[Senate Hearing 113-398]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 113-398
SHERWOOD-RANDALL NOMINATION
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
TO
CONSIDER THE NOMINATION OF ELIZABETH SHERWOOD-RANDALL TO BE DEPUTY
SECRETARY OF ENERGY
__________
JULY 24, 2014
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
----------
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
89-786 PDF WASHINGTON : 2013
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana, Chair
RON WYDEN, Oregon LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont MIKE LEE, Utah
DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan DEAN HELLER, Nevada
MARK UDALL, Colorado JEFF FLAKE, Arizona
AL FRANKEN, Minnesota TIM SCOTT, South Carolina
JOE MANCHIN, III, West Virginia LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee
BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii ROB PORTMAN, Ohio
MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota
TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
Elizabeth Leoty Craddock, Staff Director
Sam E. Fowler, Chief Counsel
Karen K. Billups, Republican Staff Director
Patrick J. McCormick III, Republican Chief Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS
Page
Feinstein, Hon. Dianne, U.S. Senator From California............. 2
Landrieu, Hon. Mary L., U.S. Senator From Louisiana.............. 1
Murkowski, Hon. Lisa, U.S. Senator From Alaska................... 5
Scowcroft, Lieutenant General, Brent U.S. Air Force, Retired..... 4
Sherwood-Randall, Elizabeth, Nominee to be the Deputy Secretary
of Energy...................................................... 7
APPENDIX
Responses to additional questions................................ 27
SHERWOOD-RANDALL NOMINATION
----------
THURSDAY, JULY 24, 2014
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m. in
room SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Mary L.
Landrieu, chair, presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARY LANDRIEU, U.S.
SENATOR FROM LOUISIANA
The Chair. Good morning.
Our committee meets this morning to consider the nomination
of Dr. Elizabeth Sherwood-Randall, to be Deputy Secretary of
Energy. We're so pleased to have the Honorable Dianne
Feinstein, Senator of California, with us this morning and
General Scowcroft. Thank you so much. It's wonderful to have
you before our committee.
Secretary Moniz has said the mission of the Department of
Energy is to ensure American security and prosperity by
addressing energy, environmental and nuclear security
challenges through transformative science and technological
solutions.
The Department of Energy promotes energy security and
prosperity through an all the above energy strategy that
includes oil, natural gas, coal, nuclear, renewables and
efficiency.
It manages our strategic petroleum and home heating oil
reserves, licenses, natural gas exports and is developing a
smarter, more efficient, electric grid, more efficient vehicle
manufacturing and building technologies and cleaner coal and
safer nuclear technologies.
It is the largest Federal sponsor of basic research in the
physical sciences managing 17 national laboratories and
supporting cutting edge research in physics, chemistry,
biology, environmental science, mathematics and
computerizational science.
It is responsible for maintaining and modernizing the
Nation's nuclear weapons stockpile, fueling the nuclear navy
and reducing global nuclear threats while also cleaning up
radioactive and chemical waste left over from World War II and
the cold war, no easy task.
This nominee before us has been nominated to a very
important position. The Deputy Secretary of Energy plays a key
role in all of this. The Deputy Secretary is the Department's
second highest ranking official, who steps in and exercises all
the power and performs all the functions of the Secretary in
his absence. This position has traditionally served as the
Department's Chief Operating Officer and has been often called
to be the Secretary's Crisis Manager and Problem Solver.
Dr. Sherwood-Randall appears to be up to this great
challenge.
She currently serves as Special Assistant to the President
and White House Coordinator for Defense Policy, Countering
Weapons of Mass Destruction and Arms Control.
She previously served as Special Assistant to the
President, Senior Director for European Affairs at the National
Security Council from 2009 to 2013.
She was Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Russia,
Ukraine and Eurasia under Secretary William Perry during the
Clinton Administration.
She was former Senator Biden's Foreign Affairs and Defense
Policy Advisor and held post at the Council of Foreign
Relations.
She is a Stanford University and Kennedy School at Harvard.
She's a graduate of Harvard, was a Rhodes Scholar, holds a
doctorate from Oxford University. Like the outgoing Deputy
Secretary, Ms. Sherwood-Randall brings a stellar background in
nuclear weapons, non-proliferation, international affairs to
the Department.
I might say, a wonderfully generous and genuine attitude to
this really big job and a very humbling demeanor.
I'm pleased to welcome you, Dr. Sherwood-Randall, to the
committee this morning. I look forward to hearing from you.
Before we do I'd like to turn it over to Senator Feinstein and
then to General Scowcroft.
STATEMENT OF HON. DIANNE FEINSTEIN, U.S. SENATOR
FROM CALIFORNIA
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Madame Chairman.
I feel very privileged to be able to be before you,
particularly, because of the stellar credentials and friendship
of the woman on my left. As you so well stated, she is slated
to become the Deputy Secretary of the Energy Department.
Sitting on her left, General Scowcroft co-chairs the Aspen
Strategy Group, to which both Liz and I belong. So I have had
ample opportunity to observe her, to meet her family and to see
that she is really so well founded, I think, with a very
special and privileged background. You gave some of it.
I just--let me just for a moment fill in some of the things
you may not have said.
Early on she had a Bachelor's Degree from Harvard. You
mentioned she was a Rhodes Scholar. She received a Doctorate in
International Relations from Oxford.
From 1986 to 1987 and she looks so young, this is the
thing. From 1986 to 1987 she served right here in the Senate as
Chief Foreign Affairs and Defense Policy Advisor to our then
colleague, Joe Biden.
She then returned to academia. She served at Harvard as a
co-founder and associate director of the Strengthening
Democratic Institution's project at the Kennedy School.
In 1994 she came back to public service, was brought back
by then Secretary of Defense, Bill Perry, to serve in President
Clinton's Administration as Deputy Assistant Secretary of
Defense for Russia, the Ukraine and Eurasia. In this capacity
she was responsible for persuading 3 new nuclear Nations,
namely Belarus, Kazakhstan and the Ukraine to give up their
nuclear warheads and join the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
They did. The world is a safer place as a result.
From there she went on to spend the next decade in academia
expanding her expertise on national security, the proliferation
of weapons of mass destruction, Europe, NATO and more.
From 1997 to 2008 she was a founding principle in the
Harvard Stanford Preventive Defense Project. Then she was also
a Stanford University Senior Research Scholar.
Now your items come in later in her history, but I look
over and I don't see a 100 year old woman.
[Laughter.]
Senator Feinstein. Which is really quite amazing.
As you know I Chair the Energy and Water portfolio of the
committee that you Chair and Senator Murkowski is Ranking
Member on with respect to energy. So I handle the money.
We have one big problem. That is that the defense part of
our portfolio which is walled off from everything else, the
Army Corps of Engineers, the Energy Department, the Office of
Science and all of those things is becoming more and more
constrained because of the expanding nuclear and non-
proliferation part of the portfolio.
As you well know, there are plans to retire certain nuclear
weapons, but I think this national security part, the current
Secretary of Energy is very well steeped in the Energy area and
the Science, Technology part of that. This is the balance here,
someone who is well steeped in the other part of the portfolio
which money wise is expanding and taking over the non-defense
part of our portfolio.
It is a problem. We need to solve it. So I really look
forward to working with her.
I hope the 2 of you will join us because I think we both,
the Army Corps, really is our infrastructure part of Federal
Government and the Office of Science is often where ARPA, the
new experiments come from. So to keep these in balance is a
real effort. I look forward, if I may say, Madame Deputy
Secretary, or as I know you, Liz, this is a very serious thing
that we keep this balance.
So I hope that the 3 of us here and including my ranking
member that I work closely with, Lamar Alexander, can sit down
with you and have some conversations on where long term we go
in terms of this balance because as you authorize and we try
and appropriate. It becomes a bigger and bigger problem.
So I think you're the one to handle it. You are well
steeped in defense technology. You're well steeped in nuclear
non-proliferation. You're well steeped in nuclear weapons and
their warheads.
So I just want to say that you have before you an amazing
American woman. I'm just very pleased to support her and help
present her to you.
We have another distinguished General also, I think, to do
exactly the same thing.
The Chair. Thank you, Senator. Thank you for your
leadership.
You are absolutely correct and right on in your call to us
to really focus on this really serious issue both from an
authorizing standpoint, but truly from an appropriations
standpoint. As you know, I serve on the committee with you on
Approps and it is very troubling to see the amount of money
that is required to complete the direction that this committee
and others have given and the crowding out that's happening to
the Corps of Engineers with for Alaska and Louisiana and
California is a serious infrastructure agency that just is
starved of funding to keep our ports open, our, you know, our
energy ports, our cargo ports at a time with global, you know,
trade expanding.
So this is a real challenge. So, Ms. Sherwood-Randall, I
hope you're up to it. I think you are. Your credentials most
certainly suggest that you are. We'll have more questions to
you in just a moment.
Senator Feinstein. May I just say one more thing?
The Chair. Yes, go right ahead.
Senator Feinstein. Since I have the 2 of you here.
Since, as you know, Senator Landrieu, Senator Murkowski and
I and Senator Alexander and Jeff Bingaman and Ron Wyden, then,
we work closely to come up with a nuclear waste policy. I'm
very pleased that you've had now an opportunity to review it.
Senator Murkowski and I think very much alike in terms of
the design of this. I want you to know that. She knows that we
lose $20 billion a year because we don't have it and we become
responsible for it. We've got nuclear waste piling up all over
this country.
So this might be a good thing to be able to involve this
new Deputy Secretary closely in it. Hopefully we can get
something done.
The Chair. An easy thing to get her started with.
[Laughter.]
Senator Feinstein. Thank you.
The Chair. OK.
General Scowcroft.
STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL BRENT SCOWCROFT, U.S. AIR
FORCE, RETIRED
General Scowcroft. Thank you very much, Madame Chairman.
It's a great privilege for me to be here and speak on behalf of
Elizabeth Sherwood-Randall and to follow a person I admire
immensely and that is, Senator Feinstein.
I'm going to talk about the personal aspects of the
candidate because you've heard much of the detail of an
illustrious career.
I've known Elizabeth Sherwood-Randall for almost 2 decades.
She has sought my counsel over these years and I've watched her
up close as she has worked to serve the national interest and
establish her credentials for further progress in that regard.
She has dedicated herself to public service and earned the
trust and confidence, not only of colleagues like myself, but
of a number of Cabinet Secretaries and of the President
himself.
Liz has contacted me frequently during her period of
service at the White House where she's had broad
responsibilities for our key alliances of Europe, our defense
policy and budget and our efforts to counter weapons of mass
destruction proliferation.
I'd like to make 3 general points about Liz.
Her proven capabilities as a leader and manager, her non-
partisan approach to issues and her dedication to service.
The National Security Team has a task of leading and
managing the U.S. Government to develop national strategy and
policy and then hold agencies accountable for effective
implementation. The President has, over the years, asked Liz to
take on some exceptionally tough challenges. I've watched her
deliver results that make America stronger and more secure.
Most recently Liz was the President's Sherpa for nuclear--
for the nuclear safety summit, a landmark initiative to lock
down plutonium and highly enriched uranium around the world
helping to prevent terrorists from getting their hands on
nuclear materials.
She was also in charge of the complex process of getting
more than 1,000 tons of chemical weapons out of Syria which was
achieved just a few weeks ago.
She knows how to get hard things done. That is certainly
what is needed in a Deputy Secretary of Energy.
I would also note that in her current capacity Liz has been
involved in guiding key aspects of the Department of Energy's
work covering nuclear and non-proliferation issues. She has
extensive experience working with the Department of Defense as
well which has, of course, is essential given the shared
responsibility between DOE and DOD for the nuclear weapons
enterprise. I know she is deeply committed to ensuring that it
has the resources it needs to support the vital deterrence
mission.
As I noted Liz has sought me out to discuss a wide range of
issues over the years. I have found her open minded and
interested in alternative viewpoints. She's a careful listener.
I'm confident she will reach out to you to understand the
full story and to hear diverse perspectives. That that will
help ensure that policies are developed with the support of
Congress which, of course, is essential to addressing the
challenges in this area that we face as a nation. They are
serious.
Liz and I have spoken frequently about what it takes to
advise a President on the toughest issues. She approaches her
mission duties with humility and seriousness of purpose. I
commend her to you as a person who puts public interest before
self-interest. Who will, unequivocally, serve our Nation with
integrity and distinction.
Thank you.
The Chair. Thank you for that beautiful statement on our
nominee's behalf. Thank you for your extraordinary service to
our Nation, General. We're very, very honored to have you
today. Thank you so much for what you've done.
General Scowcroft. Thank you very much.
The Chair. Let me recognize my ranking member at this time
for her opening statement. Then we will proceed.
STATEMENT OF HON. LISA MURKOWSKI, U.S. SENATOR
FROM ALASKA
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Madame Chairman.
I think it's important to note that this morning we not
only have the nominee here to be the Deputy Secretary of Energy
and whose background clearly has been focused in nuclear. But
General Scowcroft has been, I think, very instrumental as we
have helped or as we have worked together to try to come
forward with a proposal as to how we deal with our nuclear
waste.
Senator Feinstein mentioned the efforts that this small
group of us has had over the course of several years. Now
looking forward to working with you, Madame Chairman and how we
advance that. So I think Dr. Sherwood-Randall, you're on notice
here this morning that this is a key interest to many of us,
not only here on the committee, but really from a broader
perspective here within the Senate.
It is, I think, quite significant that you have been
introduced this morning in quite glowing terms from such
prestigious individuals as General Scowcroft and of course, the
leadership as demonstrated by Senator Feinstein over the years.
I do think it is good, Madame Chairman, that we have been
able to schedule this hearing this morning to consider the
nomination for Deputy Secretary of Energy. This is the No. 2
position within the Department.
Dr. Sherwood-Randall, welcome before the committee. I
appreciate not only your willingness to serve but to serve in a
new place, a new capacity. I enjoyed our visit where we were
able to sit down.
I'm certainly very impressed by your qualifications. Your
background at Brookings, the Department of Defense, Council on
Foreign Relations, as has been mentioned by others, are quite
significant and impressive and now working on some very
difficult issues as a senior member of the National Security
Council. So I'll repeat the question that I asked when we were
visiting in my office is why pick the Department of Energy for
your next stop? But I will say that I am glad that you have,
particularly with our current Deputy Secretary Poneman
departing this fall.
We don't often discuss the nuclear side of DOE in this
committee, but it is clearly, clearly, a critical and important
part of the Department's mission. I think with your expertise
on nuclear security and non-proliferation that this can be an
asset to us on the committee. If we can confirm you in a timely
manner I would like to think that we've got a seamless
transition in front of us.
But a couple things have to happen in order for that to
happen.
First, you need to do well here this morning and provide
substantive answers to our questions, outlining the direction
that you believe that the Department should take as well as
your substantive views on important issues such as energy
exports.
