Science and Energy Research Infrastructure Needs of the U.S. Department of Energy (Hearing, 2022)
Summary
The printed record of a hearing before the Subcommittee on Energy of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, House of Representatives, dated April 27, 2022 (Serial No. 117-54), on the science and energy research infrastructure needs of the U.S. Department of Energy. Representative Jamaal Bowman, Chairman of the Subcommittee, presides, and opening statements are listed for Bowman and Ranking Member Randy Weber. The sole witness listed is Dr. Geraldine Richmond, Under Secretary for Science and Innovation, U.S. Department of Energy, whose answers to post-hearing questions appear in Appendix I. Appendix II carries a statement of the American Society of Civil Engineers submitted by Representative Deborah Ross.
Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used
Cite this document
“Science and Energy Research Infrastructure Needs of the U.S. Department of Energy (Hearing, 2022).”
Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/house-hearing-117th-congress-science-and-energy-research-infrastructur-b8d003a23e/
, SHA-256 9d98562b4b4100ba8dd0cc6a3cb869fff0a8061be87a1febef3d5fc652817adf.Full text
[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
SCIENCE AND ENERGY
RESEARCH INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS
OF THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE,
AND TECHNOLOGY
OF THE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
APRIL 27, 2022
__________
Serial No. 117-54
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov
_________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
47-350PDF WASHINGTON : 2023
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HON. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas, Chairwoman
ZOE LOFGREN, California FRANK LUCAS, Oklahoma,
SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon Ranking Member
AMI BERA, California MO BROOKS, Alabama
HALEY STEVENS, Michigan, BILL POSEY, Florida
Vice Chair RANDY WEBER, Texas
MIKIE SHERRILL, New Jersey BRIAN BABIN, Texas
JAMAAL BOWMAN, New York ANTHONY GONZALEZ, Ohio
MELANIE A. STANSBURY, New Mexico MICHAEL WALTZ, Florida
BRAD SHERMAN, California JAMES R. BAIRD, Indiana
ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida
JERRY McNERNEY, California MIKE GARCIA, California
PAUL TONKO, New York STEPHANIE I. BICE, Oklahoma
BILL FOSTER, Illinois YOUNG KIM, California
DONALD NORCROSS, New Jersey RANDY FEENSTRA, Iowa
DON BEYER, Virginia JAKE LaTURNER, Kansas
CHARLIE CRIST, Florida CARLOS A. GIMENEZ, Florida
SEAN CASTEN, Illinois JAY OBERNOLTE, California
CONOR LAMB, Pennsylvania PETER MEIJER, Michigan
DEBORAH ROSS, North Carolina JAKE ELLZEY, TEXAS
GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin MIKE CAREY, OHIO
DAN KILDEE, Michigan
SUSAN WILD, Pennsylvania
LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas
------
Subcommittee on Energy
HON. JAMAAL BOWMAN, New York, Chairman
SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon RANDY WEBER, Texas,
HALEY STEVENS, Michigan Ranking Member
MELANIE A. STANSBURY, New Mexico JIM BAIRD, Indiana
JERRY McNERNEY, California MIKE GARCIA, California
DONALD NORCROSS, New Jersey MICHAEL WALTZ, Florida
SEAN CASTEN, Illinois CARLOS A. GIMENEZ, Florida
CONOR LAMB, Pennsylvania PETER MEIJER, Michigan
DEBORAH ROSS, North Carolina JAY OBERNOLTE, California
C O N T E N T S
April 27, 2022
Page
Hearing Charter.................................................. 2
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Jamaal Bowman, Chairman, Subcommittee
on Energy, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S.
House of Representatives....................................... 10
Written Statement............................................ 12
Statement by Representative Randy Weber, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Energy, Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...................... 13
Written Statement............................................ 15
Written statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson,
Chairwoman, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S.
House of Representatives....................................... 16
Written statement by Representative Frank Lucas, Ranking Member,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 17
Witnesses:
Dr. Geraldine Richmond, Under Secretary for Science and
Innovation, U.S. Department of Energy
Oral Statement............................................... 18
Written Statement............................................ 20
Discussion....................................................... 29
Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Dr. Geraldine Richmond, Under Secretary for Science and
Innovation, U.S. Department of Energy.......................... 50
Appendix II: Additional Material for the Record
Statement submitted by Representative Deborah Ross, Subcommittee
on Energy, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S.
House of Representatives
``Science and Energy Research Infrastructure Needs of the
U.S. Department of Energy,'' the American Society of Civil
Engineers.................................................. 74
SCIENCE AND ENERGY
RESEARCH INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS
OF THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
----------
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 27, 2022
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Energy,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
Washington, D.C.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 11:01 a.m., in
room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Jamaal
Bowman [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Bowman. This hearing will now come to order.
Without objection, the Chairman is authorized to declare recess
at any time.
Before I deliver my opening remarks, I wanted to note that,
today, the Committee is meeting both in person and virtually. I
want to announce a couple of reminders to the Members about the
conduct of this hearing. First, Members and staff who are
attending in person may choose to be masked, but it is not a
requirement. However, any individuals with symptoms, a positive
test, or exposure to someone with COVID-19 should wear a mask
while present.
Members who are attending virtually should keep their video
feed on as long as they are present in the hearing. Members are
responsible for their own microphones. Please also keep your
microphones muted unless you are speaking.
Finally, if Members have documents they wish to submit for
the record, please email them to the Committee Clerk, whose
email address was circulated prior to the hearing.
Good morning, and thank you to Under Secretary Richmond for
joining us today to discuss the science and energy research
infrastructure needs of the Department of Energy (DOE). We're
holding this hearing to examine the goals and impacts of the
DOE's budget request for 2023, with particular attention to
impacts on the construction and upgrade of user facilities and
large-scale experiments managed by the DOE Office of Science
(SC). That said, questions concerning programs and activities
carried out by other DOE offices will of course also be
welcome.
I want to start off by emphasizing that we are in a climate
emergency, as the most recent IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change) report has reminded us yet again. In response,
we need urgent, transformative action from Congress and the
Administration. We need a clean energy revolution. I thank the
White House and DOE leadership for the important steps they are
taking to restructure the agency, think outside the box, and
mobilize our resources and expertise to kickstart that
revolution.
This is evident in several aspects of the Fiscal Year (FY)
2023 budget request, and I would specifically like to note my
appreciation for the integrated approach to research,
development, demonstration, and deployment that is shaping
strong investments at the Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy (EERE), for example. And from solar
manufacturing to home electrification, we need to center the
communities that have been most harmed and neglected by the
fossil fuel economy. I also welcome very strongly the continued
emphasis on equity and implementing Justice40. Let's keep going
bigger on all of this. And I strongly believe that to achieve
our goals and reach our full potential as a society, we need to
invest as ambitiously as possible across the entire science,
technology, and innovation ecosystem.
Unfortunately, the Fiscal Year 2023 request underinvests in
one crucial part of that ecosystem: DOE's Office of Science.
The Office of Science is the lead Federal agency supporting
scientific research for energy applications and is the Nation's
largest supporter of research in the physical sciences. This
agency has two principal thrusts: direct funding for scientific
research and the development and operation of large-scale
experiments and scientific user facilities. These assets and
activities collectively serve tens of thousands of
investigators across hundreds of different entities, both
domestically and internationally.
In doing so, they play a pivotal role in driving
advancements in transformative new clean energy technologies,
while also helping unlock the science behind some of our most
fundamental mysteries, including the very nature of matter,
energy, space, and time. For example, the office's light source
facilities enable detailed characterization of new materials
for next generation batteries. The office also leads the U.S.
contribution to the international ITER (International
Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor) project, which could
greatly accelerate progress toward the realization of fusion
energy generation. In short, the Office of Science provides the
bedrock on which DOE develops a broad range of advanced
technologies.
The health of the Office of Science is a top priority for
the Energy Subcommittee, and the Committee as a whole. We have
passed numerous pieces of bipartisan legislation concerning the
office during the 117th Congress, including a comprehensive
authorization, that seeks to leverage the office's assets to
unleash innovation and tackle the problems of our time. In
addition, we have held several hearings examining the office's
portfolio and conducted oversight through other channels,
including briefings and meetings with DOE and White House
officials to convey the important role the office will play in
achieving the Administration's goals on climate, clean energy,
and more.
This is why I am concerned by and disappointed with the
Administration's Fiscal Year 2023 budget request for the
office. Under this proposal, many current major construction
projects would not be supported at levels that are needed to
maintain their project schedules and minimize their total
costs. This problem is pervasive, affecting projects relevant
to many scientific fields from particle physics to fusion
energy and at numerous national labs, including the Electron--
excuse me, the Electron-Ion Collider and future upgrades to the
National Synchrotron Light Source-II at Brookhaven National
Laboratory in New York.
The resultant delays and increased price tags caused by a
lackluster budget impede scientific progress and deny DOE's
internal and external research communities' access to the most
up-to-date instrumentation. Furthermore, they raise alarm among
the Department's contractors and collaborators, both domestic
and international, about its commitment to these projects.
Budget requests that propose cuts, stagnation, or slow growth
to the office's top line also cause downward pressure on the
research programs, which is leading to adverse long-term
effects.
The Office of Science plays a key role in advancing
scientific discovery here and around the world, and it is a
major contributor to the work force pipeline that enables DOE
to fulfill its mission and that is needed to address the
climate crisis. I also believe these research programs are a
powerful tool for broadening participation and increasing
equity in STEM (science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics), which is an issue I am particularly passionate
about.
With that in mind, I would like to see future budget
requests from the Administration that employ the same approach
taken by the Committee in the Department of Energy Science for
the Future Act, which formed one of the cornerstones of the
America COMPETES Act. Our top priority, executed in a
bipartisan manner, was to provide policy direction and
authorize funding levels that would empower the Office of
Science to adequately meet the financial requirements inherent
to both its research and construction portfolios. These bills
would enable large-scale construction projects to be completed
on time and on budget and would expand the office's research
enterprise in a way that would encourage more young people to
enter scientific fields and diversify the Department's work
force. I'll note that the Administration wholeheartedly
endorsed both of these bills, and so I hope that going forward
they will match rhetoric with action.
