it is--I agree with you. It is very important. It is
important for the U.S., and I would say it is important around
the globe. There is a lot of our allies across the world who
want to know how they can take this kind of technology and
affordably use it.
So it is one of the reasons why the American Jobs Plan had
in it these 10 projects, demonstration projects, for carbon
capture use and sequestration, because the point is you can use
it on a variety of different carbon sources, whether it is
heavy industry, whether it is power plants. And we want to be
able to show that it can be done, that it can be taken to
scale, that it is affordable, and that it solves the problem.
So, thank you for your leadership in it. Our Fossil Energy
and Carbon Management Office currently has five demonstration
projects running; one of them, Project Tundra, one of them--we
want to make sure that we continue to demonstrate that ability.
The five is great, but we need more to be able to take this
to--and we need it quickly. We need to, because these are big
projects.
And let me just say one other thing is, American Jobs Plan
is called ``Jobs Plan'' for a reason, which is that this kind
of technology, especially with the pipelines that need to be
installed, et cetera, is a huge job creator. So it is a win-
win, and it makes sure that fossil communities are not left
behind.
Senator Coons. Senator Cassidy had an interesting
perspective on it. He said: I have got lots of folks in
Louisiana today working on building and maintaining and
servicing pipelines that pull things out of the ground and put
them into our economy. Why can't the same folks have jobs
building and maintaining and servicing pipelines that take
carbon dioxide and put it back out, under the ground and stored
permanently? A simple, but powerful insight I think.
Let us move towards one of the things that I think is a key
component of a clean energy economy, hydrogen. The Department
recently announced its Hydrogen Shot Initiative to bring down
the cost of clean hydrogen. You traveled to Texas to visit an
Air Liquide facility there. Their, I would say preeminent
research facility in North America happens to be in Newark,
Delaware. We would love to have you come visit there as well.
And Air Liquide is teaming up with Bloom Energy and Chemours in
Delaware, to look at the future of clean hydrogen. Could you
just talk about your vision for the role of hydrogen,
particularly in decarbonizing the hard to abate sectors, like
industry and transportation?
Secretary Granholm. Yes. I can't emphasize this enough, is
that this technology is a technology that can be the game
changer for the toughest areas, but also generally, I mean, we
want to be able to, for example, right now we can't export
renewable energy. We have to use it here. But clean hydrogen
could do that. It could convert hydrogen into green ammonia,
and be able to transport it. And the ammonia distribution
system globally is already in place.
So this is another reason why all of these other countries,
I mean, if Senator Hagerty were here, he would know Japan, for
example, shutting down their nuclear facilities, they have no--
they don't have a whole lot of options. And so they are super-
interested in hydrogen. We have been talking to Australia who
is also doing a lot of experimentation in hydrogen. The
American Jobs Plan has 15 demonstration projects that it would
fund in clean hydrogen, that is very exciting, whether it is
green, or blue, and the blue ends up being sequestered--the
CO2 ends up being sequestered from natural gas.
I am just--there is a huge opportunity here for us to
create jobs and to lead the world in the solution that could
actually allow all of these countries, especially those who
have significant fossil communities, to be able to be net
carbon zero.
Senator Coons. Well, in terms of net carbon zero base load,
I think next-generation nuclear is also an important part of
the suite of approaches we need to take. Right at the end of
last year, something big happened in energy policy. It didn't
get much notice because there were other things going on with
the election, but Chair Murkowski, Ranking Member Manchin, at
the time of the Energy Committee, finally got passed the Energy
Act of 2020. It had a lot of different bills in it.
One of them that I had worked on for years, was a
Modernization of the Weatherization Assistance Program, another
was the Nuclear Energy Renewal Act, to sustain our nuclear
fleet, but also invest in R&D (research & development) and
advanced nuclear. Could you just discuss briefly the role of
nuclear energy in ensuring the balance of decarbonizing base
load power generation and our economy as a whole, and ensuring
energy security for the United States?
Secretary Granholm. Yes. We have to do--I was mentioning
before you arrived, I think Senator Hyde-Smith had a similar
kind of question, which was, we have got to do both research
and development on next generation, nuclear, advanced, modular,
et cetera. And we have to make sure that we keep our existing
fleet operating, because the existing fleet provides such a
significant part of our clean electricity today. And if we take
it offline, it is going to be that much more difficult to get
to the goals of net-zero, as well as 100 percent clean
electricity.
In the American Jobs Plan, as you are aware, the clean
energy standard includes nuclear. And that would be one way to
help the existing fleets maintain their status. A second thing
would be to help to subsidize those who are ready to go offline
so that they stay up. Those are both important, so both
research for the future, as well as helping the existing
nuclear fleet. Those are both really important aspects of what
the clean energy mix must entail.
Senator Coons. Well, and our national labs are an
absolutely critical part of doing this R&D. I look forward to
supporting the appropriations request for the national labs,
both in nuclear technology, and in clean energy technology,
more broadly.
I appreciate the indulgence of the chair, and, very much
look forward to working with you both. Thank you, Madam
Secretary.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Hoeven.
Senator Hoeven. Thank you. Madam Chair. And I am actually,
Madam Secretary, going to pick up right where Senator Coons
left off, and that is referencing the Energy Act of 2020. And
you actually have touched on some of the things in your
responses to him that I wanted to go into for just a minute.
That legislation actually included six carbon capture
projects, including two retrofits of coal-fired plants. You
have mentioned one, which is the Minnkota Plant and Project
Tundra, where DOE has already provided, I think, more than $43
million. The company has put in a lot, and the State of North
Dakota has put a lot of money in, and they are effectively
moving forward on large scale carbon capture.
And so I just want to ask if you support those carbon
capture demonstration projects, and are committed to seeing
them through, because it is a huge endeavor, a huge
undertaking. And in fact, Matt McLennan, the CEO of the
company, will be here today, because in our Energy Subcommittee
of the full Energy Committee, he is testifying on carbon
capture and talking about Project Tundra. Of course, that is
one of the projects we want to take and show you, you know, in
August when you come to visit.
Secretary Granholm. Great, great. Well, yes, I support
that. The CarbonSAFE (Carbon Storage Assurance Facility
Enterprise), which is where the demonstration projects come out
of----
Senator Hoeven. Yes.