But second and perhaps a little more complicated for you
because you can't necessarily control that and that is you're
going to need to navigate a Floor process that has not been
very kind to our DOE nominees. Our committee has reported seven
nominees for DOE who are still pending on the Executive
calendar. They're yet to be considered or confirmed.
Some were reported out of this committee as far back as
January. By my count only one individual has actually been
confirmed to DOE this year. We recently saw a nominee withdraw
after she decided that it just wasn't worth the wait.
But it clearly doesn't have to be that way. The majority
can bring up any nomination for consideration at any time. We
saw that with 2 recent FERC nominees. They barely spent a week
or so waiting.
We certainly cleared a lot of judges this year and a lot of
officials for other agencies and departments. So, perhaps we
can maybe take a little breather from that and focus on DOE for
a change. I think that Secretary Moniz needs to have a full
team around him. I want to help support him in that.
So Dr. Sherwood-Randall, I'm hopeful that you will persuade
us here this morning that you are the right person to take over
as Deputy Secretary. You certainly have impressed me. When it
comes to the Senate Floor I'm also hopeful that we'll see some
effort to confirm those who are willing to serve there at the
Department of Energy.
With that, we'll look forward to your responses.
Again, thank you for joining us this morning and your
willingness to serve.
The Chair. Thank you, Senator.
The rules of this committee which apply to all nominees
require that you be sworn in with your testimony. So if you
please stand and raise your right hand.
Do you solemnly swear the testimony you're about to give
the committee, this committee, on Energy and Natural Resources
shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Ms. Sherwood-Randall.. I do, Senator.
The Chair. Before you begin your statement, you may be
seated.
Before you begin your statement I will ask 3 questions that
we address to each of the nominees.
Will you be available to appear before this committee and
other congression committees to represent Departmental
positions and respond to issues of concern to Congress?
Ms. Sherwood-Randall.. I will.
The Chair. Are you aware of any personal holdings,
investments or interests that could constitute a conflict of
interest or create the appearance of such a conflict should you
be confirmed and assume the office to which you've been
nominated by the President?
Ms. Sherwood-Randall.. I am not.
The Chair. Are you involved or do you have any assets held
in a blind trust?
Ms. Sherwood-Randall.. No, I do not.
The Chair. OK. Thank you very much.
You're now recognized to make your statement. I hope you
will begin by introducing the faces behind you that have been
beaming for the last 35 minutes.
Thank you and please begin.
[Laughter.]
TESTIMONY OF ELIZABETH SHERWOOD-RANDALL, NOMINEE TO BE THE
DEPUTY SECRETARY OF ENERGY
Ms. Sherwood-Randall. Thank you.
I will begin Chair Landrieu and Ranking Member Murkowski,
members of the committee by thanking you for this opportunity
to appear before you as the President's nominee to be Deputy
Secretary of Energy. I am honored to be here and want to
express my appreciation to you, to you, Senator Scott and other
members of the committee not yet here this morning, who've
taken time to meet with me over the past few weeks.
I'd like to begin by thanking President Obama for nominated
me to serve in this significant position in the Department of
Energy, a department whose mission is crucial to a strong
economy and to our national security.
I appreciate the confidence that Secretary Moniz and Deputy
Secretary Poneman have shown in me.
I incredibly grateful and humbled by the introductions by
Senator Feinstein and General Scowcroft from whom I have
learned so much over the years and to whom I continue to turn
for wise counsel. They have set the gold standard in their
decades long public service to our Nation.
It is my great pleasure to introduce to you the members of
my family, most of whom have traveled from California to be
here today.
First, my mother, Dorothy Sherwood, the matriarch of our
family.
My husband, Jeff Randall.
My 2 sons, Richard and William.
My brother, Ben Sherwood and my young nephew, Will
Sherwood.
The Chair. Will, can you stand up so I can see you over
that big chair.
[Laughter.]
Ms. Sherwood-Randall. Will is 9 years old.
The Chair. Yes, thank you.
Thank you all for being here this morning.
Ms. Sherwood-Randall. Today would have been my late
father's 86th birthday and I know that he would have relished
these proceedings this morning.
My family has made what I do possible. I am indebted to
them for generously supporting me and for their enduring love.
I particularly want to thank, Jeff, for being all in since
2009 as he has commuted from his busy Bay area neurosurgery
practice to enable me to serve in government. should I be
confirmed he will be signing up for more overnight flights to
Washington.
I have been dedicated to public service for most of my life
having been guided by parents, whose values and actions
reflected deep patriotism. They raised us to honor all that
America makes possible by giving back all that we can to
family, to community and to country. They relentlessly
emphasized education as the door to opportunity and urged us to
use the opportunities that we earned to make a difference. They
taught us that public service is a high calling to which we
should aspire.
My first opportunity to serve was as a high school intern
in the Senate in the summer of 1976 when I worked as a
Legislative Correspondent for Senator Tunney from California.
After finishing my education I went to work for Senator Joe
Biden, as you heard earlier. I learned firsthand about the
important work of the committees and the senators who serve on
them.
I have been privileged to serve the national interest
across the decades in the executive and legislative branches at
universities and in think tanks. My commitment and focus in
each of those roles has been to making America strong and safe
by improving our defense capabilities, building vibrant and
durable alliances that are force multipliers for American power
and preventing the emergence of new threats that would hold at
risk the freedoms and security that we cherish most.
Over the past five and a half years I have had the
opportunity to help lead the Obama Administration's efforts on
a wide range of complex challenges facing our Nation. Many have
involved missions connected to the Department of Energy's
portfolio including ensuring the safety, security and
effectiveness of our nuclear arsenal and the vitality of the
national laboratories and production facilities that support
that effort.
This also included developing and implementing innovative
strategies to counter the dangers associated with the
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, materials and
capabilities and the continuing desire of terrorist groups to
seek access to them.
As was noted previously, it has included supervising the
fulfillment of the unprecedented agreement to get 13 hundred
tons of chemical weapons out of Syria this year.
This will answer Senator Murkowski's question to me, I
think. Why DOE?
Along with our uniquely capable military our energy
resources will be an essential source of our strength in the
21st century especially given the changing global energy
landscape. The revolution in American oil and natural gas
production is helping fuel our economic growth and enhance our
energy security. At the same time energy innovation drives our
economic competitiveness and positions us to continue to lead
the world.
If approved by this committee and confirmed by the Senate,
I commit to working closely with Congress to advance the key
lines of effort that reflect the priorities previously
described to you by Secretary Moniz. Specifically I will:
Advance the all of the above strategy for America's energy
future including the President's climate action plan.
Champion our international energy leadership including
support to allies and partners.
Manage the U.S. nuclear enterprise to ensure that it
remains safe and secure, continues to deliver effective
deterrents and counters proliferation and nuclear terrorism.
Work with our national labs, universities and the private
sector to support key generators of scientific and
technological innovation.
Offer cutting edge solutions to the American people.
Strengthen the Energy Department's program and project
management across the enterprise to deliver results and value
for the American taxpayer.
These are tough challenges and solutions will be neither
easy nor quick. They will take time and ingenuity as well as
forceful leadership and management. In most cases they will
require our steady attention long beyond this Administration.
That is why, if confirmed, I would seek to build bipartisan
approaches that put us on a sustainable path toward meeting
these critical goals.
Earlier in my career I lived in New Mexico and often
reflected on the courage and dedication of the brilliant
scientists who came together at Los Alamos in the dark days of
the Second World War harnessing the power of the atom to
counter the gravest danger to democracy and freedom. They met
the challenge of their times.
Today, so must we.
Inspired by their example I hold fast to the wisdom of
former Secretary of Defense Bill Perry, who says that the
hardest problems are the ones that are most worth working on.
If confirmed, I commit to giving these exceedingly hard
problems my all and to doing everything in my power to deliver
the strong economy and safe future that our children and
grandchildren deserve.
Again, thank you so much for consideration of my
nomination. I look forward to answering your questions.
The Chair. Thank you for that beautiful presentation this
morning.
I can assure you that Senator Murkowski and I hold those
values dearly as well from big, large and loving families and
parents, who have served many decades in public life. We also
believe that our committee has a key role to play in the growth
of this economy and the security of our Nation. We talk about
it every day. We're really trying to pay, you know, find a path
forward in this very difficult and contentious political time.
So let me begin by just asking you a question that is
before the committee now.
Earlier this year the Administration proposed placing the
mixed oxide fuel fabrication and coal standby while it
reevaluates other options for disposing of the plutonium from
surplus nuclear warheads. As you know the United States is
obligated under an agreement with Russia to dispose of 34
metric tons of plutonium by irradiating it in nuclear reactor.
This--the alternative, burying it, in waste isolation pilot
plan or in deep war holes would require us to obtain approval
from the Russians.
They have recently and I think just in the last 2 weeks
signaled they might be willing to agree to a change, but in
return we would have to let them repudiate their agreement not
to reprocess civilian spent fuel allowing them to produce still
more plutonium into abandoned international monitoring. That
would not sit well with this chairman nor many members of my
committee or the Congress.
So in your view, with national security arms control issues
do you believe we can afford to pay the price Russians will
demand to let us abandon our MOX project?
Ms. Sherwood-Randall. Thank you so much, Senator, for
giving the opportunity to discuss this very important issue
with you this morning. Senator Scott and I had the chance to
discuss it as well in his office.
We are fully committed to meeting the obligations that we
have under the agreement reached with Russia. This is a vital
national interest to the United States. As you heard from
Senator Feinstein and from General Scowcroft, non-proliferation
has been a central focus for me. Keeping the Russians on track
to deliver on their end of the commitment is a priority goal
for this Administration.
The technical liability of the MOX approach is not in
question. The only reason that the question has been raised
about how to proceed is because of the challenges to the
funding stream for MOX. The requirement that we have
is to be responsible stewards of the taxpayer dollar. That's
shared between the executive and legislative branches.
The Secretary of Energy has asked the question can we do
this project with the money that is available to us in a budget
constrained environment? Is there any other way it could be
done meeting the obligations we have and keeping the Russians
invested in it as well that would be a more effective use of
the taxpayer dollar for the disposal of this plutonium?
Again, we are fully committed to getting the job done. The
only question is how to do it most economically.
If there is funding for this project that is sustainable
over time, this is our preferred solution. My understanding of
the facts involving the discussions that have been ongoing with
the Russians on a wide range of nuclear security issues such as
this one is that we are on track and that there is no
discussion about welching on agreements.
So we continue to work hard to ensure that that element of
our cooperation with Russia is insulated from some of the
turbulence in other aspects of the relationship because this
is, to put it simply, defense by other means for us. We want to
ensure that that plutonium is disposed of so that it can never
get into the wrong hands and be used against the American
people.
The Chair. Thank you for making that very clear. I think
your statement was crystal clear that the technology is your
preferred technology. The process is your preferred, but it's
really an issue of funding.
Ms. Sherwood-Randall. Right.
The Chair. So it's up to the members of this committee and
the Appropriations Committee to solve the funding problem if we
want to help you solve this problem that we share together or
this challenge.
Thank you for making that clear.
Let me ask you about clarifying the spent fuel standard. Do
you support the current spent fuel standard and does waste
isolation pilot plant meet that standard?
Am I asking you the question?
Ms. Sherwood-Randall. Could you clarify the question for
me?
The Chair. OK.
Do you support the so-called spent fuel standard which
requires the plutonium from weapons to be disposed of in such a
way that it is absolutely inaccessible as the plutonium
embedded in un-reprocessed civilian spent fuel?
Ms. Sherwood-Randall. So, Senator, I think I need to take
that question for the record. Thank you.
The Chair. OK.
I'll go to the next one.
For the first time in 2 decades the United States is
producing more oil than it imports. We're producing more
natural gas than ever. That is exciting.
I think in many, many aspects, in fact, the industry is
estimating and the Department, as you know, has estimated 200
years of a supply of natural gas which is a game changer from
an economic standpoint and a national security standpoint.
What are your views about the opportunity for exports for
the oil that we are producing here that we're unable to
economically use in our refineries because they're just built
to hold different kinds, a different type of oil? What are the
benefits, do you believe, of appropriate exports for gas?
Ms. Sherwood-Randall. Thank you, Senator.
As I noted this revolution in our oil and gas development
is a major engine for our economic growth, both at home and
also around the world. My understanding, based on the briefings
I have received thus far, is that the Department of Energy does
not have purview over decisions on oil exports. That is a
Department of Commerce issue.
On the issue of liquefied natural gas exports, as you know,
there is a public interest determination in the Natural Gas Act
that requires a very careful review of whether exports would be
beneficial to the public interest. There are a number of
factors that are looked at. The Department of Energy has
recently given conditional approval to 6 proposals for export
and final approval for one proposal for export and continues to
review additional proposals. Indeed has made a recent proposed
amendment to the process for the review of these exports in
order to expedite those that would be most ready to bring to
market.
So my understanding is that going forward, were I to be
confirmed for this job, this possibility of bringing LNG to the
export market would be something that I would be involved in
and look forward to working with you closely on.
The Chair. Just one statement. I'll turn to my ranking
member and thank the other members for attending. We'll get to
their questions in a minute.
You know, the Natural Gas Act was passed at a time when
America was debating or trying to find the right way forward
managing a scarcity of supply. Those rules were written at a
completely different time with a completely different outlook.
So while we do have to follow the law considering the
enormous change that has occurred between 1972 and 2014, it is
really time to revisit that law. This committee is revisiting
it right now. We think that the world looks very different from
this seat today than it did in 1972.
So that is under, you know, debate right here. We're
looking for action quite soon.
Senator Murkowski.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Madame Chairman.
I would certainly concur with the chairman in terms of the
imperative. I think that many of us feel that we have an
opportunity that is in front of us now with our abundant energy
resources whether it is oil, whether it is natural gas.
I appreciate your acknowledgement that energy is truly a
source of not only energy security, but national security. That
this nexus here is what propels you to make this next step and
accept this nomination that is in front of you today.
Recognizing that we have an opportunity to not only help our
friends and our allies, as you have suggested, but also help
our country from an economic perspective, from a jobs
perspective and really from a perspective of greater self-
reliance here.
I do think it takes us right back to the chairman's point
about our opportunities with our oil and most clearly our
natural gas. You've mentioned the process that has been
underway at DOE with the licensing and the changes to help
expedite it.
What I would like from you this morning is a commitment to
us that you will work with us here in the Senate to do
everything possible, certainly within the bounds and propriety
of the law, to avoid delays as DOE moves forward and finalizes
these--this licensing process and continues to approve the LNG
export applications.
So what I'm trying to do is make sure that we move forward
with this process not take these pauses or time outs which I
think will limit our ability to utilize our energy resources,
not only to our strategic advantage, but to our energy security
advantage here.
Ms. Sherwood-Randall. Senator, I can commit to you that, if
confirmed, I will work closely with you and members of the
committee to ensure that there are no untoured delays in review
of proposals for export of LNG.