Thank you again, and I look forward to this discussion.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Bowman follows:]
Good morning, and thank you to Under Secretary Richmond for
joining us today to discuss the science and energy research
infrastructure needs of the Department of Energy.
We're holding this hearing to examine the goals and impacts
of the DOE's budget request for 2023, with particular attention
to impacts on the construction and upgrade of user facilities
and large-scale experiments managed by the DOE Office of
Science. That said, questions concerning programs and
activities carried out by other DOE offices will of course also
be welcome.
I want to start off by emphasizing that we are in a climate
emergency, as the most recent IPCC report has reminded us yet
again. In response, we need urgent, transformative action from
Congress and the Administration. We need a clean energy
revolution. I thank the White House and DOE leadership for the
important steps they are taking to restructure the agency,
think outside the box, and mobilize our resources and expertise
to kickstart that revolution. This is evident in several
aspects of the FY 2023 budget request, and I would specifically
like to note my appreciation for the integrated approach to
research, development, demonstration, and deployment that is
shaping strong investments at the Office of Energy Efficiency
and Renewable Energy, for example. And from solar manufacturing
to home electrification, we need to center the communities that
have been most harmed and neglected by the fossil fuel economy.
I also welcome the continued emphasis on equity and
implementing Justice40.
Let's keep going bigger on all of this. And I strongly
believe that to achieve our goals and reach our full potential
as a society, we need to invest as ambitiously as possible
across the entire science, technology, and innovation
ecosystem. Unfortunately, the FY 2023 request under-invests in
one crucial part of that ecosystem: DOE's Office of Science.
The Office of Science is the lead federal agency supporting
scientific research for energy applications and is the nation's
largest supporter of research in the physical sciences. This
agency has two principal thrusts: direct funding for scientific
research; and the development and operation of large-scale
experiments and scientific user facilities. These assets and
activities collectively serve tens of thousands of
investigators across hundreds of different entities, both
domestically and internationally. In doing so, they play a
pivotal role in driving advancements in transformative new
clean energy technologies, while also helping unlock the
science behind some of our most fundamental mysteries,
including the very nature of matter, energy, space, and time.
For example, the Office's light source facilities enable
detailed characterization of new materials for next generation
batteries. The Office also leads the U.S. contribution to the
international ITER (pronounced ``eater'') project, which could
greatly accelerate progress toward the realization of fusion
energy generation. In short, the Office of Science provides the
bedrock on which DOE develops a broad range of advanced
technologies.
The health of the Office of Science is a top priority for
the Energy Subcommittee, and the Committee as a whole. We have
passed numerous pieces of bipartisan legislation concerning the
Office during the 117th Congress, including a comprehensive
authorization, that seek to leverage the Office's assets to
unleash innovation and tackle the problems of our time. In
addition, we have held several hearings examining the Office's
portfolio and conducted oversight through other channels,
including briefings and meetings with DOE and White House
officials to convey the important role the Office will play in
achieving the Administration's goals on climate, clean energy,
and more.
This is why I am concerned by and disappointed with the
Administration's FY 2023 budget request for the Office. Under
this proposal, many current major construction projects would
not be supported at levels that are needed to maintain their
project schedules and minimize their total costs. This problem
is pervasive, affecting projects relevant to many scientific
fields-from particle physics to fusion energy-and at numerous
national labs, including the Electron-Ion Collider and future
upgrades to the National Synchrotron Light Source-II at
Brookhaven National Laboratory in New York. The resultant
delays and increased price tags caused by a lackluster budget
impede scientific progress and deny DOE's internal and external
research communities access to the most up-to-date
instrumentation. Furthermore, they raise alarm among the
Department's contractors and collaborators-both domestic and
international-about its commitment to these projects.
Budget requests that propose cuts, stagnation, or slow
growth to the Office's topline also cause downward pressure on
the research programs, which is leading to adverse long-term
effects. The Office of Science plays a key role in advancing
scientific discovery here and around the world. And it is a
major contributor to the workforce pipeline that enables DOE to
fulfill its mission and that is needed to address the climate
crisis. I also believe these research programs are a powerful
tool for broadening participation and increasing equity in
STEM, which is an issue I am particularly passionate about.
With that in mind, I would like to see future budget
requests from the Administration that employ the same approach
taken by the Committee in the Department of Energy Science for
the Future Act, which formed one of the cornerstones of the
America COMPETES Act. Our top priority, executed in a
bipartisan manner, was to provide policy direction and
authorize funding levels that would empower the Office of
Science to adequately meet the financial requirements inherent
to both its research and construction portfolios. These bills
would enable large-scale construction projects to be completed
on time and on budget, and would expand the Office's research
enterprise in a way that would encourage more young people to
enter scientific fields and diversify the Department's
workforce. I'll note that the Administration wholeheartedly
endorsed both of these bills, and so I hope that going forward
they will match rhetoric with action.
Thank you again, and I look forward to this discussion.
Chairman Bowman. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Weber for an
opening statement.
Mr. Weber. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
convening this hearing on this important topic.
We are facing serious threats to our country's energy
security, its reliability, as well as affordability. Just ask
anyone who has filled up their car with gas recently or
suffered through a power outage in freezing weather. These are
complex problems, but we will not solve them unless we are
willing to confront the underlying basic scientific questions
and technical roadblocks. And there is no one better positioned
to do that than the United States Department of Energy, and
that's why we're glad you're here.
The Department's Office of Science is our country's largest
supporter of basic research in physical sciences and takes on
today's toughest fundamental challenges in physics, in
chemistry, in materials science, biology, and computer science.
DOE's 28 scientific user facilities house the advanced
equipment required for cutting-edge research such as high-
powered lasers, particle accelerators, and advanced
supercomputers. These are capabilities that only the Federal
Government is set to provide. If we fail to sustain our support
for these tremendous resources, we are not only squandering our
previous investments but putting our clean energy future, our
national security, and our international competitiveness at
risk. The Chinese Communist Party is open about their ambition
to replace the United States as the world's scientific, as well
as economic, leader.
Russia's aggressive actions in Ukraine have sparked global
instability and economic uncertainty. If we allow our research
infrastructure to fall behind, our international rivals will
gain control of the most crucial emerging industries, and we
will no longer attract top international talent to our
institutions.
Folks, I have championed the importance of basic research
throughout my time on the Science Committee. I would say that I
feel like a broken record, but it still appears that nobody's
gotten that message. For Fiscal Year 2023, the Department of
Energy has requested a less than 5 percent increase for the
Office of Science. Let that sink in, less than 5 percent.
Meanwhile, the Department has requested a 56 percent increase
for ARPA-E (Advanced Research Projects Agency--Energy) and
includes massive increases for activities within EERE like a 44
percent increase for the Vehicle Technologies Office and 84
percent increase for the Solar Energy Technologies Office and a
whopping 200 percent increase for the Wind Energy Technologies
Office. I fear that this request is not sufficient to support
the numerous construction projects and upgrades required to
maintain the Office of Science's top-of-the-line facilities and
address emerging challenges for these projects.
Instead, the proposal appears to be more focused on Green
New Deal talking points than on what we call mission-critical
Department of Energy needs. How many clean energy innovations
will come from increased funding for corporate support programs
in solar energy soft cost production? I can answer that. None.
Dare I say they won't see the light of day.
I look forward to hearing more about this request and how
the Department plans to maintain its commitment to our critical
research infrastructure and user facilities. We cannot shy away
from asking those tough questions and pushing for specific
answers at these hearings. We have a responsibility to our
constituents to ensure our Federal agencies are stewarding
their hard-earned dollars responsibly.
Additionally, while we have done a lot of good work in
Congress and at this Committee the Chairman talked about to
support the Department's research enterprise, failure to invest
our Federal funds wisely will actually undermine that
progress--process. I'm sorry, progress and process.
I'm also looking forward to learning more about the myriad
changes announced for the Department. To date, Congress has
received few details on how the departmentwide reorganization
will actually impact coordination between program offices and
how newly created program offices will cooperate with existing
ones to administer R&D (research and development) programs and
prevent duplicative efforts. Cross-cutting issues such as grid
security and critical mineral availability require efficient
communication and seamless cooperation among program offices,
so we must come out of this hearing with a clearer view of this
new structure.
Under Secretary Richmond, we want to say thank you for your
testimony today, and I'm especially glad to see you here in
person with or without a mask. I look forward to working with
you to maximize the value of our Federal R&D investments. And,
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Weber follows:]
Thank you, Chairman Bowman. And thank you for convening
this hearing on this important topic.
We are facing serious threats to our country's energy
security, reliability, and affordability. Just ask anyone who
has filled up their car with gas recently or suffered through a
power outage in freezing weather. These are complex problems,
but we will not solve them unless we are willing to confront
the underlying basic scientific questions and technical
roadblocks. And there is no one better positioned to do that
than the U.S. Department of Energy.
The Department's Office of Science is our country's largest
supporter of basic research in physical sciences and takes on
today's toughest fundamental challenges in physics, chemistry,
materials science, biology, and computer science.
DOE's 28 scientific user facilities house the advanced
equipment required for cutting- edge research, such as high
power lasers, particle accelerators, and advanced
supercomputers.
These are capabilities that only the Federal government can
provide. If we fail to sustain our support for these tremendous
resources, we are not only squandering our previous investments
but putting our clean energy future, national security and
international competitiveness at risk. The Chinese Communist
Party is open about their ambition to replace the United States
as the world's scientific and economic leader. Russia's
aggressive actions in Ukraine have sparked global instability
and economic uncertainty. If we allow our research
infrastructure to fall behind, our international rivals will
gain control of the most crucial emerging industries and we
will no longer attract top international talent to our
institutions.
I have championed the importance of basic research
throughout my time on the Science Committee. I would say that I
feel like a broken record, but it still appears that not
everyone has gotten the message.