Secretary Granholm [continuing]. For Fossil Energy and
Carbon Management, we are asking for a 48 percent increase in
that budget to be able to continue and further those
demonstration projects, and add to them. But I will say, you
know, if we were able to get this funding in the infrastructure
American Jobs Plan, that there would be a significant more
funding for carbon capture, which I fully support. And I think
would be enormously helpful to getting, not just to net-zero,
but to also making sure that these communities are able to
continue to function.
Senator Hoeven. Right. And the key pieces there are, I
mean, it is the frontend investment, like we are talking with
CarbonSafe, and Project Tundra, those kinds of things, it is
the loan guarantees, which you have, and also Rural Utility
Services have, and then it is enhancements to 45Q and 48A.
Secretary Granholm. Right.
Senator Hoeven. So I agree that, very much, we can include
those things in our infrastructure/energy packages, I think
that really advances the ball on carbon capture.
Secretary Granholm. Yes. I agree.
Senator Hoeven. The other thing is, that you answered,
could you just talked about, is the CO2. So we have
projects like we are talking about fossil-based projects, but
we also have biofuels projects that are stripping
CO2, and they need these pipelines. For example, in
North Dakota, we can put the CO2 down hole, but in
Minnesota, Iowa, South Dakota, you can't because you don't have
the EPA regulatory regime in place. So they want to build
pipelines to bring CO2 up to North Dakota, and put
it down hole. So how do we get more of these pipelines built?
You know how challenging that is to move CO2.
Secretary Granholm. Another opportunity to make sure that
the pipelines for CO2, and I would say pipelines
eventually for hydrogen are in the infrastructure American Jobs
Plan that you are negotiating, that too is a huge jobs creator,
that too provides solutions, and you--obviously North Dakota
has a unique geology that is----
Senator Hoeven. Right.
Senator Hoeven [continuing]. Positioned to be able to take
a lot of that. And I think it is a big opportunity for the
State. It is a big opportunity for employment as well.
Senator Hoeven. Right. I mean, you need the geology.
Secretary Granholm. Yes.
Senator Hoeven. You need to have the regulatory and legal
regime in place. So we are going to have to have those
pipelines to move that, the CO2.
Secretary Granholm. Right.
Senator Hoeven. Thank you, Madam Secretary.
And then, Dr. Verdon, as far as the, W80-4, and also the
W87, one of which goes on the LRSO (Long Range Standoff), the
other which goes on the new GBSD (Ground Based Strategic
Deterrent). Update me on the schedules. And are you going to be
able to--are the labs going to be able to keep up? Because, as
you know, they are developing the rocket systems, the LRSO is
progressing quite well. Are you going to be on track with the
warhead piece?
Dr. Verdon. Right now we are on track with both the W80-4,
and the W87-1. But we do recognize that we have COVID impacts
on the 80-4 that we are working with the Air Force, so there is
no near-term impacts with that, but there could be a schedule
adjustment, but we have a lot of margin if we have to do that.
But we haven't reached a final conclusion yet. We are still
working with external vendors who have--we stay in constant
contact with about potential delays, and due to COVID issues in
our institutions, as well as our own. So we are studying that.
No final answer. But right now everything is on target, and we
are supporting the services as required.
Senator Hoeven. Both for the W80-4 and the W87-1?
Dr. Verdon. For both systems. Yes.
Senator Hoeven. Okay. Thank you very much. Appreciate it.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much. I believe we have
another round coming. So, Madam Secretary, please bear with us.
I wanted to talk with you just a little bit about the
increasing temperatures, the intense heat waves, and western
wildfires, really becoming very, very dangerous. Last year in
California, 4 million acres burned, 10,000 structures, 5,000 of
them homes, burned. And one out of ten wildfire ignitions in
our State is related to energy equipment. A lot of which, as we
know, is decades and decades old, and it is big State, 40
million people, big geography.
What role do you see micro grids, renewables, and
distributed power in making power grids more resilient? And I
don't know what we do about those things that hit them and
spark fires. And maybe you have some thoughts on that too.
Secretary Granholm. Well, thank you for that. I think
microgrids are an important piece of resilience. And so making
sure that we have them, especially in areas where we know we
continually see problems with the major distributed system--the
major system, is important. And our Grid Modernization
Initiative, a funding that you all have appropriated for that,
microgrids are a piece of what we are doing. I also think that
it is really important in States like California, States that
are above sea level, that we consider undergrounding these
wires.
Senator Feinstein. I am sorry. I missed it. That we
consider a?
Secretary Granholm. Undergrounding the wires to the extent
possible. It is expensive to underground transmission wires.
However, other countries are doing it, we are doing research on
it. And we are also doing research on how best to identify, in
these old grids, where the weaknesses are.
Senator Feinstein. So you think--if we could just have a
bit of a back and forth.
Secretary Granholm. Yes.
Senator Feinstein. If you think a State as big as
California, geographically, as well as population, can have a
sufficient new grid structure, I don't see that happening
statewide for a long time. There may be some of it. So what I
am looking for are those things that can solve these problems,
and really prevent fire from happening, if at all possible.
Secretary Granholm. I agree a hundred percent. And I think
that microgrids are one piece in some areas. Obviously there is
not a one-size-fits-all solution for a State like California
that is so diverse, but you do--you know where the pockets of
intense fire problem are. And so in those areas, if we could
look at solutions like microgrids, like undergrounding the
wires, so that they are not exposed to create those sparks and
that danger, the solutions like the--there are AI (Artificial
Intelligence) drones that can identify where the weak spots are
on the grid that are the most, have the most fire danger. These
are all things that our Office of Electricity and our labs are
working on, but we need more investment to make sure that this
grid is resilient, and particularly targeted to areas where we
know we have great problems.
Louisiana, we have got a different kind of problem, right?
We need to make the grid resilient from hurricanes, we need to
make the grid resilient in both places. And in Louisiana, in
New Orleans it is below sea level. So you wouldn't consider
undergrounding, so a different kind of solution. But the bottom
line is in the bill that is being negotiated, the American Jobs
Plan, or the Energy Infrastructure Plan, there is a component
that has a grid deployment authority that would be under the
Department of Energy, where we could really target solutions in
a granular way to areas where we know we have the biggest
problems, both transmission, capacity, resilience, and I would
say cyber issues as well. All of them could be, if we
centralized, at least how these decisions are being made and
the technologies to help to address them.
Senator Feinstein. Well, would you be willing to let some
of your people take a look at our State?
Secretary Granholm. Oh, yes.