Senator Murkowski. Would you agree that we have a limited
timeframe here or a window of opportunity? If we don't build
out our LNG export capacity in a timely fashion the rest of the
world and those who have these resources, they're not just
sitting back and waiting for the United States.
Would you agree that this is an issue where there is an
urgency to it? There is a consideration of timeliness?
Ms. Sherwood-Randall. Senator, I believe it is a very
competitive environment. I believe we have an opportunity to
lead in it.
Senator Murkowski. I concur.
Let me ask you a question about WIPP. Earlier this week I
sent a letter to Secretary Moniz and I was inquiring about some
of the recent incidences there at DOE's waste isolation pilot
project regarding the underground fire. Then there was an
unrelated radiological release. Pretty alarming certainly, as I
read those accounts.
Would you be involved in overseeing the investigation and
ongoing remedial activities there at WIPP?
Ms. Sherwood-Randall. Senator, thank you for giving me an
opportunity to talk about WIPP because it is such an important
part of our overall ability to continue the responsibility we
have to dispose safely of our nuclear waste. It is our first
operating repository. So it is very important to us that it be
operational.
The investigation of what happened this year at WIPP is
underway. Of course, I don't know exactly when I will be
confirmed.
Senator Murkowski. Right.
Ms. Sherwood-Randall. But if I am confirmed and it is in a
timely fashion I would have responsibility and support of the
Secretary for the investigation, for the recovery and reopening
process for the WIPP facility.
Then I'd say, most importantly for the work we need to do
going forward, in terms of the long term project of identifying
appropriate ways to dispose of our high level waste. It's the
lessons to be learned.
One of the signature elements of the work that I do and
have done for many years is to take the time to review what
lessons can be learned from failure and to apply them going
forward so that we can be stronger as we develop new solutions
to complex problems.
Senator Murkowski. Madame Chairman, this issue along with
others, but this issue is clearly very timely. When we think
about these nominees and the responsibilities that you will
have, if confirmed, we have Deputy Secretary Poneman, who is
leaving.
Ms. Sherwood-Randall. Yes.
Senator Murkowski. Who is involved with this. We need this
investigation to go forward. We need to have these ongoing
remedial actions.
So making sure that there is that transition from one to
another, I think, particularly with this incident there at WIPP
is key.
One last question for you and this regards electric
reliability, something that I'm quite concerned about and
following very intently.
Do you support GAO's recommendation for a formal documented
process between DOE, FERC and EPA to interact with respect to
the impact of the EPA rules on reliability?
GAO has come out with this recommendation.
Ms. Sherwood-Randall. I'm sorry. I am not aware of the GAO
report. I am aware of work that is underway on reliability at
the Department of Energy which has been stimulated by a series
of experiences including, for example, Hurricane Sandy, the
Metcalfe incident and others where it has become evident that
more effort needs to be applied to ensuring reliability of the
grid.
That's actually an element of the Quadrennial Defense
Energy Review, Quadrennial Energy Review, that the Department
will be presenting in early 2015. Work is underway on that
already.
So let me just say that I will be glad to take, for the
record, the question on the GAO report which I'm not aware of.
Senator Murkowski. Well just know that this committee
follows that very, very closely. Many of us think that we do
need to look critically at how all of these agencies interact
then with this EPA rule.
Thank you, Ms. Sherwood-Randall.
Ms. Sherwood-Randall. Thank you.
The Chair. Senator Scott.
Senator Scott. Thank you, Madame Chairman.
Dr. Sherwood-Randall, good to see you again.
Ms. Sherwood-Randall. Good morning.
Senator Scott. I enjoyed our meeting. I thought it was
fascinating. Appreciate you taking the time to come before this
committee and giving us an opportunity to continue to flush out
one of the more important issues from our perspective, at
least, South Carolina, the MOX facility.
We don't, however, see the facility as a South Carolina
centric issue. We really do see it as a national security issue
that provides us with an opportunity to continue to move
forward in good faith with our Russian counterparts.
The real challenge that I have had great concerns with from
this Administration is that it seems like the path that they're
on allows for the Russians to hold on to the plutonium that has
the equivalent value of about 17,000 warheads. I say that
because when we asked a question or when the question was asked
by the Chairwoman about our commitment to the MOX
facility the question--your answer included funding. We must
make sure that the funding is there.
But I went back over the last couple months. We realize
that the coal standby that the facility was put on was because
Congress approved more money than the Administration actually
asked for. So the Administration decided to use some of the
resources, it appears to me, to put the facility on standby,
coal standby, while they looked for other alternatives.
Congress had to come back and encourage the Administration
to continue moving forward. Dr. Moniz called me and said that
we were going to go ahead and move forward and not put it on
coal standby as they had suggested previously.
So my thought is that it's good news if in fact, the real
issue is the challenge of the funding stream. But it does
appear to me that the real challenge is the commitment to the
MOX facility and not the funding stream itself.
I'd love to hear your thoughts on that. I'll give you a
compound question here. Your comments at a March 17th, Council
of Foreign Relations event, to me, suggested that not a
commitment, a lack of a commitment to MOX as the
only alternative according to the PMDA agreement.
Your comments were that perhaps there was another mode of
disposition that can be acceptable to the agreement.
On April the 9th, Dr. Moniz testified that MOX
is required under the PMDA and that was done during a Defense
Appropriations Subcommittee.
So my real question is who's right on that one?
Ms. Sherwood-Randall. Thank you, Senator Scott, for giving
me the opportunity to talk again about this issue with you.
I want to underscore that we are fully committed to
disposing of the plutonium that we agreed to dispose of in
cooperation with Russia. Our main goal in getting this done is
to ensure that Russia gets it done. I know we will get it done.
It's going to be hard and it's going to be costly. We will get
it done.
What this agreement was structured to do was incentivize
the Russians to get it done. So we are doing everything in our
power to ensure that Russia stays on track. I would note,
Russia also has funding challenges with this project. This is
complicated stuff to do.
They also are working to figure out their own way forward
to achieve the goal.
Senator Scott. That's good.
Ms. Sherwood-Randall. That's so----
Senator Scott. Now, unfortunately I only have about 2
minutes left--
Ms. Sherwood-Randall. OK.
So I'll quickly answer your question.
Senator Scott. I wanted to make sure that we get it
answered, so.
Ms. Sherwood-Randall. There is--when I indicated in my
council remarks what I did the point is that we have asked the
question as an Administration is there any better way to
achieve the goal as responsible stewards of the taxpayer
dollar.
Senator Scott. Let me ask----
Ms. Sherwood-Randall. That is the only question given the
funding projections.
Senator Scott. Let me ask a clarifying question.
Ma'am, this is my 2 minutes. I'm going to just ask you to
get to the point if you can.
Ms. Sherwood-Randall. Yes.
Senator Scott. Is Dr. Moniz correct then when he stated on
April 9th that MOX is the only alternative that is consistent
with the agreement?
Ms. Sherwood-Randall. The agreement is to dispose of----
Senator Scott. Could you say yes or no?
Ms. Sherwood-Randall. OK. The agreement is to dispose of
plutonium in this fashion.
Senator Scott. Let me ask you.
Ms. Sherwood-Randall. But the agreement allows for
alternatives to be explored.
Senator Scott. Let me ask you another question then.
The Chair. Senator, please let her answer. Please let her
answer.
Senator Scott. Wait.
The Chair. I'll give you some extra time.
Senator Scott. Oh, thank you. OK, great.
The Chair. Yeah, I'll give you some extra time.
Go ahead, please answer.
Ms. Sherwood-Randall. The agreement is worded such that
alternatives can be discussed by both parties if both parties
agree to discuss them.
Senator Scott. I'll just quote from the Chief Research
Scientist as well as a Senior Research Scientist on the Russian
side from the Center for Arms Control. They said, ``It seems
that if U.S. side chooses an alternative to plutonium
disposition method preservation of the international monitoring
provision in this agreement will not be a priority for
Russia.''
Ms. Sherwood-Randall. We should not take any steps that
diminish the likelihood of Russia fulfilling its obligations.
We have an obligation to fulfill. We as a Nation have a
responsibility to figure out how to get it done in an
affordable manner.
I, if confirmed, look forward to working with this
committee and with the appropriators to figure out a way to get
this project funded.
Senator Scott. One final quote, just from the CRS,
According the 2010 protocol amending the PMDA the United States
would have to obtain written agreement with Russia to implement
any alternative to eradicating the plutonium in nuclear
reactors.'' Sorry.
Ms. Sherwood-Randall. That is correct, Senator.
Senator Scott. My chief concern is that as we look for, as
we talked in my office, that science isn't finished yet. The
fact is that according to where we are today the only
alternative is the MOX facility. Congress seems to
have a greater, stronger commitment to the agreement and
funding the agreement than the Administration is willing to
ask.
I know that you are not the Administration in and of
itself. So I realize that all of this cannot be borne by you. I
do think it's very important for me to highlight that perhaps
the only known scientific way of disposing of the weapons grade
plutonium being MOX for the Administration not to
have the commitment to ask for the funding necessary seems to
me to be disingenuous.
Thank you.
Ms. Sherwood-Randall. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Scott. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Sherwood-Randall. I look forward to working with you to
find a way forward on this, if confirmed.
Senator Scott. Thank you.
The Chair. Thank you.
It is now Senator Portman.
Senator Portman. Thank you, Madame Chair.
Thank you, Dr. Sherwood-Randall, for coming before us today
and for our meeting on Tuesday. I want to start by saying that
there are 3 young men sitting behind you who are much better
behaved than Senator Hoeven is or I am today.
[Laughter.]
The Chair. Can I say that the chairman has noticed that?
Thank you, Senator.
Senator Portman. Yes. I don't know why they're being so
respectful and polite. But whatever you've taught them to do
we'd like to know about it.
So I want to talk to you about an issue, you know, Senator
Scott just talked about a big issue for South Carolina. I'll
talk about a huge one for Ohio.
We just got word that nearly 700 workers employed at the
cleanup of the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion plant in Piketon,
Ohio are going to be laid off. This is a big deal. It's about
one third of our total work force there, about 1900 people.
This is a cleanup that has to occur, you know? It's
something that everyone agrees is necessary. It's the old
technology with regard to enriched uranium. Congress has
specifically charged you with this responsibility. In fact
since 2005 the Office of Environmental Management has been
overseeing this cleanup at Piketon.
I'll quote you from a letter in 2008 that went to Governor
Ted Strickland. It was from President Obama. He said, ``I will
work with Congress to provide adequate funding and will direct
the Energy Department to commence decontamination and
decommissioning activities of those facilities that are no
longer needed and maximize the employment of site workers to
achieve this end. The failure to clean up the site quickly will
delay future economic development opportunities and only add
additional mortgage costs and pose undue environmental risks.''
Said. As you and I talked, I worked very hard on the Frenal
cleanup years ago. With Senator Glenn we expedited that cleanup
saving the taxpayers, we think, between $3 and $4 billion.
So bottom line is we have to clean it up. We should clean
it up. The quicker we clean it up the lower the cost is going
to be to the taxpayer and the safer it's going to be for folks
in Southern Ohio, obviously. Also the quicker we'll be able to
move to reindustrialization of that site as the President
talked about in his commitment he made to Governor Strickland.
It also is very important, economically, for our region.
These 700 jobs are good paying jobs. We lose these folks it's
going to be tough to be able to bring them back quickly because
they will find other work and it will be devastating for the,
not just Piketon, but that whole 6 or 7 county area in Southern
Ohio.
So my question to you is how can we get this commitment the
President has made to be one that actually results in doing
what the President said in 2009? Do you emit a secretarial
commitment to the communities saying that the agency was
accelerating the cleanup in an effort to jump start the local
economy and create jobs?
Three hundred and three million was appropriated to
initiate the cleanup. There was additional funds provided. Over
the years the Administration has turned to selling or bartering
uranium out of the Nation's uranium stockpile to help fund the
cleanup effort. Over the years DOE has become even more reliant
on these barter sales to maintain the schedule to the point
where uranium sales now fund 70 percent of the cleanup.
I will say when we had our budget committee hearing in 2012
I discussed this with Secretary Chu. The President's budget at
that time contained a 33 percent cut to base appropriations for
cleanup funding at Piketon and resulted in a greater reliance
on barter sales. I expressed my concern about that.
Yet, we don't see a plan from the Administration short of
more barter sales which apparently the Administration is also
now believes is problematic. So I will tell you part of my
frustration is that Ohio was given no advanced notice of this.
That the war notices were going to go out.
The first my office heard about it was actually from
workers at the site. From my conversations with Appropriations
Committees in the House and the Senate they weren't given any
warning either.
So I would guess my first question to you is if these
layoffs occur, you know, there's going to be a significant
economic hit to our region. If you're confirmed I want to know
whether you're going to work with us to maintain this
accelerated cleanup schedule at the Piketonsite.
Ms. Sherwood-Randall. Thank you, Senator Portman. I
appreciated the opportunity to talk about this issue with you
in your office as well.
I would just start by broadly noting that we, as a Nation,
have an obligation to cleaning up the legacy of the work that
was done by communities all across this country in support of
the nuclear program that has kept our country safe. There are
many sites in the DOE portfolio that face very tough
challenges. Of course, you know them well in this committee and
Washington State, in Idaho, in other places.
With regard to the Portsmouth facility you observed that we
have used uranium barter to fund the work at this site and that
the uranium prices have dropped significantly which is
presenting a challenge in the funding stream for this project.
What I would commit to you, if confirmed, is that I would
work closely with you to identify a way forward that
acknowledges the important work of this community and that gets
the job done as efficiently as possible.
I would also note it would be my hope that, if confirmed, I
would be able to have such an open dialog with members of the
committee that if we anticipate challenges such as you've
described that will present hardship for your work force in
your State that I would be able to talk with you in advance so
that there are--there is some warning when something like this
will happen.
Senator Portman. I appreciate the fact that you are willing
to work on the communication. I think that's important. But
specifically, if confirmed, would you support the barter
program while also working with us to find a permanent and more
stable funding stream for the cleanup at Piketon?
Ms. Sherwood-Randall. I do support the barter program,
Senator. If the barter program is not sufficient for funding
our responsibility to complete the project we will need to work
together to identify additional sources of funding.
Senator Portman. Thank you, madame chair. My see my time is
expired. Just one quick point if I could?
I received a letter on Tuesday from Herman Potter, the
President of Local USW Chapter where--who I met with also last
week where he expressed his concern for the safety of his
workers if these layoffs are allowed to occur.
I would like to request that that letter be submitted for
the record.
I'd also like to request that the President's letter to
Senator--Governor Strickland be submitted for the record.
The Chair. Without objection both documents will be
submitted.
Senator Risch.
Senator Risch. Thank you, madame chairman.
Dr. Randall, first of all, thank you for coming and meeting
with me. Obviously, you've already identified that we have some
issues in Idaho that are important as far as the DOE is
concerned.