For Fiscal Year 2023, the Department of Energy has
requested a less than five percent increase for the Office of
Science. Meanwhile, the Department has requested a 56 percent
increase for ARPA-E, and includes massive increases for
activities within EERE (E-E-R-E), like a 44 percent increase
for the Vehicle Technologies Office, an 84 percent increase for
the Solar Energy Technologies Office, and a whopping 200
percent increase for the Wind Energy Technologies Office.
I fear that this request is not sufficient to support the
numerous construction projects and upgrades required to
maintain the Office of Science's top-of-the-line facilities and
address emerging challenges for these projects. Instead, the
proposal appears to be more focused on Green New Deal talking
points than on mission-critical DOE needs.
How many clean energy innovations will come from increased
funding for corporate support programs and solar energy soft
cost reduction? I can answer that: none.
I look forward to hearing more about this request and how
the Department plans to maintain its commitment to our critical
research infrastructure and user facilities. We cannot shy away
from asking tough questions and pushing for specific answers at
these hearings.
We have a responsibility to our constituents to ensure our
federal agencies are stewarding their hard-earned dollars
responsibly. Additionally, while we have done a lot of good
work in Congress and at this Committee to support the
Department's research enterprise, failure to invest our federal
funds wisely will undermine that progress. I am also looking
forward to learning more about the myriad changes announced for
the Department.
To date, Congress has received few details on how the
Department-wide reorganization will impact coordination between
program offices, and how newly-created program offices will
cooperate with existing ones to administer R&D programs and
prevent duplicative efforts.
Crosscutting issues such as grid security and critical
mineral availability require efficient communication and
seamless cooperation among program offices, so we must come out
of this hearing with a clearer view of this new structure.
Under Secretary Richmond, thank you for your testimony
today, and I'm especially glad to see you here in person. I
look forward to working with you to maximize the value of our
federal R&D investments.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman Bowman. Thank you, Mr. Weber.
Is Chairwoman Johnson present? We will----
Mr. Weber. Mr. Chairman, may I take a personal privilege?
We want to say to our great Chairwoman of the Full Science
Committee that we hope the best for her and want the best for
her. We're sorry that she's not here and that we're praying for
her, and I yield back.
Chairman Bowman. Thank you for that, Mr. Weber.
If there are Members who wish to submit additional opening
statements, your statements will be added to the record at this
point.
[The prepared statement of Chairwoman Johnson follows:]
Good morning everyone, and thank you, Under Secretary
Richmond, for appearing before us today. As you know, this
Committee has jurisdiction over all of the Department of
Energy's essential science and energy research and development
activities, laboratories, and facilities. So I very much look
forward to working with you over the rest of this Congress.
I want to focus my remarks this morning on the DOE Office
of Science. During my tenure on the Science Committee, I have
observed that the Office of Science often flies under the radar
amongst policymakers and the public alike. This has always
surprised me because the Office, which was funded at around
$7.5 billion in Fiscal Year 2022, is the lead federal agency
supporting scientific research for energy applications and the
nation's largest supporter of research in the physical
sciences.
Not only does the Office support research directly, it also
supports the development, construction, and operation of a
broad portfolio of large-scale experiments and unique, open-
access scientific user facilities. These facilities are
critically important for the development of new technologies
and for exploring the frontiers of our scientific understanding
by researchers from both academia and industry. In carrying out
its mission, the Office of Science also has stewardship of ten
of the seventeen DOE national laboratories.
So why does the work of this Office sometimes get
overlooked by policymakers and the public? I think it's easy to
get lost in the details and gloss over the importance of some
of these scientific tools. However, the fact remains that the
activities that the Office of Science supports are vital to
improving our competitiveness and decarbonizing our country.
The activities supported by this office are essential to
advancing transformative industries that are important to all
of us and our national security, from next generation batteries
and microelectronics to quantum science and carbon-free fusion
energy systems. It should also be mentioned that the Office of
Science supplies the nation with isotopes that are essential to
everyday life, with uses ranging from cancer treatments to food
sterilization.
Dr. Richmond, I know that you share my belief in the
importance of this Office. Yet the reality is that successive
Administrations, including the current one, have repeatedly
presented budget requests to Congress that would underfund the
Office of Science relative to the activities the nation has
tasked it to undertake. While I support the Administration's
goal of additional funding for the Office and it is certainly
appreciated, the level of growth proposed for Fiscal Year 2023
is simply not sufficient for the current needs of the world-
class user facilities, research programs, and national
laboratories stewarded by the Office, as expressed to the
Committee by the Department itself.
As an example of these deficiencies, the Fiscal Year 2023
request for the Office of Science's fusion program would amount
to a 1.4% increase over the Fiscal Year 2022 appropriated
level. If enacted, this would effectively be a cut to the
program when annual research cost inflation levels are taken
into account. Ironically, this funding level was announced
shortly after the White House held a three-hour summit in March
to announce a new fusion energy initiative and discuss the
progress and potential benefits of improved support for fusion
research and development. You and the Secretary both provided
quite eloquent and encouraging remarks at this event, so you
can understand my puzzlement at the budget request for fusion.
More broadly, I believe you know that this Committee has
prioritized reauthorizing the work of the Office of Science for
some time now, and there now exists bicameral and bipartisan
support in the form of companion DOE Science for the Future
bills in the House and Senate. The House also included this
bill in the America COMPETES Act of 2022, which was endorsed by
the Administration. I intend to continue to press for a healthy
funding level of for the Office of Science when Congress acts
on DOE's budget request later this year. And I urge the
Administration to consider the importance of additional funding
to support some of our nation's most important science and
energy research programs and facilities as you start your work
to prepare next year's request.
With that, I would like to thank you again for being here,
and I look forward to working with you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lucas follows:]
Thank you, Chairman Bowman, for hosting this important
hearing, and thank you Under Secretary Richmond for your time
and testimony this morning.While the Committee on Science,
Space, and Technology has jurisdiction over all of the
Department of Energy's civilian R&D programs, as well as the 17
DOE National Laboratories, this hearing with the Under
Secretary will focus on the Department's fiscal year 2023
priorities for several key programs within this broad
jurisdiction--such as the Office of Science, the Office of
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, and the Office of
Nuclear Energy.
DOE is the nation's largest federal sponsor of basic
research in the physical sciences and is a world leader in
technology development and innovation.
As such, it plays an essential role in the U.S. research
ecosystem. On the Science Committee, we recognize that this
ecosystem must help us overcome our two most significant
immediate challenges: the need to address global climate change
and the need to maintain U.S. leadership in science and
technology.
We know that DOE is uniquely positioned to meet both
challenges, particularly through its Office of Science. The
Office of Science supports the kind of fundamental research
that will not only enable the development of next-generation
clean energy technologies but will also support U.S.
competitiveness in science and establish our global leadership
in industries of the future.
The best part is that investing in this basic research
spurs our economy without duplicating work that can and should
be done by the private sector. It's the most efficient way for
the government to support American scientific progress.
Last summer, the Science Committee worked together to pass
H.R. 3593, the DOE Science for the Future Act, in the House
with 351 votes. If enacted, this overwhelmingly bipartisan
legislation would be the first comprehensive authorization of
the Office of Science. It includes detailed program direction
and substantial funding for DOE basic research programs and
critical research infrastructure at the DOE National
Laboratories.
In February, the Senate introduced S. 3699, the DOE Science
for the Future Act of 2022, a direct companion to this
legislation which includes robust investments for Office of
Science programs across the board.
Yet, despite the broad, bipartisan, and bicameral support
for sustained Office of Science growth, this Administration
continues to demonstrate a lack of commitment to this office
and its world- leading facilities. I am surprised and deeply
concerned to see that, while the Department's budget request
includes funding increases as high as 60% for other program
offices, it includes just a 4.3% increase for the Office of
Science and inadequate funding profiles for its high priority
National Laboratory research facilities.
The Office of Science is the engine that drives
breakthrough scientific discoveries. As I said earlier, it
conducts the basic research that allows for new, more efficient
and cleaner energy technologies. Why then is DOE underfunding
it?
EERE and the Loan Program Office, for instance, invest in
mature technologies and community projects. While there is
certainly a role for this kind of work at DOE, we're shooting
ourselves in the foot when we prioritize these over DOE's clean
energy innovation work. We're sacrificing future discoveries
for feel-good policies today.
So I'd like to hear from the Under Secretary just how DOE
plans to adequately support the Office of Science's
infrastructure and research programs with such a constrained
budget.
I know many on this committee and in the research community
are looking for answers.
This is just one of our areas of concern this morning. As
all of my friends here know, last Congress, the Science
Committee worked together to pass the Energy Act of 2020, the
first comprehensive update of U.S. energy policy in over a
decade. It includes more than a dozen bills from this committee
and focuses on competitive clean energy solutions driven by
research across DOE's applied energy offices.
Last May, this committee heard from Secretary Granholm
about DOE's plans to fully implement this legislation. A lot
has changed in since we spoke with the Secretary last year. The
Department received over $62 billion through the Infrastructure
Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA). And to accommodate this
overwhelming influx of taxpayer dollars, DOE has undergone a
major restructuring, established several new offices, and has
announced a plan to hire 1,000 new workers through the Clean
Energy Corps.
I led a letter to Secretary Granholm last week asking for
more information about this hiring spree. I'm concerned that
this initiative lacks strategy and foresight, and that it could
end up duplicating or undermining other important work by the
Department to advance clean energy technologies.
I hope to hear more about that program today. I also look
forward to receiving an update from the Under Secretary on the
Energy Act authorized activities under her purview, like the
enhanced geothermal systems demonstration and FORGE activities,
the low dose radiation research program, and U.S. contributions
to the ITER project. Additionally, I hope this hearing touches
on her plans to coordinate with the Undersecretary for
Infrastructure on management of clean energy demonstration
projects and grid R&D activities within this committee's
jurisdiction.
I want to thank Under Secretary Richmond for her testimony
today, and for outlining her plans to support our federal R&D
enterprise in fiscal year 2023 and beyond. I look forward to a
productive discussion.