Senator Feinstein. In terms of the grid structure.
Secretary Granholm. Absolutely.
Senator Feinstein. And make some recommendations. Now
obviously the big problem is cost, and how do you redo an old
structure that is huge? And I would certainly welcome any help
that we could get from the Federal Government by way of advice
and consultation. And so I am taking the opportunity of this
hearing just to ask if you would be willing to take a look at
it.
Secretary Granholm. Of course, absolutely.
Senator Feinstein. Well, thank you very much. I appreciate
that?
Senator.
Senator Kennedy. Thank you, Madam Chair. Put that up real
quick.
Madam Secretary, does the administration support, if you
know, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve?
Secretary Granholm. Yes.
Senator Kennedy. Okay. We have got a lot of vacancies at
the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. And if you look at the
website, I know this isn't your--you just got there, but the
website says this page was last updated on December 15, 2017.
Secretary Granholm. Oh.
Senator Kennedy. Could you take a look at that for me?
Secretary Granholm. Yes. I certainly will.
Senator Kennedy. My understanding is that they are--they
are understaffed there. I have watched you, Madam Secretary,
for years on television, before you became Secretary, and you
are very intelligent. And even though I don't always agree with
you, you make very cogent arguments. Does your proposed budget
include money for geoengineering?
Secretary Granholm. No.
Senator Kennedy. How come?
Secretary Granholm. Well, it has not been a solution that
we--I am not--I don't think it does. No? No, it does not. I
think we want to address and mitigate as best we can, adapt
where we can but we don't have geoengineering as part of our
budget.
Senator Kennedy. But if there is--I mean, geoengineering,
my understanding of it, it is global cooling. There are things
we can do to cool the earth that had--based on science. And
cloud whitening, for example, that is just one--I mean, it
would just seem to me, and there is a whole science out there.
There is a lot of private dollars in R&D being spent on
geoengineering. And if there is a way to cool the earth
without, let's say, destroying the fossil fuel industry, why
wouldn't we want to pursue that, if the objective is to reduce
temperatures?
Secretary Granholm. We are interested in all kinds of
technologies to be able to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and
to reduce our warming. But I will say, and I wanted to say this
to you when you had the first engagement with me, that this
administration is interested in carbon capture use and
sequestration, is interested in hydrogen, is interested in
direct air capture, and is interested in controlling or
managing the emissions off of fossil fuels. So I just want you
to understand that we are there with you on that.
Senator Kennedy. Yes. And I know, you are being truthful
and accurate, but there are a lot of members of the
administration, I think, that don't see the climate as a
discrete scientific problem, they see it as a religion, and
they see it as a vehicle through which they can remake American
society. And I think they are approaching the issue with more
zeal than wisdom.
I believe in metrics, I believe in the prudent allocation
of scarce resources. You know what I am talking about.
Governors have to balance their budgets. And I believe in
metrics, and if we are going to spend, I don't know how many
squillion dollars the President lately wants to spend on--that
we don't have even 5 percent of--on the environment. And I
believe in the environment, we all do. We all want clean air
and bright water, but at some point you have to ask--you have
to judge the expenditure of taxpayer dollars with metrics.
And what I worry about is that we are going to turn the
American economy upside down. We are going to turn a lot of
American lives upside down. We are going to make them a bunch
of promises, just like we made them with--made them promises
with globalization. ``Don't worry. Your life will be better.''
And think about that when you are in the unemployment line.
That is what we tell a lot of Americans.
That we are going to do this without a big picture in terms
of where we are going to end up. Toward that end, let me ask
you this question. If you know, and maybe the Under Secretary
knows if you don't, because I know you can't know everything.
Tell me five concrete steps that India is taking today to
reduce its CO2 emissions.
Secretary Granholm. Well, I know--I mean, India is looking
at wind, looking at solar, looking at hydrogen, looking at
carbon capture, and is trying to replace its coal with natural
gas.
Senator Kennedy. I know they are looking at all that stuff.
President Xi, says they are looking at it too, as he
continually builds----
Secretary Granholm. I know they are deploying--excuse me
for a minute. I don't mean to interrupt you.
Senator Kennedy. That is okay.
Secretary Granholm. But they are deploying those methods,
including distributed strategies, like we were discussing where
they don't have to have the grid, but some kind of distributed
microgrid.
Senator Kennedy. How much money did Modi spend last year in
India?
Secretary Granholm. I don't know.
Senator Kennedy. To reduce CO2 emissions?
Secretary Granholm. I don't know, sir. I don't know the
answer to that.
Senator Kennedy. Okay. It was under a billion, was not it?
Secretary Granholm. I don't know the answer.
Senator Kennedy. Okay. What you do is what you believe,
everything else is just conversation. And, that is what worries
me about this whole approach. Of course, President Xi, and Mr.
Modi are going to say the right things. But you have to judge
people by what they do. And I asked our EPA Administrator a few
weeks--a few months ago, maybe weeks ago, time kind of runs
together; I said, if we pass the President's infrastructure
bill, only 5 percent of which is true traditional
infrastructure, the rest is the Green New Deal and other
things. How much is it going to reduce CO2 emissions
in the world?
And he couldn't answer that question. So we are going to
spend, you know, how many trillions of dollars, and we don't
know what the end game is. That is my problem.
Secretary Granholm. Yes. We spent, I believe, $90 billion
last year, cleaning up after these extreme weather events.
Senator Kennedy. Mm-hmm.
Secretary Granholm. So if we don't take action, it will be
far more expensive as these events escalate. I would also say
that there is a $23 trillion global market for the products
that reduce CO2 emissions, $23 trillion.
Senator Kennedy. Right.
Secretary Granholm. And the question is, are we going to
take advantage of that? Can we create economic opportunity for
the people who work in the fossil fuel industry to be able to
create energy 2.0?
Senator Kennedy. Yes.
Secretary Granholm. By managing the emissions.
Senator Kennedy. And look. You made very good points, but
here is my point. I am going to say it again, President Biden,
what is the latest cost of his infrastructure bill, $2.5
trillion?
Secretary Granholm. $1.3, I think, is what we are
negotiating.
Senator Kennedy. Let's call it $2 trillion, to be fair.
President Biden says, spend $2 trillion, a big chunk of that is
the Green New Deal, and my question is very simple: If we spend
this money to reduce CO2 emissions, how much is
going to be reduced worldwide? Doesn't matter in the United
States, it matters the world wide. And we don't have an answer
to that.