You know, an observation first. After looking at what
you're responsible for, I mean, of all the people who come
before this committee and for that matter, the other committees
I sit on, you've probably got the largest and most diverse and
certainly one of the most important portfolios of any appointee
in the Administration. So I wish you well in that regard. I
hope you've got good people working for you in each of those
silos because each one is important somewhere.
I want to start with an item that the ranking member made
reference to. That is the WIPP issue. As you and I talked
about, Idaho operates the advanced mixed waste treatment plant
which is part of the facilities for cleanup at the Idaho
National Laboratory.
Unlike a lot of States, Idaho took the bull by the horns
decades ago and said look, we've got a mess here. It wasn't
done by bad people. It was done by people who did things
differently than we do today. We want to change that.
So we negotiated an agreement with the DOE, the--all of us
who have been Governor have been stewards of that agreement. We
stood shoulder to shoulder, Republicans and Democrats, to see
that the agreement was properly administered.
We have a couple of challenges there, not the least of
which, we all know that we have a repository for higher level
nuclear waste. It's on the books. It's the law.
The courts have said so. But the Administration won't use
it.That, of course, is Yucca Mountain.
At some point in time that or something is going to have to
be used. In the meantime, of course, we also have for lower
level waste, the WIPP facility that's been referred to. The
WIPP facility has been very important to the advanced waste
treatment plant that we have in Idaho because that's where the
shipments go.
Since the fire and since the incident there we, in Idaho,
have had to do things differently because we can't ship. But we
in Idaho know how to do these things. We've got a great
contractor there. I've met with him. They have in place a plan
for after treatment temporary storage facility. We can only do
this for a relatively short period of time.
I want to underscore to you how important it is that we get
the WIPP facility back up and operating. I know the Federal
Government isn't notorious for speed, but I want to urge you to
do all you can to get WIPP back up and running because it will
do--it will go a long ways for the DOE meeting its commitments
in Idaho and other places for cleanup.
So I want to underscore that with you. I know you and I
have talked about that. I'm looking forward to seeing how
rapidly you could make progress to get WIPP up and running.
Like I said, we've, we have, made arrangements in Idaho.
But it is temporary. We need WIPP up and running.
I'm running short on time. So I want to talk on--about just
one more thing that is incredibly important to America,
probably the most important thing you do. That is you are the
custodian and you are the person responsible for seeing that
our atomic warheads, nuclear warheads work when in the F we all
pray that that day never comes that the trigger has to be
pulled.
We need the modernization program moved forward
aggressively. I was one of the people who was an opponent of
New START. We went to the Floor and had a robust debate on it.
We lost. New START treaty was ratified.
I would tell you today that that wouldn't happen given the
situation with the Russians today. But just as importantly the
President picked up a lot of votes by putting out a letter that
said that he had as a high priority the modernization program
for nuclear weapons. In fact to quote him he said, ``Pursue
these programs and capabilities he would pursue these programs
and capabilities for as long as I am President.''
After that debate and after that letter the thing kind of
got pushed to the side. I have to tell you that I am not
satisfied with the progress that we're making there. I think
there's a lot of other Senators who are not satisfied.
In your capacity I would urge you to go to the
laboratories. To sit down with them. To see what needs to be
done.
I didn't ask you, have you been to the laboratories in New
Mexico?
Ms. Sherwood-Randall. I have, sir.
Senator Risch. OK.
Then you are already aware of the challenges that they
face, particularly when we don't do testing anymore. Having
said that, I'm confident that our American ingenuity has these
warheads ready to go when and if they're necessary, but it's
going to be up to you to see that that modernization program
continues. We all know that they are part of our strategic plan
to keep America safe. They're critical, really, to keeping
America safe. This program is in your hands.
I wish you well. I look forward to hearing that report from
you.
My time is up. Thank you, madame chair.
The Chair. Thank you, Senator Risch.
Ms. Sherwood-Randall. Thank you, Senator.
The Chair. Senator Hoeven.
Senator Hoeven. Thank you, Madame Chair.
Dr. Sherwood-Randall, thanks for coming. I think it is
pretty cool that your family is here. I can say it looks like a
pretty impressive bunch, too.
I'm going to actually, firstly I do want to associate
myself with some of the comments made by Senator Risch.
I also don't support the New START treaty. Also am
concerned about making sure that we're modernizing our nuclear
force, so the ICBMs, as well as air launch cruise missile and
the new versions of that standoff capability.
We've got to--we have to be dedicated to that as well as
the nuclear research at the labs because the defensive forces
are getting more and more sophisticated. We've got to maintain
our technological advantage. So it's very important.
I know that's an important part of your portfolio.
Obviously we have to work in the Congress to make sure those
things get funded as well. But it really is a priority and it's
about modernizing and making sure that we continue to have the
technological advantage over everybody. It's vitally important
for our soldiers and for the defense of our country.
I want to actually switch gears with you a little bit. Now
this may have been asked by either the Chairwoman or the
ranking member. So if it has been I apologize. But, you know,
then you would have gotten a chance, a little practice, in
answering it already.
But my question is do you approve the Keystone? Do you
support approving the Keystone XL pipeline and why or why not?
Ms. Sherwood-Randall. Senator, first of all I'm sorry you
and I didn't have an opportunity to meet. But I look forward,
if confirmed, to having that opportunity in the future.
I do want to make one observation about what you said about
New START.
Senator Hoeven. Please.
Ms. Sherwood-Randall. The President fully abides by what he
said, what he committed to Congress in that letter in December
2010. I actually have been charged with the responsibility for
that in my current role at the White House.
I have been working both to ensure the implementation of
our new nuclear employment guidance.
Have been working on our efforts to modernize the warheads
that need to be modernized in order to ensure that they are
viable far out into the future. These are the life extension
programs that are so costly.
Have been working on our naval nuclear reactors program and
on the challenges of infrastructure recapitalization for the
entire nuclear enterprise that are so critical.
Let me note, you mentioned the importance of Congress
providing the funding for this effort. The big difficulty we
face in this arena in fulfilling these commitments is the
funding streams. These projects are huge projects. The
infrastructure is aging.
In order to do what we need to do, to keep this mission
viable, we need sustainable funding far out into the future. I
am deeply committed to this mission and look forward to working
closely with you, if confirmed.
Senator Hoeven. Doctor, that's accurate. But understand
that we need help convincing colleagues in Congress to support
that funding. So part of doing just what you say is you
weighing in, particularly on your side of the aisle, and
encouraging members to support that.
Ms. Sherwood-Randall. I would look forward that, if I'm
confirmed. I suspect that this issue will be one that will be
before us. I would be eager to be involved.
On the Keystone issue, as I have been briefed, the
Department of Energy does not have the authority to decide
about Keystone.
But I would like to note what I am excited about being
involved in, if I'm confirmed at the Department of Energy which
is the role that DOE plays in innovation in this space, in
bringing to market for the American consumer many options for
supply of energy. The work that is being done across the labs
to develop new possibilities, the investment that the
Department is making in its grant program and in its loan
program in this space, in fossil, in clean energy, in
renewables, in new kinds of energy that are just being
developed, is so exciting because that will ensure that we have
the technology to support a low carbon future and that our
consumers are given access to energy at the lowest possible
cost.
As I noted at the outset, that we can continue to lead the
world in this space as well as others.
Senator Hoeven. Do you support more LNG export?
Ms. Sherwood-Randall. We had the opportunity, I think, to
talk a little on this before you came in. Let me say that I
understand that the Department of Energy has the review process
for consideration of proposals for LNG exports. That the
Department has just approved 6 conditional proposals and one
final proposal for exports.
So that's the first. That's the tip of the spear in moving
out to export LNG in an environment in which we finally have
enough that we can think about exporting it.
Senator Landrieu has noted her eagerness to identify ways
that would enable us to move expeditiously and within the
bounds of what is legally possible. The review process that is
necessary to ensure that we're meeting all the national, the
public interest, requirements of the Natural Gas Act. I am a
supporter of this process that will enable us to be competitive
abroad as well as to support the American consumer at home.
Senator Hoeven. Who leads energy policy, the Department of
Energy or the EPA?
Ms. Sherwood-Randall. There are, as you know, shared
responsibilities across the government for varied aspects of
energy policy. The energy policy is set by a group that
includes, of course, the President, the Secretary of Energy,
the Secretary of Commerce, the Head of the EPA and others.
Each agency has distinct responsibilities.
Senator Hoeven. Madame Chair, I have some more questions.
Should I wait for the next round or?
The Chair. We weren't planning to have another round. But
let me ask one question and why don't you confer with the
ranking member and if we can provide some additional time, we
will. We can also submit those to the record.
But let me follow up here with a question because being
competitive in a low carbon future is an interesting phrase.
Some people want that lower than others. But everybody admits
we'll be there to some degree. The question is the degree.
But one of the low carbon producers in our country is
nuclear. Zero carbon producer. But the nuclear industry is
under a serious challenge right now.
We've got 103 nuclear power plants. We have the serious
issue of disposal of waste that's before our committee and has
been pending before this committee long before I became chair 4
months ago. So I'm sorry I haven't been able to figure that out
in the- months I've been here since it's been pending before
this committee for about 20 years.
But set apart from that, what can you say to us about with
the advances in gas that's causing the market pressures on
nuclear and cost associated with, you know, the safe nuclear,
post, you know, the accident in Japan. Can you give us one or 2
minutes and I'm going to follow up with a more detailed
question about some possible paths forward to have a robust
nuclear industry which, I think, is so important for our
reliability, our base fuel and fits in with, I think, with your
mission of advancing science and technology and with this
Administration's vision of a low carbon future.
Ms. Sherwood-Randall. Senator, thank you for giving me the
opportunity to answer this question.
As you know we have embraced an all of the above strategy
and nuclear has an important place in that strategy. The
Administration has provided, through a loan guarantee of $6.5
billion, funding for the first nuclear power plant to be built
in the United States in several decades. That's happening in
Georgia now.
There has also been an approval recently for funding for
the design and R and D for 2 small modular reactors. Again,
with an intent to develop the technology so that we can
generate more energy using nuclear power.
If confirmed, as you noted, I would have the opportunity to
work closely with the labs and with industry to advance this
objective.
The Chair. I think that's very important. I'll submit some
more questions to the record. But thank you.
The Chair. Senator Hoeven, would you have additional
questions?
Senator Hoeven. Just one or 2 and it follows the line of
questioning I asked you before.
I asked you about Keystone. You said that EPA doesn't make
that decision, but we're in the 6th year of trying to get a
permit, trying to get a decision on a pipeline that would bring
oil from Canada and my State and Montana to refineries in the
U.S. verses getting it from the Middle East.
We've got LNG bills. Both the Chairman of the Energy
Committee and the ranking member have LNG bills. I'm on a
number of LNG bills that would enable us to export natural gas
to our allies in Europe and the Ukraine which would be a
response to the aggression we've seen from Russia and Vladimir
Putin in Ukraine.
But also in States like mine where we're flaring off gas.
We produce 30 trillion cubic feet a year of natural gas. We
consume 26 trillion. So we end up flaring off gas.
We need markets. It creates jobs. It creates economic
activity and we have bills that we're not able to advance.
After the Congress refused to implement cap and trade or to
pass cap and trade, the EPA now has come forward at the
Administration's direction and proposed regulations that will
shut down coal plants because they can't meet the greenhouse
gas standards that are being imposed under these proposed regs
for new plants and for existing plants.
So, go back to my earlier question. In this Administration
who leads energy policy, the Department of Energy or the EPA?
How do you, I mean, and your answer before was well, they both
have a role.
I understand they both have a role.
Ms. Sherwood-Randall. So----
Senator Hoeven. Who is leading this energy policy because
you see on the one end you support an all of the above
approach, but you also support the President's climate change
initiatives. But in all these cases you're preventing
development of an all of the above approach.
So, in this Administration how are you going to have an
impact? Who leads energy policy and how do you intend to weigh
in on all of these important issues?
Ms. Sherwood-Randall. Thank you, Senator.
I am before you as the nominee to be Deputy Secretary of
Energy. So let me talk about what it is that energy brings to
the table to respond to your question.
The Energy Department----
Senator Hoeven. I----
Ms. Sherwood-Randall. Offers----
Senator Hoeven. Excuse me, Doctor.
Look, what I'm looking for is you've got all these things
that will create more energy for this country. All of the above
means all of the above. To say all of the above promotes some
and prevent others is not all of the above.
So I want an--so I would ask for a response that is
responsive to that issue, not just a general statement that
yes, we all have to, you know, work together.
Ms. Sherwood-Randall. I----
The Chair. Would you give her a chance to respond, please,
Senator?
Senator Hoeven. Yes, ma'am. Madame Chairman, I think I've
been pretty patient in that regard, but absolutely.
Ms. Sherwood-Randall. The Department of Energy can offer to
the industries that you're describing opportunities to develop
technology that will enable them to remain competitive in a low
carbon economy. So this Administration has invested a
substantial amount, $6 billion in grants and newly proposed $8
billion in loans to the fossil community to develop new
technologies. So we're funding carbon capture work and actually
there are 2 plants that are now implementing this new
technology to make it possible to bring to market. So that, all
of the above is real.
I look forward, if confirmed, to working with you to ensure
that the concerns that you have in this regard are reflected in
the policies we're pursuing.
What DOE brings to the table is options. We're actually the
good guys in this regard because we can support innovative
technology that keeps us competitive.
Senator Hoeven. That's good because there's a difference.
For example, if you take coal. There's a difference between
technically feasible and commercially viable.
So you can impose a regulation or EPA can impose a
regulation and say, the technology is technically feasible to
achieve this standard. But if it's not commercially viable that
company goes out of business.
Ms. Sherwood-Randall. Right.
Senator Hoeven. So that's why I go back to this issue. If
you're going to truly have an all of the above energy policy,
you've got to be an enabler. To just say, oh, it works and let
these regulations be imposed results in these industries being
shut down. That's not an all of the above policy.
If you're not going to help break that deadlock or solve
that problem in DOE who do we turn to for assistance in that
effort?
Ms. Sherwood-Randall. Senator, if confirmed, I hope to be
that very enabler.
Senator Hoeven. Thank you.
The Chair. Thank you, Senators, for your excellent
questions.
Thank you for your excellent testimony.
I think that concludes our hearing for today. If you and
your family will join me in the back for some pictures, we'd
love to have you.
Ms. Sherwood-Randall. Thank you.
The Chair. Our meeting is adjourned. The record will stay
open for 2 weeks. Additional questions will be submitted.
Please expect those. we would like a timely response which I'm
sure you will provide.
The Chair. Meeting adjourned.
Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 11:25 a.m. the hearing was adjourned.]