Chairman Bowman. At this time, I would like to introduce
our witness. Dr. Geraldine Richmond is the Under Secretary for
Science and Innovation at the Department of Energy. In this
role she oversees DOE's Office of Science, as well as research
and development in renewable energy, nuclear energy, carbon
management, energy efficiency, and grid modernization, among
other areas. She also oversees DOE's national laboratories and
their facilities.
Dr. Richmond is currently on leave from the University of
Oregon where she holds the Presidential Chair in Science and
Professor of Chemistry. She has been honored by many awards,
including the National Medal of Science, the Priestley Medal
from the American Chemical Society, and the Linus Pauling Medal
Award. She has served two terms as a Presidential appointee to
the National Science Board and has also been President of the
American Association for the Advancement of Sciences.
A long--a career-long advocate for underrepresented groups
in STEM fields, she is the founding Director of a grassroots
organization called the Committee on the Advancement of Women
Chemists, or COACh, that has helped over 25,000 women
scientists and engineers in career advancement in the United
States and in dozens of developing countries around the world.
Thank you for joining us today.
As our witness should know, you will have 5 minutes for
your spoken testimony. Your written testimony will be included
in the record for the hearing. When you have completed your
spoken testimony, we will begin with questions. Each Member
will have 5 minutes to question the panel.
Dr. Richmond, please begin.
TESTIMONY OF DR. GERALDINE RICHMOND,
UNDER SECRETARY FOR SCIENCE AND INNOVATION,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Under Secretary Richmond. Well, thank you. It's a pleasure
to be here personally today, too. We've been quarantined for so
long, and I wish health to all Members who might be under the
weather with whatever's going around.
So as Members of this Committee know, the Office of
Science, or SC, is the cornerstone of the U.S. research system.
Through basic and use-inspired research, the Office of Science
is making critically important advances, as you pointed out, in
science and technology that support our economic and national
security, including a just and equitable clean energy and
climate change transition.
SC is the largest Federal sponsor of basic research in the
physical sciences and takes the lead in fundamental scientific
research for our energy future. I myself have been blessed with
having funding for my own research program at the Department of
Energy for over 30 years, so I appreciate the Office of Science
very much for all the students that that's produced now that
have gone further.
The President's Fiscal Year 2023 budget request for science
grows investments in Administration priorities, including the
basic research we still need to meet challenges in the areas of
climate change and clean energy, artificial intelligence (AI),
machine learning, and bio-preparedness.
This supports the launch of three new research initiatives:
Science Energy Earthshots; Funding for Accelerated Inclusive
Research, FAIR; and the Accelerated Innovations in Emerging
Technologies, or Accelerate. It also supports continued funding
for priorities areas including microelectronics, critical
minerals, quantum information science, exascale computing,
fundamental science to transform manufacturing, and accelerator
science and technology. And the Office of Science request for
Reaching a New Energy Sciences Workforce, RENEW, is doubled
from the Fiscal Year 2022 appropriation to expand targeted
efforts to diversify the scientific work force, and may I point
out, especially at HBCUs (historically Black colleges and
universities).
At the same time, these investments position the Office of
Science to operate across programs and beyond traditional silos
and help build a science work force that looks like America. At
the same time, this proposed budget balance is competing
priorities across the Office of Science portfolio. It supports
research to advance frontiers of science, as well as the
construction and upgrade of world-leading scientific user
facilities and their operation and maintenance.
This request supports the next generation of scientific
tools to maintain U.S. leadership in scientific discovery and
technology development to support our Nation's economic
competitiveness and to foster our national security.
So with that, I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Under Secretary Richmond
follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Bowman. Thank you, Under Secretary Richmond. I
will begin the round of questioning. And just to let you know,
I have three questions. We're going to try to get through all
of them as quickly as possible.
Thank you so much for being with us today. As I laid out in
my opening statement, the President's Fiscal Year 2023 budget
request for the Office of Science raises concerns for this
Committee. It is simply not enough to support the current needs
of the office's facilities, research programs, and national
laboratories that it stewards. My understanding is that
underinvestment in the Office of Science has been a longer
trend that my colleagues have been observing and asking about
for several years now, though of course we know that you have
only recently begun your tenure at the DOE. Can you walk us
through how the Administration arrived at only a 4.3 percent
increase for the Office of Science, especially in comparison to
the major increases proposed for DOE's applied energy programs
and the National Science Foundation (NSF)?
Under Secretary Richmond. Well, thank you for that
question. Again, I am a new--bit of a newbie to the process,
and--but I must say that we still consider this a strong budget
request. And it does follow the priorities of the
Administration--the Biden Administration in putting forth
funding for--especially for climate change and equity issues.
And so in developing that funding request, which is really just
a blueprint, we--given to the Administration, we really look
forward to being able to make progress in many of the areas we
continue to be in the forefront of with the existing budget
request and look forward to working with you to see how we can
even go further with regards to making sure that we have a
strong and robust Office of Science budget and facilities and
search and operations.
Chairman Bowman. Thank you very much. It is also my
understanding that because of the persistent budget constraint
issues we are seeing in the President's request for the Office
of Science, the office's strategy for estimating project costs
involves annual self-editing of the project funding profiles to
fit within a relatively low arbitrary topline funding level for
the office that DOE believes is achievable. In other words,
this hasn't been a bottom-up process where you look at the
obligations, needs, and research opportunities of the office
and base a budget request on that but more of a top-down one.
Are you aware of this strategy, and do you know if the
Department has plans to improve it? Can you commit to improving
this process?
Under Secretary Richmond. Thank you for that question. This
is a really important issue that you raise. And again, coming
into the Department now as new, I've been working with the
Office of Science to do real baselining, the actual costs of
being able to understand--and the reason this is important not
only for the issues that you raise, with regards to whether
it's changed practices or not, but we have just been through 2
years of COVID. That has changed the way we even think about
how we operate our facilities or need to operate our
facilities, whether it be adding AI to the way that we do
things at our facilities, as well as remote. But we still have
to have the staffing to do that.
And so I've been working diligently with the Office of
Science to re-baseline all of the facilities and the operations
from the bottom up so we know truly what number we need to be
going into. And so I absolutely am committed to this, and I
thank you for raising the issue and also looking forward to
working with you on this. This is really important.
Chairman Bowman. Thank you for that answer, very exciting
to hear that. My colleagues may have further followups, but I'd
like to switch gears a little bit.
One of my priorities as Chair of this Subcommittee has been
advancing a vision for energy justice, and we have spent a good
deal of time examining and legislating on how to apply that
vision to our country's scientific and climate research
activities specifically. I want to commend the Department for
recently rolling out a new research initiative involving urban
integrated field laboratories. This initiative will fund new
observational modeling and simulation studies to improve the
accuracy of community-scale climate research and inform
equitable climate solutions, including simulation of the
benefits of deploying those solutions in marginalized
communities across the country.
I am pleased to see that funds will be going out this year
and also that the Fiscal Year 2023 budget request proposes
additional funds for this initiative. Can you talk to us about
how you see energy justice reflected in this budget request,
and what are your priorities when it comes to implementing the
Justice40 initiative?
Under Secretary Richmond. Well, thank you for that
question, too. As you noted, I've spent many years of my
career, several decades working on issues of equity in STEM.
But this goes beyond that. And I'll continue to push for that,
and I'm glad I have many alliances in the Department of Energy.
But this goes beyond that. What the Office of Science is doing
and DOE is doing is truly committed to Justice40 and really
making a concerted effort in everything we do to make sure that
we are making up for the mistakes, can I say, in the past with
regards to where we put our energy resources, where we provide
opportunities for those to advance in their careers in ways I
have never seen before. I mean, I've been involved with
leadership activities in the Department of Energy and NSF for
several decades, and I have never seen the issues of equity
and--of our energy resources all over the country, in urban
areas, in rural areas like where I come from, I've never seen
that before. And it just is so exciting to be in nearly every
meeting and have the Justice40 issue raised, whether that has
to do with the grid, whether that has to do with scientists we
have in our national laboratories or using our facilities or
who gets solar energy panels or, for example, in tribal
communities. I mean, that's--some of the resources in our
tribal communities remind me of things that I've seen in
Africa. This is not acceptable. This is not acceptable. And
it's--I just have to say I'm deeply proud of where the Office
of Science is going and DOE in general on these issues. It
makes my heart pitter patter.
Chairman Bowman. Thank you so much, Dr. Richmond. I now
recognize Mr. Weber for 5 minutes.
Mr. Weber. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Under
Secretary Richmond, for being here and being real. I know when
you were reading your remarks, blah, and you kind of--and I
don't know how you spell that, but I--you know, my tongue--my
tang gets tungled, too, every now and then, so thank you for
being here and being real. Your excitement and enthusiasm
shows.
Secretary Richmond--Under Secretary Richmond, it's my
opinion, and I think I can safely say the opinion of many in
this room, that the DOC research facilities like those
sponsored by the Office of Science and the Office of Nuclear
Energy are truly the crown jewels of our Federal research
infrastructure. Glad to hear that you've spent many years--I
mean, you don't look old enough to spend that too many years.
You know, we know that maintaining and advancing these
world-leading facilities is absolutely essential to our global
leadership in science, as well as technology. That's why it's
so important that when we in Congress authorize construction of
a new facility, it's completed in a timely manner. So it should
come as no surprise that I am concerned about something in the
past, what I--the future Versatile Test Reactor (VTR), after
all, it was my bill that helped our great Committee here, the
Nuclear Innovation--Nuclear Energy Innovation Capabilities
Act--we call it NEICA--of 2017--that first authorized to the
Versatile Test Reactor's construction. But here we are 5 years
later and VTR's completion has been stalled and then tied to
the success of the Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program,
ARDP, a program just recently authorized in 2020.
So my question, Under Secretary Richmond, can you please
share with us, being as detailed as possible, an update on the
status of the VTR, Versatile Test Reactor, and your plans to
ensure its timely success?