Secretary Granholm. The entire world has signed on to the
agreement in the----
Senator Kennedy. The entire world is not spending $2
trillion.
Secretary Granholm. The entire world is spending more than
that.
Senator Kennedy. But the entire world is not--most of this
is lip service. You and I both know it.
Secretary Granholm. Well, that is not what we are seeing. I
agree that we have to verify, and that we have to make sure
that people are living up to their commitments. And that is
what these agreements are all about. But I understand your
skepticism because you have to verify.
Senator Kennedy. Yes, ma'am. And what I have verified is,
that we are being asked to spend $2 trillion. And the world's
biggest emitter of CO2 is China, third biggest is
India and their attitude seems to be: Go get them. We will hold
your coat while you do that. Meanwhile, President Xi keeps
building power plants fueled by coal. And he has been known to
reside on the scarce side of being honest.
I went way over. I am in big trouble. I am sorry.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much.
Madam Secretary, I want to thank you for your forbearance.
I want to just ask one thing that perhaps we might be able to
talk about a little bit, and that is the $2.6 billion in
funding for the ARPA-E (Advanced Research Projects Agency--
Energy) area, and included in the budget is a new request for
another ARPA focused on climate. And it is unclear exactly how
that would work and why it is needed. And so I just like to put
that on your agenda. I am very interested in what the answer
is, and if I could get that answer, I would appreciate it very
much.
Secretary Granholm. Yes. Just briefly, there is $200
million in our budget for this proposed ARPA-C (Advanced
Research Projects Agency--Climate), and $300 million in other
agencies. There are six other agencies that would be involved.
So it would be a cross-departmental effort, housed at DOE in
partnership with ARPA-E, but the C part means that they would
be looking at technologies that impact climate, that are not
necessarily energy.
So, for example, the items that we were discussing about
how to identify ways to mitigate wildfires, how to make
communities more resilient, and the technologies associated
with that, that is what ARPA-C would be looking at, in
partnership with ARPA-E. We want to negotiate this and work on
it with Congress, with the Senate, and the House. And it could
be that there is a dotted line to both, so that they work in
tandem with one another, because obviously they are related.
But the C part, as we are seeing on a regular basis, is really
necessary given the increasing amount of these energy events.
Senator Feinstein. Well, let me just say thank you for
that. Perhaps we could meet, and with some of your staff,
develop that a little bit further. I am very worried about what
the weather brings for the West Coast.
Secretary Granholm. Yes.
Senator Feinstein. And obviously, particularly the biggest
State there, and 40 million people, and a lot of old
infrastructure, very little of which in this area is new, I
find. What do we do for the future? So that is long range. And
I would not ask you to respond to that now, but if you would
ask your people to look at that, and if we could have a meeting
and discuss it, I would be very grateful.
Secretary Granholm. Great. You got it.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you. And thank you for being here;
and your staff as well.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
The hearing record will remain open for 10 days. Senators
may submit additional information or questions for the record
within that time, if they would like. And the subcommittee
requests that all responses to questions for the record be
provided within 30 days of receipt.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted to Hon. Jennifer Granholm
Questions Submitted by Senator John Kennedy
renewable fuel standard//small refinery exemptions
Question. There is growing bipartisan consensus that the Renewable
Fuel Standard (RFS) is broken. The 2005 law mandates an increasing
percentage of transportation fuel be renewables, but as fuel economy
drastically improved and refiners ran into the ``blend wall'' the
mandates became untenable.
As part of the RFS, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
assigns refiners annual quotas for ethanol they must blend into
gasoline or diesel fuel. The businesses get tradeable credits known as
renewable identification numbers (RINs) for each gallon of renewable
fuel. Those that don't meet their quotas have to buy RINs from other
parties to comply.
Ethanol RINs alone this year have hit their highest price in
program history nearing $2 a gallon. Gasoline across the country is
hitting 6-year highs and this is in no small part due to the broken
RFS.
It is estimated the ethanol mandate is adding about 30 cents a
gallon to the cost of gas--Federal gas tax is 18.4 cents. In fact, many
small and independent refiners --refiners that support vital east coast
and rural Midwest markets-- spend more on compliance and RINs credits
than on payroll, electricity and utilities.
What is the Department of Energy doing to address the skyrocketing
compliance costs associated with the RFS?
Answer. DOE supports research in the production of renewable fuels
to lower the cost of the ethanol and biodiesel that is blended into the
transportation fuel pool.
Additionally, DOE consults with EPA in determining which small
refineries qualify for hardship relief through small refinery
exemptions (SREs). SREs can influence the Renewable Identification
Number (RIN) price and therefore the cost of compliance for refineries.
DOE works with EPA to provide technical input into their efforts to
set the renewable volume obligations (RVO). Mandated renewable fuel
blending volumes should be achievable by the refining industry and
continue to support renewable fuel producers.
Question. Is the Department of Energy concerned that the volatile
RIN market is forcing the closure of refineries that are vital to
getting fuel to markets?
Answer. RIN price volatility adds to the difficulty refineries have
in controlling their RIN costs. The rising price of RINs has increased
purchase cost of RINs for both small and large refineries.
Question. Will the Department of Energy commit to working with the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to reign in the
cost of RINs?
Answer. DOE is committed to working with the EPA Administrator and
staff to use the tools we have available to ensure that the price of
RINs is fair and equitable both to refiners and bio-fuel producers.
The RFS allows small refineries to receive an exemption from the
RFS, if they can prove compliance would subject them to
disproportionate economic hardship. There is no statutory definition
for disproportionate economic hardship, and a small refinery may apply
for an exemption at any time. When deciding whether to grant an
exemption, EPA is to consult with the Secretary of Energy.
Question. Now that the Supreme Court has affirmed the fact that
small refineries may receive extensions of their RFS exemptions even if
their earlier exemptions had lapsed, will the Department of Energy
commit to supporting small refineries showing hardship?
Answer. EPA is required by the Clean Air Act, as amended, to
consult with DOE on small refinery exemption petitions. Additionally,
DOE was required to provide EPA a study to determine whether compliance
with the requirements of the Renewable Fuel Program would impose a
disproportionate economic hardship on small refineries.