APPENDIX
Responses to Additional Questions
----------
Response of Elizabeth Sherwood-Randall to Question From
Senator Landrieu
Question 1. In 1992, General Brent Scowcroft asked the Committee on
International Security and Arms Control of the National Academy of
Sciences for a full-scale study of the options for managing and
disposing of surplus weapons plutonium. In the resulting study, the
Committee recommended that weapons plutonium be disposed of in a manner
that would meet what it called the ``spent fuel standard.'' The
Committee defined the ``spent fuel standard'' as making ``plutonium
roughly as inaccessible for weapons use as the . . . plutonium that
exists in spent fuel from commercial reactors.'' National Academy of
Sciences, Management and Disposition of Excess Weapons Plutonium 12
(1994). See also National Academy of Sciences, Management and
Disposition of Excess Weapons Plutonium: Reactor-Related Options 2-3
(1995); National Academy of Sciences, The Spent Fuel Standard for
Disposition of Excess Weapons Plutonium: Application to Current DOE
Options 1 (2000).
The Department of Energy used the Academy's report ``as the
starting point for evaluating alternatives regarding the long-term
storage and disposition of plutonium'' in its programmatic
environmental impact statement for storage and disposition of weapons
plutonium. 59 Fed. Reg. 31985, 31988 (June 21, 1994). In 1997, the
Secretary decided that surplus plutonium should be disposed of by
converting it into ``forms that meet the Spent Fuel Standard, thereby
providing evidence of irreversible disarmament and setting a model for
proliferation resistance.'' 62 Fed. Reg. 3014, 3016 (Jan. 21, 1997)
(Record of Decision on Final Programmatic EIS). In addition, the
Secretary decided to fabricate surplus weapons plutonium into mixed
oxide fuel for irradiation in light-water reactors. 65 Fed. Reg. at
3029. The Secretary has concluded that use of plutonium in mixed oxide
fuel meets the Spent Fuel Standard. E.g., 65 Fed. Reg. 1608, 1618 (Jan.
11, 2000).
a. Do you agree that the fundamental purpose of the Department's
plutonium disposition program is to ensure that surplus weapons
plutonium is never again used for nuclear weapons and that the Spent
Fuel Standard is the appropriate standard against which plutonium
disposition options should be evaluated?
Answer. Yes, I agree that the fundamental purpose of the
Administration's plutonium disposition program is to ensure that
surplus weapons plutonium is never used again. If confirmed, I intend
to work with Secretary Moniz to fulfill the President's commitment to
the U.S. Plutonium Disposition mission, consistent with our obligations
under the U.S.-Russia Plutonium Management and Disposition Agreement.
b. Do you agree that fabricating plutonium into mixed oxide fuel
and irradiating it reactors meets the Spent Fuel Standard?
Answer. Yes, I agree fabricating plutonium into mixed oxide fuel
and irradiating it in reactors is consistent with the definition of the
Spent Fuel Standard. c. Would burial of plutonium in the Waste
Isolation Pilot Plant meet the Spent Fuel Standard? Management and
Disposition of Excess Weapons Plutonium 12 (1994). Answer: I am aware
that one of the alternative excess plutonium disposition pathways
currently being evaluated by the Department would involve downblending
and disposing of plutonium in a repository. While this option would not
meet the spent fuel standard, the 1994 report on the Management and
Disposition of Excess Weapon Plutonium discussed other ways to minimize
accessibility of the plutonium by creating physical, chemical, or
radiological barriers. The downblending and disposal option would
minimize accessibility through both physical and chemical barriers.
Article III of the U.S.-Russia Plutonium Management and Disposition
Agreement states that disposition can also be ``any other methods that
may be agreed by the Parties in writing.''
Responses of Elizabeth Sherwood-Randall to Questions From
Senator Heinrich
Question 1. At a hearing in April 2013, I asked Deputy Secretary
Poneman the status of appointing a Technology Transfer Coordinator as
required by section 1001(a) of EPAct05. Mr. Ponemen responded for the
record that the position was vacant and would be addressed after a new
Secretary was confirmed. It's now more than a year later and the
position remains vacant. Given the importance of technology transfer to
economic development, and the interest in accelerating technology
transfer from so many members of Congress, I find the continued vacancy
unacceptable.
What is the status of appointing a Technology Transfer Coordinator?
If confirmed, will you make the appointment of a coordinator a
priority and will you work to enhance technology transfer efforts at
DOE's laboratories?
Answer. I understand that the Department of Energy and its
laboratories have a long tradition of working with academia and the
private sector on research and technology development efforts that have
generated many scientific advances, and led to the creation of new U.S.
businesses, jobs, and industries. It has been a priority of the
Administration to help strengthen U.S. competitiveness by speeding up
the transfer of Federal research and development from the laboratory to
the marketplace, and the appointment of a permanent Technology Transfer
Coordinator is an important element of that equation.
It is my understanding that the Department is actively looking to
fill the role of Technology Transfer Coordinator. In the interim,
Secretary Moniz has asked Dr. Ellen Williams to work as a Senior
Advisor in his office on tech transfer issues. If confirmed, I will
make the appointment of a coordinator a priority and will work to
enhance technology transfer efforts at DOE laboratories.
Question 2. I understand the NNSA has directed Los Alamos National
Laboratory and other NNSA facilities to use the Supply Chain Management
Center, or SCMC, for commodity purchases. A number of local officials
in Northern New Mexico have expressed a concern that the use of SCMC
will bypass the normal local competitive RFP process and drive
purchases away from local and regional contractors to out-of-state
firms. They indicate the switch to the SCMC has already had a negative
impact on local small businesses that have a long and successful
history of contracting with LANL.
Will you ensure the SCMC system provides small contractors equal
access to participate in a fair and equitable manner?
Will you work to find ways for NNSA to assist local small
contractors in Northern New Mexico in becoming approved SCMC vendors?
Answer. I believe that small businesses and contractors are
important to our national security enterprise, including NNSA. While I
am not yet fully briefed on the details of the Supply Chain Management
Center, I understand from our conversation in your office last week
that it is important to you to ensure that small businesses and
contractors have opportunities to compete. I am familiar with Northern
New Mexico from my time there earlier in my career. I appreciated the
opportunity to discuss this with you when we met prior to my
confirmation hearing and, if confirmed, I look forward to learning more
about the Supply Chain Management Center and working with you on this
issue.
Responses of Elizabeth Sherwood-Randall to Questions From
Senator Wyden
Question 1. The clean-up of Hanford is one of the most complex
chemistry problems in the world and DOE has been working,
unsuccessfully for decades to engineer treatment technologies for
hundreds of millions of gallons of many different kinds of radioactive
waste stretching back to the Manhattan Project. I have raised this
issue with Secretary Moniz, but to date I still do not see any
substantive change in management approach or direction. Hanford
contractor personnel are being required to sign non-disclosure
agreements to prevent them from disclosing problems in the future. I am
including an example of such an agreement along with these questions. I
understand that DOE personnel are being told to that they too will be
punished if they disclose information.
a) Will you please report back the extent to which these NDA's are
being required both by DOE and by its contractors?
Answer. I appreciated our opportunity to discuss this issue when we
met in your office prior to my confirmation hearing. It is my
understanding that non-disclosure agreements are used to ensure that
sensitive, non-public information such as personally identifiable
information and business-sensitive information is protected by Federal
and contractor employees. I understand that the use of a non-disclosure
agreement does not supersede the right and requirement of Federal or
contractor employees to raise concerns. Further, I recognize your
concern that employees may perceive contractors are using non-
disclosure agreements to inhibit whistleblowers from raising issues. If
confirmed, I will look into this issue in greater depth and consult
with you once I have been fully briefed.
b) How can DOE support transparency and provide an environment safe
for employees to report concerns at the same time that it binds them
legally to silence?
Answer. It is my understanding that the use of a non-disclosure
agreement does not supersede the right and requirement of Federal or
contractor employees to raise concerns. I strongly believe that all
workers must feel confident in their ability to ask questions and
express concerns. If confirmed, I will work to further efforts that are
underway at the Department of Energy to reaffirm a culture of
transparency and accountability
c) What will you do to make sure that both contractors and Federal
employees are not intimidated and punished for raising safety and
management problems?
Answer. I believe that all workers must feel confident in their
ability to ask questions and express concerns. I understand that the
Department of Energy is currently undertaking efforts to 5 ensure that
this is the case. If confirmed, I look forward to learning about the
efforts currently underway and taking additional steps to enhance them
if necessary.
Question 2. Renewable energy technologies such as hydrokinetic
energy and geothermal energy show huge promise for putting clean energy
on the grid, and are important industries in my state of Oregon. These
renewables continue to be underfunded in the DOE's budget requests. In
fact, the Marine Hydrokinetic Program was one of the only programs to
be cut back in the EERE FY15 budget. Will you commit to work with me to
ensure that the level of budget support for these renewables within DOE
matches both their continued importance to my state and clean energy
broadly?
Answer. Although I am not yet familiar with the budget history of
marine hydrokinetic activities, it is my understanding that the
Department is committed to advancing marine hydrokinetic research,
development and demonstration. Further, I believe these clean energy
technologies can play an important role in the Administration's ``all-
of-the-above'' energy strategy. If confirmed, I commit to working with
you on this important issue.
Responses of Elizabeth Sherwood-Randall to Questions From
Senator Manchin
Question 1. Doctor, the President has pledged that his energy plan
will recognize the need for an ``all-of-the-above'' strategy. How do
you see coal fitting in to this strategy?
Answer. I believe that coal will remain a critical part of our fuel
mix for decades to come. As part of the Administration's ``all-of-the-
above'' energy strategy, the Department of Energy is working to make
sure that coal remains a competitive energy source in a low carbon
future. For example, I strongly agree with the Administration's ``all-
of-the-above strategy'' and, if confirmed, I will work hard to deliver
on the commitment to advance coal technology as part of a low carbon
future.
Question 2. Doctor, as we've discussed, coal will continue to be
used in this country and abroad in great volume for the foreseeable
future.
The Department of Energy currently has $8 billion in loan
guarantees available for advanced fossil projects. These guarantees
were first authorized by Congress in 2005 but have not yet been
provided to applicants. Can you please assure me that you will work
hard to make these guarantees available for coal plant efficiency
projects so that our country will lead the world in developing
technology that allows for the continued use of coal while
simultaneously reducing emissions?
Answer. I fully support the goal of making guarantees available for
advanced fossil energy projects, including coal plant efficiency
projects so that our country will lead the world in developing
technology that allows for the continued use of coal while
simultaneously reducing emissions. As I understand it, to date no loan
guarantees have been finalized under the available authority for fossil
energy projects. As a result, in December 2013 the Department put forth
a new solicitation for advanced fossil energy projects in order to find
innovative fossil energy projects to finance. I understand that the
Department is now reviewing applications received through that
solicitation. If confirmed, I will make sure the Department is doing
everything it can to make this program a success, consistent with our
goal of ensuring that coal will remain a competitive energy source in a
low carbon future.
Question 3. Similarly, the Department's Office of Fossil Energy has
roughly $1.7 billion in unspent advanced fossil grant funds that it has
had since 2009. Will you work with me to make sure these funds are used
wisely and that research universities are included in the
administration of chosen projects?
Answer. While I have not yet been briefed on any outstanding
balances in the Office of Fossil Energy budget, if confirmed, I would
be pleased to work with you to ensure the fossil energy budget is used
wisely. This is consistent with the Administration goal of ensuring
that fossil energy remains a competitive part of the Nation's energy
mix in a low carbon future.
Question 4. Secondly, I'd like to ask your help on an issue with
which I know you are quite familiar. Russia is proceeding in its
efforts to cut off natural gas shipments to Ukraine. Not
coincidentally, the Ukrainian government has announced that its top
priority is to reduce its dependence on imported natural gas by 30
percent. It makes sense for the United States, in this time of crisis,
to provide Ukraine with the technology to efficiently burn their own
domestically-produced coal. I'd like to get your commitment to work
with me to ensure we use advanced American fossil energy technology and
our international financing mechanisms, including the Export-Import
Bank and the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC), to provide
the Ukrainians with a solution for their energy security. May I have
your commitment to help with my efforts?
Answer. I share your concerns about the energy security of our
European allies and partners that have become more salient as a
consequence of the crisis in Ukraine. G7 leaders have tasked their
Energy ministers with taking steps to improve our collective energy
security, and as part of that I understand the Department of Energy is
working with its counterparts on many facets of energy security in
Europe, including promoting more effective use of their own energy
resources. While I am not yet fully briefed on the ways that the
Export-Import Bank and OPIC will fit into that strategy, if confirmed I
will be pleased to work with you on this important issue.
Question 5. NETL, which is in my state, remains a vital resource
for our nation in ensuring that we continue to utilize coal as we work
to reduce emissions from our nation's electricity generation system.
I'd like to invite you to West Virginia to see NETL with me. Would you
be willing to consider my invitation?
Answer. Yes. If confirmed, I would be very pleased to visit NETL
with you, which is an important resource to our Nation in conducting
clean coal research and development.
Question 6. Coal is a critical energy source for our Nation. Coal
is also a vital part of the economies of a number of states, including
West Virginia. NETL has played a key role in identifying, developing
and deploying numerous technologies that have increased efficiencies
and reduced environmental concerns from coal-fired power plants. Will
you support NETL's role in coal research and will you work to reverse
the trend of diminished budgets and diminished support for NETL coal
programs?
Answer. Yes. I believe that NETL plays an indispensable role in
clean coal research and development. While current budgetary
constraints present funding challenges across the the Department of
Energy complex, if confirmed, I will work to ensure that NETL receives
sufficient support for its core mission of advancing fossil energy
technology.
Question 7. Would you be receptive to increasing the Carbon Capture
and Sequestration (CCS) budget and do you see benefit in increasing the
budget for coal program areas outside of CCS?
Answer. I understand that in addition to the annual budget for CCS
research in the Office of Fossil Energy, a significant investment in
CCS technology was made as part of the Recovery Act and that the
projects funded under the Recovery Act are helping to significantly
advance CCS technology. If confirmed, I look forward to working with
you to make sure that adequate resources are dedicated to advancing
clean coal technologies.
Question 8. Would you also support a robust suite of research
programs into other coal related technologies including advanced power
efficiencies, combustion research, gasification, fuel cells, and coal-
to-liquids?
Answer. Yes. I understand that the Office of Fossil Energy is
working on those coal related technologies in addition to the work
being conducted on CCS. This includes work on advanced power
efficiencies, combustion research--including potentially
transformational technologies such as oxy-combustion and chemical
looping- and gasification. I understand that the Crosscutting Research
Program in the Office of Fossil Energy also includes a number of R&D
projects on coal related technologies that can increase efficiencies
such as advanced materials, sensors and controls. If confirmed, I will
be committed to supporting a robust portfolio of coal related
technologies that can ensure the role of coal in a low-carbon future.
Question 9. As you know, I have a keen interest in NETL, Fossil
Energy's Award Winning National Laboratory. NETL is at the forefront of
research to develop and utilize fossil energy in an efficient and
environmentally responsible fashion. NETL has been extremely
successful, with scores of R&D 100 awards in the last decade, and
numerous Federal Laboratory Consortium awards for Excellence in
Technology Transfer. In short, NETL is superb at identifying and
developing new technologies, and getting those technologies to the
marketplace. In keeping with the historic structure of NETL and the
Secretarial Designation declaring NETL a National Laboratory, NETL has
continued to operate as a Government-owned, Government-operated (GO-GO)
facility. Although uncommon within DOE, NETL's operating model is
common throughout much of the Government. Being a GO-GO gives NETL.an
advantage) . . . If confirmed would you support the current GO-GO
structure of NETL?