Under Secretary Richmond. Well, thank you for that
question. Both of them are incredibly important to us. I don't
have all the details in front of me. They're in these pages
somewhere, but I'd love to be able to get back to on this
because this is really important, both of these are for our
future. So if you--I'd love to work with you on it----
Mr. Weber. Yes.
Under Secretary Richmond [continuing]. Continue to press me
on it to get back to you on it, but all I can say is that we're
still committed to both of these. Some things just take a
little bit longer than we would hope.
Mr. Weber. Well, a couple of questions upfront. You know
that Russia is outstripping us in that endeavor, right? They're
way ahead of us, No. 1. And second question, you know that
Russia is not our friend. In fact, right about now I would say
that Russia is hardly anybody's friend, so that's a great--I
would appreciate your commitment to doing that.
Let me ask you this. What role would the ARDP and more
specifically TerraPower's Natrium project play in the
completion of the VTR, Versatile Test Reactor?
Under Secretary Richmond. Well, I think they are coupled. I
think they absolutely are coupled and we need one in order to
get to the other. So, again, I'd be happy to get back to you on
this----
Mr. Weber. OK.
Under Secretary Richmond [continuing]. And you're certainly
committed to this.
On your issue with regards to Russia, this has really
changed the landscape of a lot of our programs and concerns in
the Department of Energy. In my programs--and I'd be happy to
talk more about that if questions arise, but this is--we are at
a bit of a phase transition right now with regards to how we
are viewing some of our resources and some of our--both the
adequacies and inadequacies of some of our resources that we
critically need that the Office of Science has been key to for
so long but some of them sort of on the back burner.
Mr. Weber. Well, I'm glad to hear that. How--in that vein,
how will you plan to coordinate with the Under Secretary for
Infrastructure in the Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations on
this very work?
Under Secretary Richmond. So thank you for asking that
question, too, because, you know, when I first came into this
role, I was Under Secretary for Science and Energy. I had a
broad portfolio and part of that going on to S3 over the
infrastructure. That said, the person Kathleen Hogan, who is
now the acting Under Secretary for Infrastructure, she was the
one that was helping in my position before I came. We are
connected at the hips if I can say that. We meet every morning,
discussing how we can align our programs as closely as possible
on all clean energy. And in fact, it's not just the applied
programs, whether it be fusion or nuclear or whatever it is in
the applied programs but also in the deployment, so this is
just this way. But then I've also been working very hard on
getting the Office of Science more connected better to the EERE
and the FECM (Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management)
and the applied areas.
As we put money into these different pockets, whether it be
the Office of Science, the applied areas, or the deployment, I
call them pockets but we're trying to make it one big seamless
bucket and not only because if we're going to have success, we
can't be siloed. And DOE has had a history of being siloed. And
so I am working very hard to make sure that both the--in the
applied and infrastructure area that we're tied very closely
and making sure that everything that happens in the
demonstration gets taken onto deployment.
Mr. Weber. Well, thank you for that. And as you continue
down that path in cooperation and--with your colleague, I
appreciate that, will you keep us updated on the progress?
Because I'm very concerned about the VTR and we'd love for you
to keep us updated.
Under Secretary Richmond. Yes, and I can appreciate why you
would be concerned about that because it's very important. And
I promise you----
Mr. Weber. Yes.
Under Secretary Richmond [continuing]. We will.
Mr. Weber. All right. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I yield
back.
Under Secretary Richmond. Yes.
Chairman Bowman. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman
from California, Mr. McNerney.
Mr. McNerney. Well, I thank the Chair for holding this
hearing, and I thank the witness, Ms. Richmond, for your work
in this area. And, as a scientist, I couldn't be more excited
about these issues than you are.
But I've noticed that a lot of the numbers are lower than
what we'd like to see. A lot of the increases are lower than
what we'd like to see, and I'm sure that that'll come out
during the rest of the hearing, but I want to focus on a couple
of issues.
The DOE's Biological and Environmental Research division is
doing critical work to both improve understanding of aerosol
and cloud interactions with the Earth's atmosphere and to
reduce uncertainty in climate models. I was glad to see
specific mention in the budget of equipment refresh for the
Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) research facility to
collect observational data and to initiate operations for ARM
aerial capability. Dr. Richmond, can you elaborate a little for
me, please, on DOE's plan for expanding cloud aerosol science
and reducing uncertainty, including through expansion of ARM's
research and observational capability?
Under Secretary Richmond. Well, thank you very much for
that question. You actually hit on an area of research that I
myself have worked on with regards to atmospheric issues and
also issues with regard to aerosols, so this is a really
important topic that the Office of Science is taking on
because, as you know, a lot of the climate issues are related
to what's happening with aerosols, so being able to get more--I
mean, the bottom line is we need to get a lot more--better
predictions with regards to what's going on in the atmosphere,
and that's been a challenge for a very, very long time. And in
fact when I started Science, we figured that most of the
chemistry that was going on in atmosphere was a bunch of little
atoms and molecules bouncing off one another, but in fact we
know today that most of the chemistry is happening actually in
these aerosols. And so what's--and they're almost like little
chemistry factories in there. And so if we don't understand
what those aerosols are doing and what's happening even at
their surfaces, we are not going to make progress on having
predictive power.
Now, how is that connected to predictive power? Well, that
really comes down to computer modeling and being able to even
use AI to advance our understanding of what's happening in the
atmosphere and also in the climate. And I think--I'm just
really excited to see more emphasis being put on this because
there are some phenomenal scientists in this country. I know
many of them who are far smarter than I am that really just do
amazing work, and they are anxious to be able to take it to the
point of being able to really help on the climate change issue,
so I want to thank you very much for that question. And we
continue to want to work with you as much as we can on this.
Mr. McNerney. Well, thank you. I've got two more questions.
Within the Office of Science stewarded national labs, almost 1/
2 of the buildings and 2/3 of the supporting infrastructure are
rated as substandard. At the Lawrence Berkeley Lab, which is
near my district, 30 percent of the total space has a seismic
rating of poor or very poor. Now, this presents a real danger
to employees and guests. In your written testimony, you
acknowledge that there's a backlog of more than $880 million in
deferred maintenance which directly impacts the mission and
staff. Given the significant backlog, can you discuss the
budget request for the science laboratory's infrastructure
program, which at $225 million would represent a 12 percent
decrease from Fiscal Year 2022?
Under Secretary Richmond. Well, this is indeed a critically
important issue with regards to infrastructure, and we're
really trying very hard to make way with this, but, you know,
it's a problem that's been here for a long time. But we also
know that while we've strived to maintain a balanced portfolio
that includes optimal funding for facilities projects, tough
decisions had to be made, and these tough decisions and funding
tradeoffs are what we have here with regards to supporting the
Administration and the Department's priorities.
With that said, the Administration really is trying very,
very hard to think about and certainly the Department of Energy
think very hard about how we tackle these infrastructure issues
because they are impacting our facilities in ways--and other
projects that are just really hard to manage. And in fact I
remember that there was an estimate if we continue to
increase--even though we've--this is what--the best that we
could do in this budget period. We know that we have to do
much, much more if we're going to take care of this backlog.
But again, there was a tradeoff between really trying to
catalyze a lot of these climate change issues, to catalyze----
Mr. McNerney. Let me interrupt you because I only have a
few seconds left and I can barely see the clock against the
yellow background. Do you believe the Administration on fusion,
something I'm also very excited about--do you believe the
Administration's proposed budget of $3 million is sufficient to
support the development of inertial fusion for energy
applications even though this is called out in the language?
Under Secretary Richmond. Yes. Well, I just actually got
back late last night from an ARPA-E fusion event in San
Francisco, and the excitement around fusion is just incredible,
and the amount of money, now private money that's being pumped
into new ideas of fusion is very exciting.
So what we're doing is following the White House Fusion
Summit held on March 17th. I've set up a fusion crosscutting
team and a leader in my office to coordinate the efforts across
the Department with regard to fusion, and future budgeting
requests will be coordinated across the whole department to
support the decadal vision. So we are heavily committed to
fusion, and we are following the advice of the--the FES Fusion
Energy--I shouldn't say society, anyway FES, their advisory
committee for fusion energy, their workshop in 2022 that will
be held to define the science and technology thrust for the IFE
(inertial fusion energy) program with the Office of Science. So
fusion energy science is healthy and--but we need to be able to
see how we can go further in fusion energy given the big
changes that we've had in even recent months with regards to
accelerating the need for clean energy in areas like nuclear
and also in fusion.
Mr. McNerney. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your
indulgence.
Under Secretary Richmond. Yes.
Mr. McNerney. I yield back.
Chairman Bowman. The gentlelady from North Carolina, Ms.
Ross, is now recognized.
Ms. Ross. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to Ranking
Member Weber for holding this hearing today. And of course
thank you to Dr. Richmond for being with us today to share your
insights about the Department of Energy's budget needs, which
are considerable.
The hearing serves as a reminder that one of the most
important end results of the COMPETES USICA conference process
should be robust funding for DOE. DOE's Office of Science
projects at various stages of maturity have already been
inhibited or stalled by the COVID pandemic, as we've heard from
Dr. Richmond. And additionally, large-scale projects are
especially vulnerable to the fluctuation in annual budget and
appropriations processes. As we move forward with the FY 2023
appropriations, funding levels should be cognizant of these
specific challenges.
And, Mr. Chairman, before I ask my question, I ask
unanimous consent to enter into the hearing record a statement
from the American Society of Civil Engineers.
Chairman Bowman. Without objection.
Ms. Ross. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A few questions for Dr.
Richmond.
As we know, all industries have experienced supply chain
issues as a result of the pandemic. If DOE is not funded
adequately, what will this do to an already compromised supply
chain? How will this impact the Office of Science construction
and research projects?
Under Secretary Richmond. Well, thank you very much for
that question, and it is one that we are very concerned about.
Again, we do believe that with this strong budget request that
we will be able to address many of these supply chain issues.
There are, however, even in the recent weeks, these changes
that we see particularly in the area of, for example, in
isotopes where isotopes and also minerals where the Office of
Science has spent a lot of time and energy over the years in
terms of coming up with new radionuclides and also their
applications in a number of different areas.