DOE prepared a February 2009 Small Refinery Exemption Study and a
subsequent March 2011 Small Refinery Exemption Study (2011 Study),
which is the basis for determining disproportionate economic hardship,
as required by statute. EPA uses the DOE's findings based on the
metrics set forth in the 2011 Study in adjudicating the small refinery
petition. DOE is committed to continue to provide EPA the findings from
its disproportionate economic hardship analysis, as contemplated by the
Clean Air Act, in the future.
Question. The hack and subsequent shutdown of the Colonial Pipeline
highlighted the importance of regional refining capacity. A number of
refineries have shut down over the past few years with many of those
directly reporting compliance costs associated with the RFS as being a
leading factor in their shuttering. Does the dwindling refinery
capacity as a result of the RFS concern the Department of Energy?
Answer. In January 2020, ethanol RIN prices were below 20 cents per
RIN. By March 2021, ethanol RIN prices increased to about $2.00 per
RIN, greatly increasing RFS compliance costs. During the COVID-19
pandemic, refineries faced high RIN prices as well as reduced gasoline
and diesel demands. This placed financial stress on the refining
industry due to lower refining margins and higher than usual RFS costs.
Question. As the average lifespan of a vehicle in the United States
is anywhere from 13-17 years, in addition to a recent Energy
Information Administration (EIA) report indicating a year-to-year
gasoline reduction of 14 percent, what is the Department doing to work
with the EPA on making sure American vehicles are protected from
increasing renewable fuel mandates?
Answer. DOE works with EPA on setting the renewable volume
obligations (RVO) for the current year as well as in setting the RVO
for future years (2023 and beyond, when Congress has not set renewable
fuel mandates). DOE works with EPA with the aim that the RVOs and
renewable mandates that EPA recommends are achievable by the refining
industry, provide appropriate fuel for the Nation's transportation
fleet, and support renewable fuel producers per the original intent of
the statute.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Susan M. Collins
energy storage
Question. I appreciate for the conversations we have had regarding
the importance of energy storage research and innovation and was
pleased to see that the Department's budget request includes funding
for a multi-year series of competitive solicitations to conduct
technology neutral commercial-scale energy storage demonstration
projects.
As you and I have previously discussed, my legislation to support
energy storage research and development--the Better Energy Storage
Technology, or BEST, Act--became law in December 2020 and authorized
three commercial-scale energy storage demonstration projects. While I
understand funding is critical to get these demonstration projects
going, it is important that the Department has the necessary
infrastructure to solicit proposals once the funding is available.
What actions has the Department taken to ensure that when the
funding is available that the energy storage demonstration projects
will be able to get off the ground as quickly as possible?
Answer. The Department of Energy (DOE) continues to conduct
stakeholder outreach to better understand technology readiness and
where energy storage demonstration projects would be most beneficial.
These efforts have been undertaken in close collaboration with the
Office of Electricity (OE) and Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
(EERE), as well as other offices with a role in the demonstration and
commercialization of energy storage. For example, DOE, via Sandia
National Laboratories, hosted a ``Priorities and Pathways to Long-
Duration Energy Storage'' workshop on March 9-10, 2021. Via Pacific
Northwest National Laboratory, DOE hosted an ``Energy Storage for
Social Equity Roundtable'' on June 28-29, 2021.
DOE has also conducted energy storage workshops with utility
regulators, including those from New Jersey, Iowa, Utah, Maryland,
Nevada, New Mexico, Michigan, Wisconsin, and the New England Conference
of Public Utility Commissioners. In addition, on July 14, 2021, DOE
announced the second target within DOE's Energy Earthshots Initiative,
``Long Duration Storage Shot,'' which sets the goal to reduce grid
storage costs by 90 percent for systems that deliver 10 or more hours
of long duration energy storage by 2030. Finally, the fiscal year 2022
Budget Request proposes new funding opportunities in OE, EERE, and the
new Office of Clean Energy Demonstration.
cybersecurity
Question. I appreciate your response to the letter I sent with
Senator Risch and others regarding the Office of Cybersecurity, Energy
Security, and Emergency Response (CESER). As you are well aware, our
adversaries are seeking to access and undermine our critical
infrastructure, including our electric grid. The Colonial Pipeline
cyber-attack by Russian-based hackers was one in a serious of
significant cyber operations against our country this year. Foreign
cyber operations against critical infrastructure, however, have been an
ongoing problem. Russia's cyber-attacks against Ukraine's power grid in
2015 and 2016 are an example.
Given the cyber-attacks that have occurred this year, what is the
Department of Energy doing to strengthen cybersecurity through CESER
across our country's critical energy infrastructure and national labs?
Answer. The Department of Energy (DOE)'s fiscal year 2022 Budget
Request proposes to invest $201 million in the Office of Cybersecurity,
Energy Security, and Emergency Response (CESER). As the office
responsible for executing DOE's Sector Risk Management Agency and
Emergency Support Function #12--Energy responsibilities, CESER works
closely with energy sector partners and across all levels of government
to prepare for and respond to growing and evolving cyber threats and
attacks to U.S. energy infrastructure.
The fiscal year 2022 Budget Request will strengthen CESER's ability
to execute its energy and national security mission by enhancing the
office's risk management, situational awareness and emergency response
capabilities. Specifically, the fiscal year 2022 Budget Request will
advance policies, technologies, and initiatives, including work with
DOE national labs, to increase the visibility of physical and cyber
threats in the operational technology environment, mature the
cybersecurity supply chain, and support exercises and partnerships with
states and other public and private sector organizations that will
bolster the nation's energy security and resilience.
CESER will also lead crosscutting cyber-R&D and ensure that
cybersecurity is incorporated into the research and development
activities for all of DOE's technology program offices.
offshore wind
Question. In 2020 alone, Europe added 2,918 megawatts of offshore
wind power, bringing their total offshore wind capacity to more than
25,000 megawatts. By comparison, only 30 megawatts of offshore wind has
been installed in the U.S. I am pleased the Department is making
offshore wind development a priority, with the goal of deploying 30,000
megawatts of offshore wind by 2030, and has already acted on this
commitment through recent approvals for offshore wind projects located
off the costs of New York and New Jersey.
A world-class consortium, led by the University of Maine, is
pioneering a new era of energy independence by harnessing powerful
deepwater offshore winds in the U.S. through one of DOE's offshore wind
demonstration projects. When installed, Aqua Ventus will deploy the
nation's first floating, deepwater offshore wind turbines off the coast
of Maine. In my state alone, the offshore wind industry has the
potential to support an annual average of more than 2,000 jobs through
2030.