Answer. Yes. I recognize the uniqueness of NETL's government-owned,
government-operated structure. If, confirmed I will support its current
structure.
Question 10. Given that any attempts to privatize NETL would
significantly disrupt NETL's ability to carry out its critical missions
as well as significantly disrupt the workforce, if confirmed, would you
oppose efforts to privatize NETL's Federal workforce?
Answer. I am not aware of any efforts to privatize NETL's
workforce, and, if confirmed, I would support maintaining NETL's
current status.
Question 11. NETL has traditionally been a key player in the
performance of a broad range of DOE programs, most recently Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EE/RE) and the Office of Electricity
Delivery and Energy Reliability (OE). Would you support the continued
efforts of NETL in accomplishing these key aspects of DOE's portfolio?
Answer. Yes. As you note, NETL is critical to the Department's
mission to advance the energy security of the United States. If
confirmed, I will support the continued success of NETL programs.
Question 12. What about your vision for the DOE Office of Fossil
Energy? Some of its programs, such as combined heat and power, have
been recently moved to other areas of DOE. When will they be brought
back to the FE fold of work?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work with the Secretary to assess the
distribution of activities across the Department to ensure the
Department of Energy's research is being conducted in ways that
maximize the Administration's energy policy, security, economic, and
environmental objectives.
Question 13. 1If confirmed, do you plan to work to ensure the NETL
mission is fully supported?
Answer. Yes.
Question 14. There are programmatic barriers that limit the NETL's
ability to grow its programs and capabilities beyond its historical
fossil energy mission. Would you be willing to help remove those
barriers so that NETL can respond to growth opportunities?
Answer. If confirmed, I will learn more about NETL's programmatic
structure and any challenges it faces. I would be pleased to work with
you to make sure NETL is fully leveraging its scientific and technical
expertise in support of our national interests.
Question 15. Will NETL be allowed to explore into other arenas of
research, as have other labs and sections of DOE? This type of research
has allowed other organizations to grow in DOE.
Answer. As you previously mentioned, NETL is already conducting
research that cuts across the range of Departmental programs. If
confirmed, I will examine how best we can maximize the contribution of
each of the labs to the Department of Energy's mission in support of
our national interests.
Question 16. It is reported that the United States has tens of
billions of barrels of oil left stranded in known reservoirs. This is
in addition to the recent increased production of natural gas and oil
as a result of shale reservoir developments, which I might add, DOE and
more specifically, NETL, played a significant role in research and
development thereof.
It is obvious that advanced technologies are needed to unlock this
substantial domestic resource of ``stranded'' oils, and to do so in an
environmentally responsible way. However, this Administration
consistently requests zero, I repeat, zero funding for DOE oil
research.
Given this significant potential and all the associated benefits to
our nation if we develop this ``stranded'' oil resource, would you, if
confirmed, advocate for research funding focused on Enhanced Oil
Recovery, including funding for carbon dioxide enhanced oil recovery
technologies?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work with the Secretary to assess the
distribution of activities across the Department to ensure the
Department of Energy's research is being conducted in ways that
maximize the Administration's energy policy, security, economic, and
environmental objectives. It is my understanding that the Quadrennial
Energy Review process may provide guidance on priorities to be pursued
with constrained resources.
I also understand that a number of Office of Fossil Energy-
supported CCS projects, including the Air Products industrial capture
project in Port Arthur, Texas, the Kemper County Project in
Mississippi, and the Petra Nova advanced post combustion capture
retrofit project, are significantly advancing technologies that
underpin enhanced oil recovery (EOR). Moreover, the Department has
issued an $8 billion loan solicitation to support energy generation
projects that will support advanced fossil energy projects, including
EOR technologies.
If confirmed, I will support the Department's efforts to advance
clean coal, including for utilization for EOR, as part of the
Administration's ``all-of-the-above'' energy strategy.
Question 17. The DOE's research portfolio seems void of research
aimed at improving the efficiency of natural gas production from shale
formations and other unconventional formations, and in maximizing
resource recovery, and doing so in an environmentally responsible way.
Such research would have widespread benefits for many businesses,
including small businesses, and for our nation.
That being the case, do you recognize the value in production-
related research and would you actively work to secure funding from
Congress through the DOE Office of Fossil Energy to conduct this
research?
Answer. As you mention in your previous question, the Department of
Energy played a significant role in the research and development that
has led to U.S. industry greatly increasing our Nation's natural gas
and oil production from shale. If confirmed, I will work with the
Secretary to ensure the Department's research is appropriately focused
to facilitate our transition to a low carbon economy that includes a
broad range of domestic energy sources, including natural gas.
Question 18. Many of the landowners and businesses alike involved
in the recovery of shale gas are concerned about the usage of water in
that process. Given the enormous economic potentials of this shale gas,
such a concern should be addressed. To reduce the environmental
footprint of natural gas production, ``a comprehensive program is
needed to address the issues of water use and backflow and produced
water in unconventional gas production,'' as recommended in a report
issued from an MIT study group chaired by Dr. Moniz in 2011. Would you
support the funding of a program in the DOE Office of Fossil Energy to
accomplish such an important goal?
Answer. Consistent with Secretary Moniz's view, I believe that the
safe and environmentally sustainable production of America's energy
resources are a core element of the mission of the Office of Fossil
Energy (FE).
I am aware of cross-cutting work within the Administration to
address this issue, and know that FE is playing a critical role. Last
month, the Department released a report entitled ``The Water-Energy
Nexus: Challenge and Opportunities,'' which notes that water scarcity,
variability, and uncertainty are becoming more prominent, potentially
leading to vulnerabilities of the U.S. energy system, including in
natural gas production. The report provides a foundation for future DOE
action in response to the challenges in this space. Furthermore, the
Quadrennial Energy Review is also examining water use in energy
production, and may provide guidance on priorities to be pursued.
If confirmed, I will work to ensure that the Department's ongoing
examination of the role of water in energy production informs our
approach to this important concern.
Responses of Elizabeth Sherwood-Randall to Questions From
Senator Murkowski
Question 1. Understanding that you are likely to focus primarily on
nuclear security and non-proliferation, I also want to learn more about
your experience with more traditional energy policy. Can you tell us
the extent of your work on energy, at the federal level or elsewhere?
If we come to a point where Secretary Moniz decides to leave the
Department before you do, do you think you will be ready to serve as
Acting Secretary?
Answer. Indeed, I have worked for several decades on national
security, including the safety, security, and effectiveness of our
nuclear weapons and the laboratories and infrastructure that support
them, and on preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction. As you know, these are important dimensions of the
Department of Energy's mandate. Furthermore, throughout my career, I
have had responsibilities for broad, strategic portfolios, in which
global energy issues have played an increasingly prominent role. As I
stated in my testimony, I believe that America's domestic resources
will be a major source of our domestic and international strength in
the 21st century.
If confirmed, I look forward to working closely with you and your
colleagues to advance Secretary Moniz's priorities, including: the
``all-of-the-above'' energy strategy for America's energy future,
championing America's international energy leadership, working with our
national laboratories, universities, and the private sector, and
strengthening the Department's program and project management across
the enterprise to deliver results and value for taxpayers. I also look
forward to working closely with Secretary Moniz and learning from his
vast experience throughout the energy sphere to ensure that I am well
prepared to execute my duties as the Deputy Secretary, and, should I be
called upon to do so, to serve as Acting Secretary.
Question 2. Do you support GAO's recommendation for a formal
documented process between DOE, FERC and EPA to interact with respect
to the impact of EPA rules on electric reliability?
Answer. I understand that greater coordination between the
Department of Energy, FERC and EPA is an important element of
successfully addressing any potential challenges relating to electric
reliability.
Question 3. What is your general view of our nation's current
energy policy and how does Alaska fit in? Do you support an ``all-of-
the above'' energy policy, and if so, what does that phrase mean to
you?
Answer. I support the Administration's ``all-of-the-above'' energy
policy and am committed to advancing it. As you and I have discussed, I
believe that Alaska has many unique opportunities and challenges--
including many types of energy resources, such as hydropower,
geothermal, oil and gas, as well as its high cost of electricity and
dispersed population. I understand that this means that Alaska faces
challenges that are distinct from those in the lower 48 states, and, if
confirmed, I pledge to work with you to address those issues.
Question 4. While you have focused on the nuclear side of DOE-
related energy issues in your career, what technologies do you believe
offer the greatest potential for economic renewable energy development
over the next decade? In your opinion, what is the best use of federal
dollars to advance energy development in the future?
Answer. I understand that Secretary Moniz has focused on three main
items within renewable energy development: lowering the cost of
renewable energy technologies to achieve price competitiveness with
traditional energy resources; accelerating the transition to a low-
carbon economy; and ensuring that technologies are available to deploy
renewables at scale. I share his commitment to integrating project
management functions across Department of Energy offices and
activities, as well as the private sector, academia and the national
laboratories--all of which will ensure that we are using Federal funds
wisely to advance our energy technology development.
Question 5. Given your past experience in the NSC, do you believe
energy production and energy exports are in the national interest?
Answer. As I stated in my confirmation hearing, I believe we should
be carefully evaluating all options to ensure that we deliver maximum
value to the American consumer and retain America's competitive edge
globally.
Under the Natural Gas Act, exporting LNG requires authorization
from the Department of Energy. The export permit requires that the
Department of Energyconfirm that the export would be consistent with
the ``public interest''. My understanding is that the Department of
Energy has recently conditionally approved seven proposals for export
of LNG one of which has been finally approved, and that additional
proposals are also under consideration.
Question 6. What are your thoughts on crude oil exports? I realize
this is typically a Commerce Department area of jurisdiction, but crude
oil is energy and you will be the Deputy Secretary of DOE if confirmed.
Answer. As you have stated, current allowances and restrictions
regarding crude oil exports are set by law and enforced by the
Department of Commerce. I understand that Administration officials have
said that they are taking an active look at the implications of growing
domestic energy supplies, including the economic, environmental and
security opportunities and challenges that it presents. This includes
examining how our refining capacity matches with significant increases
in domestic crude production.
Question 7. Given your past experience, do you have any thoughts
about the impact the unconventional oil and gas boom has had on U.S.
national security and our broader position overseas?
Answer. The natural gas boom is certainly an advantage for the
United States. As Secretary Moniz has said, it is partially responsible
for the decrease in CO2 emissions that we have experienced
over the last years and it is a bridge to a low-carbon future.
The increase in oil production has had very significant impact here
at home in that for the first time in over 20 years we are producing
more oil than we are importing. We are largely self-reliant for natural
gas, which has had the side-benefit of freeing up international
resources of gas for our allies and partners. While these efforts have
had a positive impact on our energy security here at home, we have more
to do across the energy portfolio to increase our energy security and
assistant to our allies and partners, especially those facing
manipulative pressure from other providers.
Question 8. Former Alaska Senator Ted Stevens created the Arctic
Energy Office in DOE to research a host of energy technologies of
particular importance to the Arctic--from methods to develop heavy oil,
to ways to recover methane hydrates from beneath the Arctic seafloor,
to ways to improve electricity generation and transmission in rural
areas. Unfortunately, that office closed four years ago and DOE now has
only a couple of employees partially stationed in Alaska. As you may
know, a 2008 USGS report found that 13 percent of the world's
undiscovered oil and more than 30 percent of its natural gas likely lie
under the Arctic. In light of this, and given the world's interest in
Arctic issues, do you believe we need a greater emphasis on Arctic,
cold-climate energy research?
Answer. I am aware of the value that Alaska's congressional
delegation places on energy technology research in the Arctic region,
particularly its energy production potential. During my service in the
Administration I have participated in the development of our Arctic
strategy and, if confirmed, I look forward to learning more and working
with you on this issue.
Question 9. Given that Secretary Moniz is recused from any
decision-making related to fusion energy-related activities at DOE,
would you be able to assume a leading role on this issue? This is
especially important in light of a recent GAO report that was quite
critical of the serious management challenges and overall progress (or
lack thereof) of the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor
(ITER). I believe that a strong and effective leadership team at DOE is
key to address this latter issue and the overall direction of the
fusion program in this country.
Answer. I agree that that strong and effective leadership at the
Department of Energy is critical to the success of complex, including
international scientific projects such as ITER. If confirmed, I look
forward to assuming a leadership role to ensure that this project is
well managed. Further, I am aware that a number of ITER's challenges
pertain to participating countries meeting their international
commitments for the project in a timely fashion as well as management
issues that are currently being addressed. If confirmed, I look forward
to being more fully briefed on ITER and identifying options to improve
the management and governance of the project.
Question 10. Secretary Moniz decided to create the office of the
Undersecretary for Science and Energy, with the goal of better
collaboration between those two crucial parts of DOE. What role do you
see for yourself in ensuring that this goal is achieved, and can you
share some of your thoughts on how to ensure the success of this
strategy?
Answer. In July 2013, Secretary Moniz and Deputy Secretary Poneman
announced a Department reorganization creating the Office of the
Undersecretary of Science and Energy position. The creation of the
position reflects an understanding that the innovation chain is not
linear, and that it requires feedback between and among programs
responsible for different Department of Energy research and development
(R&D) modes. The Department needs the ability to closely integrate and
improve the ease of communication among basic science, applied
research, technology demonstration, and deployment activities. If
confirmed, I look forward to supporting this model that is designed to
strengthen the innovation and impact of the Department of Energy's R&D
efforts.
Question 11. How will you seek to manage the nation's nuclear
stockpile?
Answer. The safety, security, and effectiveness of our nuclear
arsenal and the vitality of the national laboratories and production
facilities that support that effort must be a high priority for the
Deputy Secretary of Energy. If confirmed, I expect to be able to hit
the ground running on this issue of critical importance to our national
security. I would build on my deep expertise in defense management and
nuclear deterrence to ensure that the nation's nuclear stockpile is
properly resources and adapted to meet our emerging national military
requirements.
Question 12. How do you view the relationship between civilian
nuclear waste and defense waste in terms of disposal prioritization?
How should the overall issue of disposal be addressed?
Answer. I am aware that the Obama Administration's efforts on
nuclear waste disposal are guided by the Blue Ribbon Commission (BRC)
on America's Nuclear Future's core recommendations and an
Administration ``Strategy for the Management and Disposal of Used
Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste.'' The BRC was
established to conduct a comprehensive review of policies for managing
the back end of the nuclear fuel cycle, including all alternatives for
the storage, processing, and disposal of civilian and defense used
nuclear fuel, high-level waste, and materials derived from nuclear
activities. Additionally, I am aware that the Administration's Strategy
represents a basis for discussions between the Administration and
Congress on a path forward for disposal of nuclear waste and provides
near-term actions to be implemented by the Department of Energy pending
enactment of new legislation. I appreciate your efforts, working with a
bipartisan group of your colleagues, to introduce legislation on this
topic. Guided by these efforts, if confirmed, I look forward to working
diligently to address the needs of the back-end of the nuclear fuel
cycle and setting it on a sustainable path.