It's only been in the last few weeks that with the fact
that we're not going to build able to get many of these from
Russia any longer, it's putting us in a critical state that
this--that was not so apparent when this budget was put
together. So there are concerns about our ability to meet the
needs of many of--for medical uses, as well as technology as we
go forward, and I hope to keep you abreast of these--or
continuing thinking about this, but again, it was--we're in the
midst of this now, and it really precedes putting in with the
budget.
But I do have to say that, as we go forward, that we really
hope to be able to see the reconciliation bill go across the
finish line since that last iteration included strong funding
for lab infrastructure and also facilities, which could augment
dollars, which would be enormously helpful. And so we thank all
of you for the efforts that you have put into this and hope for
some positive news coming out of that so that's just a followup
to your question. Happy to work with you further on this.
Ms. Ross. Thank you, and happy to be helpful.
Last year, I introduced a bipartisan bill with Congressman
Meijer, who's also on this Committee but not this Subcommittee,
to leverage Federal resources to grow technology transfer
programs and public-private partnerships to address climate
change. It addresses how universities in the private sector
could capitalize on DOE's research to accelerate the commercial
application of clean energy technologies. And I serve the
Research Triangle area in North Carolina, so this is so
important to us.
Can you speak to the importance of increasing government
cooperation with our colleges, universities, and companies to
catalyze clean tech innovation and how this also affects your
budget?
Under Secretary Richmond. Yes, well, thank you for that
question, and you come from a beautiful part of the country,
too. I've been there many times to visit and love it very much.
I believe that what we are doing here is we have a number
of different activities that are tying closely to trying to
take scientific discovery into--by accelerating scientific
discovery into entrepreneurship, as well as going into academic
institutions and also working with industry to make their
science go further. And the Office of Science has really opened
its doors more widely than I've seen them before with this
budget in order to try to accelerate they--what's--the research
that's coming out of our universities into industry and even
starting companies.
You know what really excites me in this area is that--just
how many young people get really excited about wanting to go to
graduate school and then start their own companies. And they're
learning how to do that with programs that allow them such as
the Office of Science that allows them to think more broadly
about what they are doing beyond their own research. The Office
of Science funds the basic research, but it also fosters those
that are interested in also applying for patents and so forth.
The message that I have been sending since I came into this
position is that what we want to do in the Office of Science is
to make sure that our science has true impact and that that
impact is not just measured by simple metrics of publications
and citations, that it truly is impact. And that I believe
opens up the door for even our faculty and universities, as
well as in our government laboratories to be thinking that, oh,
I don't have to do the science, but if my metrics are only
based on publications, then should I be spending some of my
time looking at entrepreneurial activities? And I've sent the
very strong message that we went to embrace all of that because
if we're going to move forward, we need to have our science
have an impact.
Ms. Ross. Thank you for your indulgence, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you for the responses, and I yield back.
Chairman Bowman. Thank you very much. I need to make a
slight course correction here. First of all, I want to
apologize to Mr. Weber and my Republican colleagues. I was
supposed to alternate questioners between Democrat and
Republican, so to course-correct we're going to go back-to-back
Republicans and then I'll fix the order going forward.
So the gentleman from California, Mr. Garcia, is now
recognized. Sorry about that, sir.
Mr. Garcia. Oh, no problem, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
No offense taken at all. I apologize for not being there in
person myself.
Well, Dr. Richmond, first of all, thank you for the
testimony. I'm a little bit concerned and I'll share the
sentiment of my constituents as well. I come from California, a
beautiful part of the country, north L.A. County, but
unfortunately, we're being absolutely crushed right now with
energy prices. I'm concerned and frankly I'm a little more
concerned even after your testimony that we as a nation after
our population has nearly doubled over the last 40 years, our
organic production of energy to meet the demands of that
population in terms of energy consumption has not kept up.
I'm extremely concerned and even more so today that we have
become more dependent on other countries such as Russia,
Venezuela, Middle Eastern nations such as Saudi Arabia for our
energy needs because we've committed to those more on American
energy without having alternatives in place to meet the demands
that the current fossil fuel industry is meeting right now.
And we're seeing massive problems in terms of affordability
here in our own country. We're seeing gasoline prices in
California that has a lot of gasoline within its borders and
underneath its ground, lots of oil reserves at $6 to $6.50 a
gallon. We're seeing even solar panels and solar leases
skyrocketing, our electricity bills are anywhere from $300 to
$800 depending on the size of the house. These are massive
problems in an inflationary period that is absolutely
backbreaking to our constituents and frankly I think Americans
around the country because we don't have the adequate resources
and in my opinion the adequate infrastructure needed to meet
the energy demands of our people.
We're also suffering from a lot of debt at the national
level, $30 trillion worth of debt, and I see increasing budgets
across the board. I hear complaints today in this Subcommittee
hearing about not increasing enough in certain areas, but I
haven't heard where we've made cuts. I haven't heard what
programs have been sacrificed so that we can pay the programs
that are needed or where synergies or efficiencies have been
gained in the last year and a half to 2 years out of DOE so
that we can afford other technologies and investments in those
technologies.
And I feel like we're investing in some archaic designs,
archaic technologies that frankly have proven that they can't
meet the demands, and I haven't heard how we're going to
address our dependency on China, our dependency on Russia. I
haven't heard anything about next-generation nuclear
capabilities, alternative fuel cycles for those next-generation
nuclear capabilities, and we're seeing relatively anemic
investments and increases in the investments for the actual
sciences relative to some of these other political platform
issues that we've been discussing today.
So can you help me alleviate some of these concerns and my
constituents? How are we going to get pricing down for our
energy costs? How are we going to compete with Russia, who has,
you know, developed 20 new nuclear reactors in the last few
years? They now got $133 billion in back orders. And what are
we doing to invest in new technologies that actually allow us
to recycle nuclear waste, recycle plutonium so we can have
alternative fuel cycles in support of next-generation nuclear
capabilities? Because frankly, right now, the sum of the parts
don't add up. We don't have enough energy to meet the demand,
and we continue to consume as a nation but fail to invest in
capacity on the energy production side. So can you please help
mitigate this concern that I have, and what's the long-term
vision for this Administration?
Under Secretary Richmond. Well, thank you for all those
questions. There are a lot of them. I wish I could take up
every single one of them. So let me just start big picture
first because, as you lose sleep over this, there are a lot of
us that lose sleep over it, too, especially how quickly things
are changing. And what we're trying to do at the Department of
Energy is to be smarter and more agile than we have ever been
before.
And so with this budget I believe that this is helping us
be a new DOE. And I truly believe that, that this is a new DOE
because we are absolutely--can I say this--hell-bent on making
sure that we can take the discovery science as quickly as
possible to the applications and demonstration and then to
deployment. And with the--my--the infrastructure bill that went
through, law that went through, it's really helping us--
everyone see what the mission is but what the pathway is so
that we can get further along.
With regards to nuclear and fusion, you know, I could talk
about those singularly. We are absolutely on board with this
with regards to clean energy by nuclear as well as fusion. With
the issue--with the supply issues, we are working very
diligently on making sure that we have enough of the nuclear
fuel to not only keep our current nuclear facilities going but
also for the future and that also goes for security, what we
need for our security--our security needs also but also all the
critical minerals. So even though I said this is a really
phased transition from these last few weeks, it isn't as if
we've had our head in the sand on these for a long time. The
Department of Energy has been working very hard.
That said, because all that we do in the Office of Science
is competitively decided on who gets funding, it means that the
best ideas, the new ideas that can transform the way we're
going into energy and electricity, they are the ones that are
being funded. They are the ones that are being funded. And now
we have the capacity to move them further down the line to
try--to get to some of the solutions that we all have but you
in southern California are particularly being hit by this
particularly in oil prices.
So I guarantee you that every morning we have a huddle with
the Secretary, the leadership team, and these are all the
issues that we talk about. The gas prices, what they are today
and what we're anguishing over this and how we're going to make
sure that we can transition to achieve the Administration's
goals in the long run to be at net-zero carbon.
Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Dr. Richmond. I look forward to
seeing a solution soon. And, Mr. Chairman, I'll yield back.
Chairman Bowman. The gentleman from California, Mr.
Obernolte, is recognized.
Mr. Obernolte. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And Dr. Richmond,
thank you very much for your obvious passion on these topics.
I thought it was pretty remarkable in listening to the
opening statements from both the Chair and the Ranking Member
of this Subcommittee in that they both expressed almost exactly
the same sentiment, which is a concern that this budget request
underinvests in the Office of Science. And I think everyone on
this Subcommittee shares a passion for what your office does. I
know you share that passion as well.
Let's start talking about inflation, which obviously has
been front of mind for a lot of us in Congress. I imagine that
you prepared this budget with some estimates of inflation and
its impacts. What were those estimates?
Under Secretary Richmond. That was at a time where I wasn't
onboard yet so I don't know what those estimates were, I'm
sorry, but I'm happy to get back to you on what those estimates
were.
Mr. Obernolte. All right. So the Office of Science is
requesting a 4.3 percent increase for this coming fiscal year.
Currently, inflation, the March figures are about 8.5 percent,
so I'm concerned that this budget actually represents a real--a
decrease in real dollars for the Office of Science based on the
year before. Would you agree or disagree with that
characterization?
Under Secretary Richmond. Well, I believe that this is a
strong budget, and these inflation numbers are very serious and
in some respects have come very quickly upon us. I think that
this--that it follows the priorities of the President's budget,
and it is a framework. So I do look forward to working with you
all and thank you for the support of the Office of Science and
helping us to get further down this with these new challenges
that we have. And again, I thank this Committee for pushing so
hard for the Office of Science as we take on these new
challenges.