Given UMaine's demonstration project, I encourage the Department to
focus on floating deepwater offshore wind turbines technology, in
addition to conventional offshore wind.
How is the department prioritizing the advancement of domestic,
innovative clean energy technologies through R&D, specifically in the
deepwater, floating offshore wind space?
Answer. The President's Fiscal Year 2022 Budget Request proposes an
increase in funding level for the Wind Energy Technologies Office's
(WETO) Offshore Wind subprogram that reflects the prioritization of
research, development, demonstration, and deployment (RDD&D)
innovations to drive U.S. offshore installations to contribute to the
achievement of the Administration's goals of 100 percent clean
electricity by 2035 and a net-zero carbon economy by 2050.
Targeted funding will support a wide range of RDD&D activities,
specifically including a focus on:
--Innovative offshore wind environmental and siting solutions.
--Cost-effective offshore wind floating platform design development.
--Domestic offshore wind advanced manufacturing, supply chain
development, and recycling.
--Offshore wind storage hybrids and hydrogen production.
--Acceleration of cost reductions to offshore wind system
manufacturing, installation, and operations through technology
innovations and industrialization.
advanced manufacturing
Question. Advanced composite materials and manufacturing methods,
including large-scale additive manufacturing and the manufacturing of
bio-based composites, have the potential to revolutionize our
manufacturing sector.
Starting in fiscal year 2019, DOE awarded $20 million in funding to
support an innovative collaboration between the University of Maine and
Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Through this partnership, the University
of Maine has secured the world's largest 3D printer and recently
printed the world's largest 3D-printed boat at 25-feet, 5,000-pounds.
According to Habib Dagher, executive director of UMaine's Advanced
Structures and Composites Center, UMaine hopes to print with 50 percent
wood products at 500 pounds per hour, producing materials with
properties similar to aluminum. This ongoing initiative between UMaine
and ORNL will provide needed opportunities and support job growth in
the forest products, manufacturing, composites, wind, and boatbuilding
industries.
Would you elaborate on how the Department plans to maintain and
foster these research collaborations between the National Labs and
universities that will help us maintain American leadership in advanced
manufacturing?
Answer. DOE continues to support the innovative collaboration
between the University of Maine and Oak Ridge National Laboratory to
deliver novel, low-cost, low-impact bio- based materials for 3D
printing and other applications. The partnership fosters accelerated
place-based innovation and collaborative research by linking two
regional centers of industrial and research expertise together to solve
shared technical problems and accelerate research and development.
Current and future research focus areas include: reducing cost and
energy of cellulosic material refinement methods, development of next-
generation large-format deposition strategies to achieve 500 lbs. per
hour deposition, development of advanced molecular dynamic modeling and
other simulation tools, and targeted technical demonstrations for high
impact applications in wind, buildings, and marine applications. In
addition to these long-term projects, the partnership allows for direct
and fast industrial engagement through short, targeted research
projects that support the technical portfolio.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Bill Hagerty
Question. Nuclear power accounts for 60 percent of the U.S. carbon-
free electricity and nuclear power plays an important role in providing
clean, cheap, and reliable power, especially for important national
security facilities.
However, the cost to build and operate today's large nuclear
reactors is too high. Advanced reactors have the potential to be
smaller, cost less, produce less waste, and be safer than today's
reactors. The Department of Energy currently operates an important
program that allows the Department to partner with industry to build
two advanced reactors in the next 7 years. While this investment is
important, one of the crucial aspects that has been overlooked by the
two existing projects is a partnership with a utility. As the future
owner-operator of new nuclear plants, utilities will be critical in
deciding which technology design has the highest chance of success to
actually be deployed onto the electrical grid and ultimately supplied
to customers. The Tennessee Valley Authority currently has the only
Nuclear Regulatory Commission early site permit for a Small Modular
Reactor.
Secretary Granholm, can you provide an update on the two Advanced
Reactor Demonstration Projects currently ongoing at the Department of
Energy? Are you concerned about them meeting the required seven-year
time window given that neither has an NRC Early Site Permit, which as I
understand means they have about 2 years' worth of work compared to
sites which currently hold that permit?
Answer. The Office of Nuclear Energy (NE) has completed
negotiations and finalized awards to both of the selected Advanced
Reactor Demonstration Project (ARDP) demonstration awardees; the X-
energy Xe-100 high temperature gas reactor and the TerraPower Natrium
sodium-cooled fast reactor. NE is now actively supporting and
overseeing the Federal investment in these projects. While it is still
early in the project lifecycles, the two lead companies are already
making significant progress in the design, engineering, and licensing
of these important technologies and have met initial scheduled
milestones established within their respective awards.
The seven-year timeline to commercial demonstration established by
Congress is very ambitious. To ensure that we selected the
demonstration applicants best prepared to meet the program goal, the
Department considered a range of views by subject matter experts
experienced in the licensing and operation of nuclear plants in our
evaluation process. The Department also entered into an agreement with
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to obtain their independent expertise
and consultation on licensing options and pathways, including
feasibility of advanced reactor licensing timing and schedules. While
an Early Site Permit provides a schedule advantage in licensing a
reactor demonstration, it should be noted that the ARDP demonstration
project selection process considered many factors besides licensing,
including technology innovation, design diversity, and capabilities
that exceed that of the existing fleet, as well as potential for future
sales and fleet-level deployment.
Question. Secretary Granholm, have you considered partnering
directly with a utility with experience building and operating nuclear
reactors, as your Department works to increase opportunities for new
nuclear deployment? What would be the central factors of that
consideration?
Answer. Initial demonstration projects under the Department's
Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program (ARDP) are being executed via a
Funding Opportunity Announcement that solicited project proposals that
could potentially result in the commercial operation of the reactor in
five to 7 years.
The merit review and selection process employed to evaluate
proposals included an assessment of the applicant's ability to meet
specific criteria such as the technical feasibility and likelihood that
the demonstration reactor could be designed, licensed, constructed, and
operational within the seven-year window, the robustness of the
applicant's project management processes, the affordability of the
design and competitiveness in the commercial market, and the technical
abilities, qualifications and commitment of the project team.
Applicants generally teamed with architect and engineering firms and
utilities that had experience in the construction of nuclear reactors.
The ultimate demonstration selections under the ARDP were made based on
a combined scoring of all the above factors.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Patrick Leahy
Question. In some areas of Vermont, vermiculite affects 10 percent
of households eligible for the Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP).