Question 13. As an Alaskan, I support hydropower in all forms. Over
the long-term, I believe marine hydrokinetic technology offers
considerable potential for low-cost renewable energy. At the same time,
I believe further research can continue to improve conventional
hydropower production. What is your view on the hydropower resources
and how do you believe the Department should prioritize its water power
budget?
Answer. Hydropower is a key contributor today and is an important
part of the Administration's ``all-of-the-above'' energy strategy. I
believe that further innovation and advancement of hydropower
technologies are both possible and necessary to: lower the costs of
initial installations; minimize environmental impacts in a timely, low-
cost way; encourage the development of new hydropower generation,
including micro-generation; and lower the costs of pumped hydro
storage, which is an important storage option for other power
generation technologies.
If confirmed, I look forward working with you on marine
hydrokinetic issues.
Question 14. What do you see as the future of Department-funded
research into wind-turbine technology and for integration of wind into
the electrical grid? In your view, should DOE's funding for wind-
related activities increase, decrease, or stay at its current level?
Answer. The research community studying climate science for several
decades overwhelmingly agrees that we need to accelerate the transition
to a low-carbon economy as an essential strategy for mitigating the
most serious impacts of climate change. Energy infrastructure requires
decades to turn over and the Administration is committed to developing
and deploying affordable energy technologies at a scale sufficient to
power and fuel the nation. Lowering the cost of low-carbon options such
as wind is important to achieving that goal, and it is supported by the
Department of Energy's R&D portfolio. If confirmed, I will support the
Department's ongoing efforts to advance wind power as part of the
Administration's ``all-of-the-above'' strategy.
Question 15. It is estimated that America has enough methane
hydrates, if we can access them safely, to power our energy needs for a
millennium. But, while the Department funded a 2012 test in Alaska to
prove that hydrates can be made to ``flow,'' it has taken considerable
effort to get the Department to follow up on that test with further
testing and research. Given that Japan is considering hydrates as a
major future source of its energy needs, how do you view the
Department's role in methane hydrate research? How much funding should
be provided to support DOE's methane hydrate efforts?
Answer. Although I have not yet been briefed on the role of methane
hydrates in the Department's research and development portfolio, it is
my understanding that the Office of Fossil Energy and the National
Energy Technology Lab support a number of research projects in
unconventional natural gas production, including projects focused on
the potential of methane hydrates.
If confirmed, I will expeditiously request a briefing on the
Department of Energy's methane hydrates research portfolio and pledge
to work with you on this issue.
Question 16. In Section 803 of the 2007 Energy Independence and
Security Act (EISA), Congress authorized a matching grant program to
help fund the capital costs of all types of renewable energy projects
in high-cost areas like Alaska. The program, however, was not Alaska-
specific but rather national in scope. What is your view on DOE's role
in general to spur the development of renewable projects and on Section
803 of EISA in particular?
Answer. While I am not familiar with the specific provision of the
Energy Independence and Security Act, I support the continued research,
development and deployment efforts associated with renewables as part
of the Administration's ``all-of-the-above'' strategy. Specifically, I
will support the Secretary's priorities of lowering the cost of
renewable technologies to achieve price competitiveness with
traditional sources of energy; accelerating the transition to a low-
carbon economy; and assuring we have the key enabling technologies
needed to enable renewables deployment at scale
If confirmed, I will request a briefing on Sec. 803 and look
forward to working with you to address your concerns.
Question 17. Former Secretary Chu proposed an expanded role for the
Power Marketing Administrations (PMAs) to be directed by the Department
of Energy and without consultation with Congress. After 166 members of
Congress wrote to then-Secretary Chu to take issue with this approach,
Deputy Secretary Poneman did not pursue many of the initiatives set
forth in the so-called ``Chu memorandum.'' If confirmed, would you
pursue former Secretary Chu's proposed initiatives and expand the PMAs'
mission? Please explain your approach to the PMAs and specify if and
how you would change any PMA-related management.
Answer. I am aware of Secretary Chu's March 16, 2012 memo. If
confirmed, I will be fully briefed on the Power Marketing
Administrations and their unique challenges and opportunities. Further
I will abide by the governing statutes of each PMA, and I will work
with you and the stakeholders in each PMA region to ensure that the
PMAs are operating as efficiently and effectively as possible while
following all Federal laws and applicable regulations.
Question 18. I have been told the Senate Defense Appropriations
Subcommittee has included the below language in the base text of their
bill:
SEC. 8121. Notwithstanding section 1552 of title 31,
United States Code, funds made available under the
heading ``OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE'' under the heading
``DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE'' under title III of division A
of Public Law 111-5 (123 Stat. 132) and any funds made
available for Fossil Energy Research and 20 Development
by the Department of Energy under title IV of the same
division of Public Law 111-5 (123 Stat. 139) shall
remain available for expenditure, until such funds have
been expended, for the purpose of liquidating the
obligations.
Regarding this language, please clarify:
a. If the DOE requested this language.
Answer. To the best of my knowledge, the Department of Energy did
not request this language.
b. If the language is placed into law, would DOE interpret the
language to only allow the funds to flow to the Future Gen 2.0 project,
or would other fossil energy demonstration projects be eligible to use
the funds?
Answer. I am aware that it is the Department of Energy's
understanding that this language would apply to all of the fossil
energy demonstration projects authorized by P.L. 111-5.
c. If DOE would allow other fossil energy demonstration projects to
use the funds provided by the referenced language, how would DOE
prioritize allocation of the funds to projects? What criteria would be
used to determine funding eligibility?
Answer. I am aware that it is the Department of Energy's
understanding that this language would only apply to the funding that
has already been obligated to projects authorized by P.L. 111-5.
Question 19. Regarding Clean Coal demonstration programs generally,
what are the ``un-costed balances,'' if any, with respect to funds
obligated but not expended for clean coal demonstration projects? What
plans are there to assure that the work underway in such projects will
be completed or the benefits of the work already completed will be
preserved if the projects are not completed?
Answer. I understand that the Department of Energy is focused on
working to complete clean coal demonstration projects that are
currently underway. I do not know what steps may be taken for projects
should they not be completed, but if that should happen, and if I am
confirmed, I would make every effort to maximize the value of the
investment for the taxpayer.
Question 20. Regarding the National Energy Technology Laboratory
(NETL), and given the comparative success of NETL programs, what
assurances can you provide about leadership and 21 programmatic
stability in light of recent changes in the Office of the Director? Do
you anticipate any significant changes for the lab and its programs as
a result of the appointment of a new director?
Answer. I am aware that there will be a new Director of NETL in the
near future, but I am unaware of any significant changes planned for
the lab programs. If I am confirmed as Deputy Secretary, I will work
with NETL to ensure that the transition to new leadership supports the
continuing execution of its important mission.
Responses of Elizabeth Sherwood-Randall to Questions From
Senator Portman
Question 1. If confirmed, will you commit to help improve the
communication between DOE and Congress?
Answer. Yes, I will.
Question 2. DOE is conducting decontamination and decommissioning
(D&D) cleanup of the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant (GDP) in
Piketon, Ohio. What do you know of the cleanup effort? In your view,
what are the current and future challenges for the site?
Answer. I understand that the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant
made an important contribution to American national security and was
also integral to the commercial nuclear industry. Since the plant
ceased operations in 2001 and work shifted to cold shutdown in 2006, I
understand that the plant has been owned by the Office of Environmental
Management, which is responsible for cleanup at the site. I know that
the local community is very interested in the cleanup mission as it
supports important jobs in an economically depressed area and will
enable future use of the site.
I am aware that one of the most important challenges is the past
and current use of uranium barters to accelerate cleanup at the site,
particularly given the current low global uranium prices and the amount
of uranium left for the Department to barter to support this work. This
is presenting a challenge to the community, and it is one that we must
be sensitive to given the significant contributions made by workers in
Piketon over many decades.
Question 3. If confirmed, will you work with the Ohio delegation to
maintain the Administration's commitment to an accelerated cleanup
schedule for the Piketon site?
Answer. I understand that the Department of Energy has for the last
several years used uranium barters to fund accelerated cleanup at the
Portsmouth plant. As you and I discussed in your office and
subsequently during the hearing, if confirmed, I look forward to
learning more about the details 23 of the site, to finding an
opportunity to visit it with you, and to working with you to address
this important issue.
Question 4. If confirmed will you prioritize the effort to finalize
the building demolition and the waste disposal plans as soon as
possible?
Answer. While I am not familiar with the details of these plans, I
am aware that they have been delayed. I appreciate your interest in
moving forward with these plans. If confirmed, I will work to ensure
that they are moved forward as expeditiously as possible.
Question 5. It is my understanding that DOE formulated its FY2015
budget request for the Portsmouth site based on an estimate that FY2015
barter proceeds would be approximately $188 million. Over the past
several months, uranium prices have declined and the projected barter
proceeds for FY2015 are now less than $188 million. If confirmed, what
measures will you pursue to cover a gap in funding Portsmouth D&D in
FY2015 caused by lower uranium prices?
Answer. I am aware that falling global uranium prices are expected
to have a significant impact on the cleanup work at Portsmouth, and I
am concerned about this impact on the workforce and on the pace of
progress. If I am confirmed, I work with Congress and within the
Department to determine what options are available to address the
challenges created by lower uranium prices.
Question 6. In your opinion, has the Department followed the
requirements of the USEC Privatization Act that require the Secretary
to determine that its transfer of uranium does not harm the domestic
uranium industry?
Answer. It is my understanding that Secretary Moniz recently issued
a determination in accordance with the requirements of the USEC
Privatization Act in May 2014.
Question 7. If confirmed will you support the barter program while
also working with Congress to find a permanent and more stable funding
stream for the cleanup at Piketon?
Answer. I am aware that the uranium barter program has permitted
the Department to make uranium transfers to fund accelerated cleanup at
the Portsmouth site, and I understand that the continuation of this
program is consistent with the Department's principles and policies,
and will help continue to fund cleanup. If confirmed, I will support
the continued use of the barter program along with seeking
appropriations as needed to fulfill our clean-up efforts.
Question 8. The United States must have the technology for a fully
domestic source of enriched uranium to support our nuclear weapons
program and the Navy nuclear reactors program. Secretary Moniz,
Secretary Chu, Assistant Secretary Peter Lyons, and your predecessor
Dan Poneman have testified to that fact before this committee. Do you
agree with that sentiment?
Answer. Yes, that is my understanding, and based on my
understanding I agree with that policy.
Question 9. International agreements prevent us from purchasing
enriched uranium from foreign-owned companies for military purposes. Is
that your understanding?
Answer. Yes, that is my general understanding.
Question 10. The United States has no operational enrichment
capability that meets those national security requirements now that the
Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant is shut down, is that correct?
Answer. It is my understanding that there is no other operational
capability to meet those requirements at the present time.
Question 11. Are you aware of any technologies on the immediate
horizon that could fulfill this requirement?
Answer. I am not aware of any other technology applicable for this
requirement that are immediately available.
Question 12. Do you believe that these national security
implications should be taken into account when it comes to any federal
involvement in the development of an enrichment capability?
Answer. Yes.
Question 13. If confirmed, will you support the Department's
efforts on ACP?
Answer. Yes, I will support the Department's efforts towards a
U.S.-origin enrichment capability.
Responses of Elizabeth Sherwood-Randall to Questions From
Senator Barrasso
Question 1. Earlier this year, the Department of Energy (DOE) gave
conditional approval to the Jordan Cove LNG export terminal. This
terminal would enable natural gas producers in Wyoming and other states
to export LNG to markets in Asia.
DOE's Conditional License Order for the terminal reads as follows:
``To the extent U.S. exports can diversify global LNG supplies, and
increase the volumes of LNG available globally, it will improve energy
security for many U.S. allies and trading partners.''
Immediately afterward, the Order states: ``As such, authorizing
U.S. exports may advance the public interest for reasons that are
distinct from and additional to the economic benefits identified in the
[NERA] LNG Study.''
Do you agree that LNG exports from the United States, including LNG
exports to Asia, would improve the energy security of our allies and
trading partners and promote the public interest here in the United
States? Please provide a ``yes'' or ``no'' answer. If your answer is
``no,'' please explain why you disagree.
Answer. Yes, based on the briefings I have received from the
Department of Energy, I agree.
Question 2. On Tuesday, David Goldwyn, a former Special Envoy for
International Energy Affairs at the State Department, testified before
the Foreign Relations Committee.
He stated that: ``A clear signal from the U.S. that LNG exports
will be available to European allies for future purchase would put
immediate pressure on Russia's market share and export revenues.''
You are an expert on Russia and Ukraine. You have written
extensively on these countries. You have also served in prominent roles
at the Department of Defense and on the National Security Council where
you helped set policy related to these countries.
Do you agree with Mr. Goldwyn that--``A clear signal from the U.S.
that LNG exports will be available to European allies for future
purchase would put immediate pressure on Russia's market share and
export revenues''? Please provide a ``yes'' or ``no'' answer. If your
answer is ``no,'' please explain why you disagree.
Answer. We take the energy security of our allies and partners in
Europe very seriously. The Obama Administration has been working with
European governments to strengthen energy security and diversify
supplies.
The Department of Energy has conditionally approved U.S. LNG export
facilities with 9.3 billion cubic feet per day of capacity that can be
exported both to countries with which we have Free Trade Agreements and
to those where we do not, such as European countries. These are volumes
are significant--to put it in perspective, these volumes are more than
the total amount of LNG that Europe currently imports and equal to over
half the gas Europe currently imports from Russia.
As I understand it, the first project to export U.S. LNG is not
expected to come online until late 2015/early 2016. Nevertheless, we
are committed to putting gas onto the global market in a way that is
consistent with U.S. public interest because we know that increased
global supplies help our European allies and other strategic partners.
Question 3. In over three and a half years, DOE has approved only
one application to export LNG. It has given conditional approval to six
other applications. Meanwhile, DOE is sitting on 26 pending
applications, the majority of which have been pending for more than a
year.
In light of what is taking place in Europe, do you believe the
Administration is acting fast enough on pending LNG export
applications? If not, what steps, if any, would you take to expedite
the processing of LNG export applications? Please be specific.
Answer. The Natural Gas Act requires the Department to conduct a
public interest determination for LNG exports to non-Free Trade
Agreement countries. An important factor in that analysis is
international considerations. I understand that the Department recently
proposed a change in LNG authorization procedure that would streamline
the approval process by eliminating the step of issuing conditional
commitments. By eliminating this step, the Department of Energy can
turn immediately to the projects most ready to proceed with
construction. I believe that this is an important step in streamlining
the process. If confirmed, I will ensure that the Department of Energy
conducts its review of the export applications as expeditiously as
possible consistent with the public interest.