Mr. Obernolte. All right. Well, I mean, with respect to--
the question I asked was does this represent a real dollar
decrease in the budget for the Office of Science? I think the
answer--my answer to that question is yes, I think it does. No
one knows with certainty what inflation will do next year, but
it seems pretty clear that it's going to be on average more
than 4.3 percent. So I know that you're in a difficult position
here. You're a passionate advocate, as we are, for these
programs, but yet you have to come and defend the
Administration's budget. We recognize that. But, I mean, I
think what you're seeing--hearing on a bipartisan basis is
please ask us for more money because these programs are vitally
important. And we think that they need to be properly funded.
Talking specifically about fusion energy, I appreciate you
saying that you're heavily committed to fusion. I think a
majority of the people on the Subcommittee would agree that
that's going to be key to us meeting not only our climate
change reduction goals but also the antipoverty goals that we
have for our constituents.
One of the things I'm concerned about in this proposed
budget is the funding for some of our user facilities.
Particularly one in California is dealing with the computation
of support for fusion research, the National Energy Research
Scientific Computing Center in California. You proposed a
decrease in their budget--I mean, a decrease in actual dollars,
which is a substantial decrease in real dollars, and these are
facilities that are just struggling to stay open as it is. This
is--this particular one is the fifth fastest computer in the
world. It's used by thousands and thousands of researchers. Can
you tell us why you're proposing a decrease in their budget?
Under Secretary Richmond. Well, this is indeed difficult.
First of all, I'm a numbers person, too, and I see those
numbers. But again, it was a matter of balancing out the
priorities of the Administration with regards to climate
issues. The facilities issues, again, we were trying to
maintain a strong balanced portfolio that puts optimal funding
for the facilities and the projects, tough decisions having to
be made. That said, by going through and very carefully re-
baselining a number of these facilities, we hope to be able to
come up with a better idea of what the actual cost, even taking
into account current inflation.
We do--I love the facilities. I could go on and on about
what the amazing facilities are doing not only in computational
areas but also in issues of COVID, what we just did. And
every--you know, every pill that has to be put out on the
market has to use one of our light source facilities in order
to get OKed. You know, who--it was just so important. And so
we've had to make a balance with regards to coming up with a
budget that fits within the Administration's priorities.
So, again, I want to say thank you for seeing the--look
forward to seeing the reconciliation bill come through and
other support that you're doing to make sure that we can get
more funding for infrastructure.
Mr. Obernolte. Well, I thank you for the testimony and I
see I'm out of time. But please, if you would, take this
message back to the Administration. We, on a bipartisan basis,
think that you are underinvesting, and we would like to see you
ask us for more money, which is not something that you hear
Congress saying very often. I yield back, Mr. Chair.
Under Secretary Richmond. Thank you. Thank you, thank you.
Chairman Bowman. The gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Casten,
is recognized.
Mr. Casten. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Dr.
Richmond. I'm a big fan of the Office of Science, a one-time
beneficiary back in my research days, and I appreciate all that
you do.
I think you're going to hear a broken record. You heard it
from Mr. Obernolte. I think we're going to stay on this trend.
But I want to just share a story. When I first got on this
Committee, the 116th Congress, the former President issued a
budget that was basically one page long. And I remember sitting
here in this room and listening to Secretary Perry justify that
budget. And Mr. Perlmutter, who was sitting up here, asked him
how he justified zeroing out huge parts of our space program.
And his answer was, well, because we knew you'd restore it. And
it was disappointing. I remember sitting there thinking as a
new Member of Congress that doesn't sound like you did your
job, but at least he told us what his ambition was.
And my concern in listening to your testimony is that the
Presidential budget, the purpose is to describe your ambition.
And hearing that this was constrained because of assumptions
about fiscal tradeoffs, that's our job. It's a hard job, but
it's our job. Tell us what your ambition is. And I can't tell
from this budget what the ambition is.
The--you know, I'm really concerned about the impact of
this budget on large-scale experiments and user facilities. We
know that there's things that only DOE can do. You can use the
light source to develop some wonderful new material that might
be used as a cathode chemistry and a battery, and then some
other lab can figure out how to turn that into a whole piece of
chemistry and another lab can figure out how to integrate. You
can only do that at DOE labs. And if I'm reading this budget,
you don't have any accounting for the construction of major
user facilities or large-scale experimental capabilities.
So can you explain the Department's logic in how those
investments will get done without any budget increases?
Under Secretary Richmond. Well, thank you for that
question, and it certainly is one that we've thought about a
lot. In fact, I could go through the details of almost all the
constructions because we've looked at those and we believe that
they will be able to go forward with this budget. There are
some that may be slowed down a bit because with this budget but
other ones that have to again be re-baselined. I might put DUNE
(Deep Underground Neutrino Experiment) into that category.
But on the other hand, we believe that we will be able to
go forward on all of the projects that we have in place. Some
may be slowed down a bit, but they will go forward. Again, that
was the--again, having to set priorities.
With regards to our labs and particularly our facilities,
there may need to be a cutback in support in some of the
staffing that happens if we--unless we can figure out ways to
have flexibility to be able to keep them going. But this is a--
you know, this is, again, setting priorities that are hard to
do and very painful to do and tough decisions and tradeoffs.
Mr. Casten. Well, if I could, I've spent my entire career
focused on climate. If we decide that the best time to act on
climate is tomorrow, then we've repeated the mistakes of
everybody who has ever held this job before. When I--you know,
the Argonne National Lab is right in my district----
Under Secretary Richmond. I know.
Mr. Casten [continuing]. Just south of my district.
Under Secretary Richmond. I know.
Mr. Casten. The--when I've spoken with them, they have said
that basically the--if they followed the President's budget,
they will be cutting back on use at the Advanced Photon
Facility. I think you just said it. They will have to lay off--
they will have to slow down experiments. Do we care about
climate or not? And again, put your ambitions out. Let us
figure that out. But I sit here and say--and if your answer to
this is you need Congress to please upgrade your ambition, just
ask. We'll do it. But I would like the President's budget to
articulate that ambition, not to say that our goal in this
moment in time is to kick the can down the road. We've been
there, we've done that, we've proven it doesn't work.
Under Secretary Richmond. Well, thank you for that comment,
and thank you all--everyone else that's spoken to this issue
with regards to concern about the Office of Science budget. On
the climate issue because--and that's where we are. And we do
believe that it's a strong request, but it requires setting
priorities.
Specifically on the issue of climate, we're not backing off
on climate. The Office of Science has a lot of really
fundamental research associated with climate, whether it be new
materials for batteries. You know these issues, new materials
for batteries, anything having to do with the atmosphere or
especially right now with regards to supply chain issues and
materials but also fusion and nuclear. We're trying to go as
hard as we can on these issues, too. We are absolutely
committed to the issue of trying to save the planet to be quite
frank.
Mr. Casten. And I'm out of time but I think just to state
the obvious, if the people at Argonne are saying that this
budget means we are going to shut down beam lines, that means
we are going to slow the pace of discovery. And it's
inconsistent with what you just said. Please be ambitious. Let
us know how we can help. And I yield back.
Under Secretary Richmond. Thank you. I look forward to
working with all of you, believe me.
Chairman Bowman. The gentleman from Florida, Mr. Gimenez,
you are now recognized.
Mr. Gimenez. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
You know, our allies France and the U.K. routinely recycle
their nuclear fuel while they do not have geologic repositories
either. They don't have the dispersed nuclear waste problem
that has saddled greater deployment of nuclear power in
America. In the face of recent energy crunch in Europe due to
the underperformance of weather-dependent renewables and
Russia's invasion of Ukraine, France recently announced that
they would be deploying 14 new reactors, the first of which
will be coming online in the early 2030's. The U.K. has also
joined the race and declared that they will add eight new
reactors, which will supply 25 percent of their anticipated
demand growth.
Meanwhile, Russia and China are racing to develop nuclear
recycling facilities. China is constructing two demonstration
plants right now. We don't have any say over their safeguards'
implementation, and without serious commitment in such
technology development and commercialization here at home, we
won't have any say when other nations--and what other nations
will seek to do with that in the near future.
It's time that we reinvigorate our nuclear recycling R&D in
the United States. In largess of our Federal budget such R&D
spending won't amount to, say, more than $50 million annually.
This is quite small compared to the, you know, plus $1 billion
that the Federal Government spends annually in liability
payments due to its failure to take custody of nuclear waste.
I want to add that the Department's ARPA-E office has shown
great courage and foresight in funding nuclear waste recycling
R&D in the last couple of years.
So what sort of infrastructure and spending levels are
necessary to seriously reinvigorate this research and
development in the United States?
Under Secretary Richmond. Thank you for that question. Yes,
thank you for that question. So we are taking very seriously
the issue of the need for nuclear energy and more--and
expanding our nuclear capabilities for power plants. In fact,
we have just a phenomenal new leader in our nuclear energy
area, Katie Huff, and she has really been pushing on how we not
only put forth new demonstration nuclear projects, as well as
to be able to plan forward for keeping our nuclear power plants
in place. These don't happen of course overnight, and in fact
to be able to have the smaller modular nuclear power plants
that we hope to have, we need to do a demonstration project in
order to do that. At that we're working very actively on.
We know that the issue of nuclear waste is a huge topic
that we need to be concerned about and are actively working on
that, too. Their--our environmental management group is working
very hard on this as well as in the areas of both the Office of
Science and the applied programs to it sort of across the
spectrum.
So we've--we're on it. We're working hard on it. Again,
there's--it's a complex issue with regards to where things get
sited, as well as working with different companies that want to
be involved in doing this, and that's what we're putting a lot
of our energy into now is to be able to find partners that we
can work with in order to advance our nuclear program in the
country.
Mr. Gimenez. How quickly do you think you can get some of
these demonstrations up and running?
Under Secretary Richmond. Well, we're hoping in the next
several years, in the next couple of years because, you know,
it really depends a lot on, in some respects, our ability to
produce HALEU (high-assay low-enriched uranium), which we're
going to need for the smaller demonstration projects. And that
then goes back to the issue of limited uranium--limiting our
uranium supplies from Russia, so it's something I've been
actively working on both with the Under Secretary for NNSA
(National Nuclear Security Administration) as well as myself,
too, in order to work on that problem right now, which is what
we're really--we really need to figure out for both HEU
(highly-enriched uranium) as well as LEU (low-enriched uranium)
as well as HALEU. And so I'm hoping we can make progress, but
we first have to make sure that we've got the fuel to--in place
that will allow us to run these demonstration projects.