The fiscal year 2018 and fiscal year 2019 appropriations bills included
language directing the Department of Energy to make $500,000 available
to current WAP grant recipients via the Weatherization Innovation Pilot
Program to develop and implement strategies to treat harmful
substances, including vermiculite. The set-aside for this work
increased to $1,000,000 in the fiscal year 2020 and fiscal year 2021
bills. It is my understanding that much of this money has been spent on
developing strategies to remediate vermiculite, rather than the
implementation of those strategies.
Please provide the details of how the Department of Energy has
issued this money to current Weatherization Assistance Program
recipients specifically to implement solutions, rather than develop
those solutions.
Answer. DOE's approach to addressing vermiculite was discussed with
Senate Energy and Water Subcommittee staff in July of 2018. DOE has
tasked the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) to perform a field
study to measure the effects of current approaches used by Grantees and
Subgrantees to weatherize homes with vermiculite insulation. The study,
which is currently on-going, will include research elements that will
identify any mitigating actions that may be applicable in performing
such retrofits.
DOE's Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP) envisions the project
will monitor 50-100 dwellings from 3-5 Grantees, including Vermont's
(VT) Department for Children and Family's (DCF). Indoor quality testing
will be done both before and after weatherization activities are
performed, and any homes that require asbestos or vermiculite
mitigation will receive it. VT's DCF has agreed to participate in the
ORNL project to help ORNL better assess current approaches to
remediating vermiculite in homes, and ORNL will issue contracts
directly to the Subgrantees, in concert with the VT WAP.
This field study is focused on data collection that includes, house
occupant and weatherization worker exposures to asbestos before,
during, and after the weatherization of the houses containing
vermiculite insulation using four identified approaches:
--Weatherizing the house as normal after testing reveals that the
vermiculite insulation contains less than 1 percent asbestos by
weight.
--Avoiding areas of the house where vermiculite insulation is
installed and weatherizing the remaining areas of the house as
normal.
--Blowing cellulose or other insulation over the existing vermiculite
insulation.
--Weatherizing the areas of the house where vermiculite insulation is
installed using unique/alternative approaches developed
specifically for that house.
Completed activities to date for the field study:
--Initial interview of Grantees and identification of approaches
being taken by various states, narrowing down the Grantees of
interest based on their approaches
--Development of the detailed Experimental Plan and its iterative
improvement
--Identification of necessary equipment, sampling procedures, and
analytical methods
--Environmental Protection Agency Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response
Act- certified asbestos sampling training of project Principle
Investigator
--Communication and discussions of the Experimental Plan with
Weatherization Grantees (States) and Subgrantees (private non-
profits and local units of government)
--Institutional Review Board (IRB) review completion.
Currently, the project is 6-8 months behind schedule based on the
submitted 2020 Experimental Plan. This is due to two factors. First,
the IRB full board review required several modifications to the
procedures outline in the Experimental Plan. Moreover, the 2019 novel
coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2, or COVID-19) pandemic has also delayed
progress in moving forward due to the stoppage of weatherization work
at the beginning of the pandemic.
The remaining tasks to complete the study and their expected
deadlines are:
--Identify subcontractors formally and implement a bidding process
--Completion by late September 2021
--Subcontracting with asbestos sampling firms or contractors,
Subgrantees, and analytical laboratories
--Completion by November 2021
--Training of subcontractors based on the standard operating
procedures developed for the study
--Completion by December 2021
--Data collection
--Completion by December 2022
--Sample analysis
--Completion by June 2023
--Final Report
--Completion by September 2023
Question. How does the Department of Energy plan to build off of
the vermiculite remediation strategies it has developed to directly
assist homeowners seeking assistance through state Weatherization
Assistance Programs?
Answer. Once the field study referenced above is finalized, Oak
Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) will issue a final report on the
effects of Grantees' current approaches on weatherized dwellings
containing vermiculite. The study results will be used by DOE to
develop additional guidance on existing and potential strategies
identified during the process to address asbestos contamination in
vermiculite insulation (i.e., how to better approach and complete
weatherization of dwellings with vermiculite insulation, including
precautions needed, avoidance criteria, etc.). Appropriations bills
from fiscal year 2018 to fiscal year 2021 have included report language
encouraging the Department of Energy, while administering the Clean
Cities program, to prioritize projects in States where the
transportation sector is responsible for a higher percentage of the
State's total energy consumption and is its largest source of
greenhouse gases. This emphasis is particularly important for rural
states like Vermont, where transportation accounts for nearly 40
percent of total emissions--almost 10 percent more than the national
average--and where progress on vehicle emissions reduction provides a
significant opportunity to achieve State and national climate goals.
Question. Can you provide an update on how the Department
prioritizes projects within Clean Cities, and whether recent funding
cycles have emphasized States with higher transportation sector fuel
consumption and emissions?
Answer. Clean Cities competitive funding opportunities are designed
to implement and facilitate education, outreach, and training projects
focused on helping to accelerate the adoption of alternative fuels and
other advanced vehicle technologies. Funding applications for
deployment projects include scoring criteria that address impacts on
fuel consumption and emissions. In addition, a national network of more
than 75 active coalitions covering nearly every state and 80 percent of
the U.S. population, brings together stakeholders in the public and
private sectors to use alternative and renewable fuels, idle-reduction
(IR) measures, fuel economy improvements, and new transportation
technologies as they emerge.
In 2019 these collective efforts resulted in a cumulative impact in
energy use equal to 1 billion gasoline gallon equivalents and prevented
nearly five million carbon dioxide equivalent tons of emissions. An
analysis of the eight states where transportation accounts for 50
percent or more of emissions shows that for fiscal year 2018-fiscal
year 2020, there have been 30 Clean Cities projects funded in those
states representing $22 million of Federal funding. Projects seeking
funding for fiscal year 2021 are currently being reviewed.
Appropriations bills from fiscal year 2018 to fiscal year 2021 have
included report language encouraging the Department of Energy, while
administering the Clean Cities program, to prioritize projects in
States where the transportation sector is responsible for a higher
percentage of the State's total energy consumption and is its largest
source of greenhouse gases. This emphasis is particularly important for
rural states like Vermont, where transportation accounts for nearly 40
percent of total emissions--almost 10 percent more than the national
average--and where progress on vehicle emissions reduction provides a
significant opportunity to achieve State and national climate goals.