Question 4. DOE has proposed to suspend issuing conditional
licenses altogether. Instead, it has proposed to issue licenses after
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission completes the environmental
review process for projects. If DOE decides to stop issuing conditional
licenses and you are 28 confirmed, would you support DOE making
exceptions if the applicant can show that its project would not be
financially viable without a conditional approval?
Answer. I am not yet at the Department and not privy to discussions
between the Department of Energy and the applicants, but I understand
the latest proposed change to eliminate conditional approvals was done
in response to changing needs in the marketplace. I understand that the
proposed change was put out for public comment, but I do not know what
those comments have said about the elimination of conditional
approvals. If confirmed, I would like to review what the Department
learned through the comment period before considering any further
changes in procedure, and I would be pleased to discuss this with you
at that time.
Question 5. For years, DOE has transferred its excess uranium
inventories to other parties in exchange for cleanup services. I have
repeatedly expressed my opposition to these transfers. DOE's transfers
distort America's uranium market and hurt our uranium producers.
Since May 2012, the Department of Energy's transfers have
contributed to about a 50 percent drop in the spot price of U3O8.
Between 2011 and 2013, the Department of Energy's transfers have
contributed to a 19 percent drop in employment in uranium exploration
and mining.
On May 15 2014, Secretary Moniz issued a Secretarial Determination
authorizing additional uranium transfers. In his order, Secretary Moniz
included a finding that these transfers would not have ``an adverse
material impact'' on America's uranium mining, conversion, and
enrichment industries. With all due respect to the Secretary, his
finding is hard to believe.
Last week, I--along with 17 other members of Congress--sent
Secretary Moniz a letter about his order (attached). We asked him to
provide the basis for his finding that DOE's transfers will not have an
adverse material impact on America's uranium mining, conversion, and
enrichment industries. To date, DOE has refused to disclose this
information.
When can we expect the Secretary to disclose the requested
information?
Answer. I am aware of the recent letter that you sent to Secretary
Moniz, and appreciate your having shared it with me as well in advance
of my confirmation hearing last week. As I am not yet at the
Department, I do not have precise knowledge regarding the schedule for
Secretary Moniz to provide you with the requested information.
Question 6. Do you believe that it is important that the United
States have strong uranium mining, conversion, and enrichment
industries? If so, please describe what steps, if any, that you would
take, if confirmed, to mitigate the impact that DOE's uranium transfers
have had on America's uranium mining, conversion, and enrichment
industries. Please be specific.
Answer. I agree it is important for our country to have a strong
domestic uranium industry. If confirmed, I will work to ensure that any
uranium transfers continue to comply with applicable statutory
obligations and are done in a transparent manner. I will also work to
ensure that implications for the domestic uranium industry are examined
as part of any future determination on this issue. Finally, I will work
across the Department to promote scientific and technical innovation as
appropriate in relation to the domestic uranium industry.
Question 7. In 2008, DOE set forth its Excess Uranium Inventory
Management Plan (``Plan''). The Plan was developed in consultation with
the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), which represents uranium mining,
conversion, and enrichment industries as well as electric utilities.
After the uranium mining, conversion, and enrichment industries
negotiated a compromise with the electric utilities on the question of
DOE's excess uranium transfers, NEI made recommendations to DOE for
inclusion into its Plan.
Specifically, DOE agreed to gradually release its excess uranium
inventories into the market over a period of five years, at which point
DOE agreed to limit annual uranium transfers to 5 million pounds or 10
percent of annual domestic fuel requirements. DOE's collaborative
approach to disposing of its excess uranium inventories was the
principal reason the uranium mining, conversion, and enrichment
industries and electric utilities supported the Plan.
If confirmed, will you commit to bringing together the uranium
mining, conversion, and enrichment industries as well as electric
utilities and restart formal discussions to develop an excess uranium
management plan which will be supported by these stakeholders?
Answer. It is my view that the Department should be open to
receiving input from affected stakeholders. If confirmed, I will work
to ensure that as future Excess Uranium Inventory Management Plans are
developed, the Department has the opportunity to hear from affected
stakeholders, including those you mention.
Question 8. A. If confirmed, will you commit to updating the
Committee on a regular basis about the status of the cleanup of the
Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant? B. How much money has DOE spent to
date on the cleanup efforts at this site? C. How much money does DOE
estimate the remaining cleanup will cost, assuming all of the remaining
work is funded with appropriated dollars, in fiscal years 2015, 2016,
2017 and 2018.
Answer. A. If confirmed, I will update the Committee as requested
about the status of the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant.
B. I understand that the Department has spent approximately $3
billion through the end of FY2013 on the cleanup of the Portsmouth
site.
C. I understand that the FY2015 budget request for Portsmouth is
$160 million, which is approximately $24 million above the FY2014
appropriation of $135.8 million. As I am not yet at the Department, I
do not have details on the estimated cost of cleanup for fiscal years
2016-2018.
Question 9. I understand DOE has entered into contracts with other
parties to transfer uranium in exchange for cleanup services at the
Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant.
A. When was the most recent contract signed and what period of time
does it cover?
Answer. I understand from the Department of Energy that Flour-B&W
Portsmouth was awarded a contract in August 2010, which covers 10
years.
B. Do the contracts include any language that would render them
null and void should the Secretary make a finding that any additional
uranium transfers would have an adverse material impact on America's
uranium mining, conversion, and enrichment industries?
Answer. As I am not yet at the Department, I do not have access to
the details of the contract in question. If confirmed, I will be
briefed on the relevant provisions.
Responses of Elizabeth Sherwood-Randall to Questions From
Senator Scott
Question 1. Will abandoning the MOX project break the
Plutonium Management and Disposition Agreement (PMDA) with Russia?
Answer. The PMDA contains provisions to adjust plutonium
disposition technologies if both parties agree. Therefore if a
disposition pathway other than MOX were pursued by the
Administration, the United States and Russia would need to agree to the
alternate pathway pursuant to the Plutonium Management and Disposition
Agreement.
Question 2. If the Obama administration abandons the MOX
project and pursues one of DOE's alternatives to plutonium disposition
as identified in the April 2014 Plutonium Disposition Working Group
Report, will a renegotiation of the PMDA be required by the U.S. and
Russia?
Answer. The PMDA contains provisions to adjust plutonium
disposition technologies if both parties agree. Therefore if a
disposition pathway other than MOX were pursued by the
Administration, the United States and Russia would need to agree to the
alternate pathway pursuant to the Plutonium Management and Disposition
Agreement.
Question 3. As part of the PMDA, the United States has committed to
fund part of Russia's disposition program that includes fast reactors
and an international inspection program. To date how much money has the
U.S. spent on the Russian program?
Answer. I have been briefed that to date the United States has
allocated approximately $260 million in support of the Russia plutonium
disposition program. The U.S. funding commitment to Russia's plutonium
disposition efforts is primarily for activities relating to bilateral
or IAEA confirmation of Russian adherence to the terms of the PMDA.
Russia is funding the construction and operation of the major
facilities required for its plutonium disposition program.
Question 4. If the Obama administration abandons MOX and
breaks the PMDA, Russia will no longer be bound to PMDA required
inspections. Is it possible for Russia to use their fast reactors to
produce more weapons grade plutonium?
Answer. As I stated in my confirmation hearing testimony on July
24, 2014, the United States remains fully and firmly committed to the
Plutonium Management and Disposition Agreement with Russia.
Question 5. Considering your current position as Special Assistant
to the President and White House Coordinator for Defense Policy,
Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction, and Arms Control, as well as
previous positions in the administration, what countries does the Obama
administration consider potential buyers of Russian weapons grade
plutonium now or in the future? How many of these countries does the
U.S. consider State Sponsors of Terrorism?
Answer. I am not currently aware of any potential buyers for
Russian plutonium or any Russian plans to sell plutonium.
Question 6. What steps is the Administration taking to ensure
continued inspections of Russia's fast reactors if the PMDA is broken?
Answer. As I stated in my confirmation hearing testimony on July
24, 2014, the United States remains fully and firmly committed to the
Plutonium Management and Disposition Agreement with Russia. Absent the
PMDA, there are no constraints on Russia's operation of its fast
reactors.
Question 7. At your confirmation hearing on July 24, 2014, you
said:
We are fully committed to meeting the obligations we have
under the agreement [PMDA] with Russia.''
How does this statement rectify with the Administration's intent to
break the PMDA by significantly reducing funding in the President's FY
14 and FY 15 budgets, commissioning a study for alternatives to
MOX and by placing the MOX project on ``cold
standby?''
Answer. The Administration is fully committed to disposing of 34
tons of excess weapons grade plutonium as agreed to under the PMDA. The
Administration is currently evaluating options to achieve this goal in
the most cost effective manner possible, including disposing of
plutonium as mixed oxide (MOX) fuel. As I understand it, the
Department has been working closely with 33 the MOX project
contractor to determine if there are opportunities to make the current
MOX fuel approach for plutonium disposition more efficient
in light of significant cost growth and funding challenges. The
Department is currently reviewing execution plans for FY-15 work
submitted from the MOX contractor with various funding
levels and will determine the best path forward. These steps do not
contravene our commitments under the PMDA.
Question 8. At your confirmation hearing on July 24, 2014, you
said:
We should not take any steps that diminish the likelihood of
Russia fulfilling its obligations [to PMDA].''
Hasn't the Administration already taken steps that would diminish
the likelihood of Russia fulfilling its obligations? In your opinion,
how many of the following would qualify as one of these ``steps''?
1. Abandoning MOX project
2. Placing MOX in cold standby
3. Significantly reducing the President's budget requests for
MOX construction
4. Commissioning a report to seek alternatives to the
MOX project
Answer. As I stated in my confirmation hearing testimony on July
24, 2014, the United States remains fully and firmly committed to
ensuring Russia fulfills its obligations to the PMDA. As part of that
commitment, the Administration will continue to carefully manage its
approach to meeting U.S. plutonium disposition requirements to ensure
that Russia continues to uphold its obligations under the PMDA. We have
briefed Russia regularly on the status and plans for U.S. plutonium
disposition.
Question 9. At your confirmation hearing on July 24, 2014, you
said:
``If there is funding for this project
[MOX] that is sustainable over time, this is
our preferred solution.''
Can I take this statement to mean that the Administration will
include full funding-at least $500 million--for the MOX
project in the President's FY16 budget so that Congress can meet the
President's budget request?
Answer. The President's FY 2015 budget request stated that the
MOX facility would be placed in cold standby beginning in
March 2014 while the Department further evaluates plutonium disposition
options. However, as I understand it, when the Department of Energy
participated in hearings and briefed members of Congress and on the
details of the budget request, members from both parties expressed
their strong desire that the Department defer placing the
MOX project in cold standby while Congress reviews and
evaluates the FY 2015 budget request. In response, the Department did
not initiate a transition to cold standby in FY 2014 while Congress is
deliberating the FY 2015 budget. The previous fiscal year's budget and
appropriations process will be taken into consideration in the
development of the subsequent fiscal year's budget request.
Question 10. How does the ongoing crisis in Ukraine complicate a
potential renegotiation of the PMDA with Russia?
Answer. As I stated in my confirmation hearing on July 24, 2014,
the Administration has made a deliberate effort to insulate nuclear
security cooperation with Russia from turbulence in other aspects of
the U.S.-Russian relationship, as it is in our vital national security
interest to ensure that weapons-grade materials do not fall into the
wrong hands.
Question 11. Considering Russia's current disregard for
international law and the sovereignty of Ukraine and given the Obama
administrations intentions to place the MOX project on cold
standby, what specific assurances do you have that Russia will not
break the PMDA?
Answer. The Administration is committed to doing everything that it
can to ensure that Russia upholds its obligations under the U.S.-Russia
PMDA to dispose of excess weapons grade plutonium. This is a vital
national interest of the United States.
Responses of Elizabeth Sherwood-Randall to Questions
From Senator Hoeven
Question 1. The Department of Energy has invested more than $15
million in technology development in North Dakota that has achieved
remarkable success in developing proprietary silicon based
technologies, including the only economically feasible and scalable
pathway to liquid silicon (hydrosilanes) materials that is seen as a
potentially disruptive technology for the solar cell, printed
electronics, and lightweight battery markets. This program is scheduled
to end in June of 2015. In addition, this program has also developed
promising `green' technologies, also based on silicon, for processible
high refractive index polymers with strong potential to impact markets
based on light emitting diodes, lithography and image sensors. The
underlying technology is proprietary and available only in the USA.
Does the DOE plan to extend and expand this program and to be a partner
in the efforts to scale up and commercialize the process?
Answer. The Department of Energy plays a critical role in
supporting research and partnering in efforts to scale up and
commercialize breakthrough energy technologies. I am not yet familiar
with the specifics of the liquid silicon (hydrosilanes) materials, but
if confirmed, I look forward to learning more about this technology and
exploring what more can be done to assist this effort.
Question 2. The Department of Energy has invested more than $10
million to foster the initiation and growth of a Center for
Computationally Assisted Science and Technology in North Dakota that
focuses on energy related issues in the Upper Midwest. The center meets
the needs of hundreds of faculty, students and researchers in their
efforts to understand the complex water, soil, coal, gas and oil issues
confronting the Upper Midwest, especially North Dakota Does the
Department of Energy plan to assist in bringing that center to
maturity?
Answer. I am aware that promoting the advancement of computational
science is an important mission of the Department. If confirmed, I look
forward to learning more about the work of this Center and to exploring
what more can be done to support its efforts.
Response of Elizabeth Sherwood-Randall to Question From
Senators Wyden, Risch, and Cantwell
Question 1. Two of the bedrock principles for power in the
Northwest are that the Bonneville Power Administration must continue to
govern its own affairs, and that it has direct access to the top levels
at the Department of Energy. Historically this means that BPA reports
directly the Deputy Secretary. Earlier actions by this Administration
called into question its support for the regional autonomy of BPA, but
I've been encouraged by Secretary Moniz' response in light of the issue
with hiring veterans at BPA, and the clear trajectory that DOE and BPA
are now on to return full control back to BPA as that issue has been
resolved.
a) In your new capacity, will you commit that, before proposing any
legislative or administrative actions which could affect the power and
transmission operations of BPA, you will first discuss and vet those
ideas with me and my colleagues from the Pacific Northwest and a broad
range of regional stakeholders?
Answer. If confirmed, I commit to working collaboratively with the
three of you, other members of Congress, and regional BPA stakeholders
on any major actions impacting BPA.
b) Will you commit to continuing to have BPA and the other power
marketing authorities report directly to you as Deputy Secretary?
Answer. I understand that all Power Marketing Administrations
currently report directly to the Deputy Secretary. It is my
understanding that Secretary Moniz intends to continue this reporting
arrangement if I am confirmed.