Mr. Gimenez. Now, in regards to the companies developing
the technology for the handling of the waste, how can we make
sure that companies developing these technologies are not
hindered by the lack of facilities which the Federal Government
should be making available in our national laboratories?
Under Secretary Richmond. Well, that--that's another
complicated issue, too, and I'd be happy to work with you and
others to figure out the best solution on this as we go forward
because you are--Congress is an important player in this, too,
because this is really a national issue, as well as this is a
site-specific issue.
Mr. Gimenez. Thank you, ma'am. My time is out, and I yield
back.
Chairman Bowman. The gentlelady from Oregon, Ms. Bonamici,
is now recognized.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you, Chair Bowman and Ranking Member
Weber.
Dr. Richmond, it's great to see you again. And our Nation
is fortunate to have you in this critical role, but I have to
say that you are certainly missed at the University of Oregon.
So I want to commend the Department for announcing the $84
million for the new research initiative involving urban
integrated field laboratories. I know the research will partly
focus on stimulating--simulating the benefits of deploying
climate solutions in historically underserved communities. And
this work is particularly important for Oregonians. As you
know, we had an unprecedented heat dome in the Pacific
Northwest last year, so I'm pleased to see that the Department
hopes to award funding for this initiative in this Fiscal Year
and also that the FY 2023 budget request proposes additional
funds for this program. And I know you heard the support here
on both sides of the aisle for investing in your Department.
So what other steps is the Department taking to incorporate
environmental and energy justice in the climate-related work it
supports? And additionally, how can we make sure that that
research is reaching the communities that need it the most?
Under Secretary Richmond. Well, thank you for that
question. And it's great to see you again, too.
You know, there's one thing I have not really highlighted
in telling you what we're doing, and this gives me an
opportunity to do that, and that is the Earthshots. And so
these Earthshots are really what--you know, we've set as a
priority in the Office of Science, and these Earthshots are to
be able to solve in a decadal timeframe critical technical
issues around climate change. And so we have three of these
Earthshots that we have announced, carbon capture from the
atmosphere, long-term storage, and--long-term storage and--oh,
God, I sleep with this every day--and hydrogen, H2,
and hydrogen. And all of these three--and these are major
projects that go all the way across the Department of Energy,
but they're based in the Office of Science. And in all of these
three we are working environmental justice into all of these,
in all of the roadmaps that we're developing, which go from
very fundamental research to applied research that we are
taking into account, environmental justice and urban-related
issues. And I apologize to hydrogen for----
Ms. Bonamici. No worries. In fact, I want to followup on
one of those. We know that storage is so key to maximizing
renewable energy use and decarbonizing our economy. So the
Energy Storage Grand Challenge, I know that's a crosscutting
effort to help us achieve this goal by accelerating the
development and commercialization of next-generation storage
technologies. So can you give us an update on the status of
that program and summarize future plans for the Energy Storage
Grand Challenge? And then also, I'd like an update on how the
exascale initiative is going.
Under Secretary Richmond. Well, the--with regards to the
long-term duration storage, that again as being one of the
Earthshots means that we are highlighting it as much as
possible in the science that's done in the Office of Science.
In fact, we're starting a series of requests for Energy
Frontier Centers--energy centers that will allow us to put
together groups of teams from the national laboratories, as
well as universities, in order to go forward on this long-
duration storage.
And this will take people that are not only working on what
new materials could be used in order to make effective long-
term battery storage but also just, you know, the fundamental
issues, but also taking it to the applied areas where then they
can actually be developing prototypes or different ways in
which you can use these new materials in batteries and then
test them out.
You know, one of the big challenges is to--is lithium, and
so what we--lithium in the batteries. And in fact what we've
been working on a lot is--and this goes back to critical
minerals; it's all tied together--is how we can--the United
States can produce its own degree of lithium rather than being
dependent on many other countries.
So that's sort of a sidebar, too, but it shows how all of
these things are interconnected that we're talking about with
regards to the issues of the Office of Science but also in the
applied areas. And so we would be happy to work with you to
keep you abreast of what's going on with long-duration storage,
as well as any of the other ones. But I'm really, really
excited about these Earthshots. I've worked very hard on these
because I think that they are--these are the three areas, and
others to be announced later, which are crosscutting across the
agency which we have put--we have added considerable funding in
the Office of Science.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you. And in the remaining few seconds,
how is the exascale initiative going?
Under Secretary Richmond. Oh, the exascale initiative is
continuing to proceed really, really important as we look to
both beef up our capabilities in the national laboratories, as
well as across the academic area. And again, an exciting--
another very exciting area for exascale computing for us.
Ms. Bonamici. Terrific. And just a few seconds left, so I
yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Bowman. The gentleman from Michigan Mr. Meijer is
now recognized.
The gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Foster, is now recognized.
Mr. Foster. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I--well, first off,
I'm just going to repeat the broken record here about the fact
that the--you know, the budget here is not adequate. You know,
when people worry that we're falling behind other countries,
the metric that they point to is the fraction of GDP (gross
domestic product) devoted to R&D, the so-called research
intensity. And this is the fair and the correct metric.
So if you look at the situation in the United States, GDP
growth is not the problem. And we're seeing 5.7 percent GDP
growth, real GDP growth under Biden, faster than China. And in
fact I think most of us were amused to see President Xi
ordering all of his underlings to cook the books to make
China's growth at least appear a little bit better than the
United States under Biden.
The wealth and debt in the U.S. is not a problem. Since the
start of the Obama recovery, the wealth of Americans has
increased from $60 trillion to $150 trillion. That's an
increase of $90 trillion, trillion, not billion, trillion. And
of course most of this is piled up in the pockets of the
wealthiest among us. In fact, the top 10 fortunes, if you look
at the top 10 fortunes, 9 out of 10 of those are directly
attributable to federally funded technology. And yet we somehow
can't seem to find a way as a society to allocate the same
fraction of GDP to federally funded research that other
countries that are starting to outperform us do.
And I think Representative Obernolte, Ranking Member
Obernolte, my Ranking Member on our Subcommittee, was correct
in pointing out that the 4.3 percent budget increase for Office
of Science after an 8.5 percent inflation represents a cut. You
don't have to--you know, you don't have to--I think it's a
mathematical fact.
And in fact doubling the budget of the science enterprise
in this country is not enough in--if inflation continues that
way. You know, if it's 8 percent inflation for a decade, that
is a factor of two. So we could succeed in doubling the budget
of science and not even tread water. So the goal should be to
double the budget as a fraction of GDP, and we should always
frame it that way and we should deliver it that way. That
should be the responsibility of everyone on both the
authorization and appropriations Committees.
Now, when you--I was in--really very happy to see you
mention that you were going to be re-baselining all these
projects because they got planned with a certain--to deliver a
certain scientific scope and under a certain real budget and
then got walloped by COVID, by, you know, the--all the supply
chain delays, by the standing army problems just related to--as
well as unexpectedly high inflation. So when you re-baseline
them, I would request that you please re-baseline them to
restore the original scientific scope, OK? That's not going to
be the first reaction because the numbers are going to be
significant when you restore the full scope and a healthy
project contingency, which is another way that you might be
tempted to scrimp. So please do that honestly.
And then another request, which we'll never be able to
followup and oversee you on, is that, you know, there's an--
internally to the Administration and the agencies there's this
pass-back procedure which at least used to happen around
Thanksgiving, and I don't know how it's going these days. But
the--but in those situations when the Administration proposes
high-level allocations to you, you have--your job is to
honestly deliver, to tell them what you can really deliver for
that allocation and then come back to Congress and make sure
you have a consistent picture, that the budget decisions that
are made are at least consistent with reality. And, you know, I
think that's been slipping a little bit under--in the last
decade that it's--but it's very important for us to know that
if we don't allocate enough money, we're going to have a
second-rate science program and some projects that will fail
for sure to deliver themselves on time and on budget.
And so that--so be--you know, show some--well, if not some
stiffness of spine, some--at least some viscosity of spine in
these negotiations with the Administration because I know
they're really tough. But it's an important part of your job to
make sure that the Administration, you know, is dealing
honestly with the sacrifices that they're asking you to make
when they tell you to stand up and deal with a 4.3 percent
increase that doesn't cover inflation.
So, anyway, I think I've pretty well used up my time here,
but if--I just want to thank you for the tough job you've come
on and, you know, fight like heck. We're on the same----
Under Secretary Richmond. Yes.
Mr. Foster. We're all on the same side here.
Under Secretary Richmond. Yes. Yes. No, I'm--I take your
advice. I will take it back, and I'll fight like hell, too.
Mr. Foster. OK.
Under Secretary Richmond. I'll fight like hell, too.
Mr. Foster. Thank you, and I yield back.
Under Secretary Richmond. You know, but can I just say for
a minute that, you know, our facilities, our labs really are
the jewels in the crown, and we have to make sure that they
stay that way. While other countries such as China are
emulating what we have in our facilities and our labs, we can't
lose that. We can't lose that.
Mr. Foster. I agree completely.
Under Secretary Richmond. Yes.
Chairman Bowman. Thank you very much, Mr. Foster.
Are there any Members who would like to participate in a
second round of questions?
OK. Before we bring the hearing to a close, I want to thank
Dr. Richmond for testifying before the Committee today. The
record will remain open for 2 weeks for additional statements
from the Members and for any additional questions the Committee
may ask of the witness.
The witness is excused, and the hearing is now adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:21 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
Appendix I
----------
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Appendix II
----------
Additional Material for the Record
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]
File and source
- File
- CHRG_chrg-117hhrg47350_chrg-117hhrg47350.htm
- Size
- 107,696 bytes
- SHA-256
- 9d98562b4b4100ba8dd0cc6a3cb869fff0a8061be87a1febef3d5fc652817adf
- Original
- No public link identified.