I appreciate your focus and commitment to achieving widespread
national deployment of electric vehicles (EVs) as a cornerstone of the
President's climate agenda, represented in both the fiscal year 2022
budget request and in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill. In some parts
of the country where colder temperatures reduce battery range, many
buyers are apprehensive about purchasing an EV as their primary mode of
transportation, even as the costs of EVs continue to decrease and
become more accessible. Particularly in largely rural and car-dependent
communities, like those in Vermont, reduced battery range during the
winter poses a significant obstacle for many drivers. Importantly, EV
charging infrastructure is especially critical to facilitate EV
adoption in these areas. I am also concerned that a lack of
standardization in EV charging technology across the sector--including
unique and proprietary features--remain an obstacle for widespread
adoption and deployment.
Question. How will the Department of Energy work with other
Departments and agencies to ensure that EV charging infrastructure
funding is appropriately disbursed geographically to allow the most
car-dependent communities--specifically in colder and rural areas--to
transition to zero emission transportation?
Answer. The Department will work with other Federal agencies and
state offices to ensure that Federal EV charging funding is disbursed
equitably and across the entire nation to provide access to convenient
charging to all Americans based on nationwide detailed analyses of
charging needs and infrastructure placement and on roadmaps built in
coordination with local stakeholders. A national charging system will
need to include high-power charging along highways and a combination of
low and high-power charging in communities to ensure equitable access
to EV charging for residents who do not have access to private
charging. This includes investing in workplace charging, curbside
charging, and public-access locations such as transportation hubs,
commercial destinations, libraries, and government buildings.
The department is also studying how to address barriers to
installing EV charging for residents of multi-family housing through
innovative charging and management technology, outreach and education
efforts targeting developers and property managers, and finance models.
Ensuring equitable access to charging for rural communities will
require coordination with utilities on electric service capacity and
demand charges as well as investments in distributed energy resources.
These are all areas the department will work on as it seeks to expand
EV charging for all Americans.
Question. As the Biden administration works to achieve its goal of
500,000 EV charging stations across the country by 2030, what efforts
are underway to encourage industry standardization of charging
infrastructure and systems to ensure access for all communities and
widespread adoption?
Answer. The Department believes a seamless charging experience for
all electric vehicle (EV) users and effectively integrating EV charging
with the grid will be important for the success of EVs. This requires
physical interoperability, accessible payment, and open data protocols
both to provide station data to users and for back-end communication
between the charging equipment, network operators, and the electric
utilities. We are ready to work with other agencies and industries to
develop solutions tackling all these elements. On physical
interoperability, in particular, we recognize the challenges that are
created by the existence of two EV Direct Current Fast Charger (DCFC)
connector standards, SAE Combined Charging System (CCS) and CHAdeMO (a
charging standard for EVs), and one non-standardized, proprietary
connect, Tesla. Tesla has not announced specifics yet. At this point,
DOE would still stress a seamless and interoperable charging
environment and it's possible that the Supercharger network could
provide this in the future.
Today, in the United States the automakers selling EVs using non-
proprietary connectors are converging on the use of the CCS connector
and the non-proprietary charging networks are predominantly installing
DCFC with CCS connectors, with only a small number of CHAdeMO equipped
DCFC to support legacy CHAdeMO EVs. While these advances are
encouraging, physical interoperability is only one element and the
Department will be working with EV stakeholders to develop a National
EV Charging Technical Roadmap to identify the key system enablers and
technologies that will allow for a reliable, resilient, and convenient
charging network that will support the widespread adoption of EVs in
all communities.
______
Questions Submitted to Dr. Charles Verdon
Questions Submitted by Senator Bill Hagerty
Question. The Uranium Processing Facility in Tennessee is one of
the Federal Government's largest construction projects. Over the past 7
years, this Subcommittee has provided significant funding for this
project, including $750 million in fiscal year 2021.
The President's budget proposes $524 million to continue
construction of the Uranium Processing Facility. However, I understand
that $620 million is needed to keep this project on schedule.
Dr. Verdon, is the Uranium Processing Facility still on track to be
completed by 2025 at a cost of no more than $6.5 billion?
Answer. NNSA completed an independent review the week of February
22-25, 2021, which identified that the staffing and material
improvements over the past 6 months have been insufficient to maintain
a December 2025 completion date. However, multiple opportunities exist
over the next 4 years to improve schedule performance and potentially
complete on-time. Since that review, NNSA has increased staffing and
material deliveries and appears to have improved performance, making
the December 2025 completion date and the total project cost
potentially more attainable. We believe that available carryover and
the $524 million in the President's Budget will address planned work in
fiscal year 2022.
Question. Dr. Verdon, has the pandemic had an effect on
construction and on-budget ability to finish this project?
Answer. UPF project construction continued throughout the COVID-19
pandemic, and suppliers were notified that their deliveries to the UPF
project were part of NNSA's critical infrastructure work and should
continue. Additionally, enhanced cleaning, staggered shifts, masks, and
an increase in the bus fleet used to transport personnel to the job
site limited the overall impact to UPF construction.
The project continues to take mitigation measures as some
deliveries have been impacted, and construction execution experienced
some decrease in efficiency at peak COVID cases during the past holiday
season.
It is too early to determine COVID cost impacts as we are still
operating with pandemic related protocols.
Question. Dr. Verdon, what lessons have we learned from the Uranium
Processing Facility that are being applied to the other big
construction project at the Department of Energy? Specifically, the
Lithium Processing Facility--another multi-billion-dollar construction
project slated to begin at Y-12.
Answer. NNSA will continue to use lessons learned from UPF and our
entire portfolio to improve early project planning and requirements
development. For example, NNSA recently started assigning project
directors immediately after Analysis of Alternatives are complete. NNSA
also will institute a rigorous change control program to limit scope
growth.
NNSA's fiscal year 2022 budget request also asks for appropriate
staff to ensure that NNSA has the right numbers of qualified
acquisition and project management specialists to oversee our growing
portfolio. Finally, NNSA will complete designs before baselining,
procure long lead materials as early as practicable to optimize cost
and schedule performance, and break large projects into subprojects to
better manage scope.
subcommittee recess
Senator Feinstein. So, Madam Secretary, it is wonderful to see you.
Thank you for being here.
Thank you so much. And the meeting is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:29 a.m., Wednesday, June 23, the subcommittee was
recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of the Chair.]