Hearing of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee - Nominations
Hearing of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee - Nominations
Chaired By: Senator Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH)
Witnesses: Catherine Radford Zoi, to be Assistant Secretary of Energy for Energy, Efficiency and Renewable Energy; William F. Brinkman, to be Director of the Office of Science, Department of Energy; Anne Castle, to be Assistant Secretary of the Interior
Copyright ©2009 by Federal News Service, Inc., Ste. 500, 1000 Vermont Ave, Washington, DC 20005 USA. Federal News Service is a private firm not affiliated with the federal government. No portion of this transcript may be copied, sold or retransmitted without the written authority of Federal News Service, Inc. Copyright is not claimed as to any part of the original work prepared by a United States government officer or employee as a part of that person's official duties. For information on subscribing to the FNS Internet Service at www.fednews.com, please email Carina Nyberg at cnyberg@fednews.com or call 1-202-216-2706.
SEN. JEANNE SHAHEEN (D-NH): Good afternoon everyone. For those of you who follow the Energy Committee you know that I'm not the person who usually sits here. Senator Bingaman and a number of members of the committee have been called to the White House so I am going to be filling in and chairing this hearing. I'm Jeanne Shaheen, Senator from New Hampshire.
Let me just tell you what's going to happen this afternoon. We're going to introduce the nominees briefly then I'm going to ask Senator Murkowski if she would like to make a statement, and turn it over to Senator Udall to introduce Anne Castle. And then ask you all to take an oath and answer several standard questions and then we will ask each of you to give your testimony and open up for questions.
So that's the process this afternoon and I will point out that the committee meets this afternoon to consider three nomination for offices in the Department of Energy and the Department of the Interior. The three nominees are Catherine Radford Zoi to be an Assistant Secretary of Energy for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. William F. Brinkman to be the Director of the Office of Science at the Department of Energy, and Anne Castle to be an Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Water and Science.
Ms. Zoi has worked on energy issues for the past 20 years. She helped establish the energy star program at the Environmental Protection Agency in the early 1990's, was chief of staff at the Council on Environmental Quality in the early years of the Clinton Administration, and served in senior government and private sector positions in Australia promoting renewable and sustainable energy. Most recently, she's been the Chief Executive Officer of the Alliance for Climate Protection which promotes improved energy efficiency and increased use of renewable energy. And I have to point out that she's also a Dartmouth grad.
Dr. Brinkman is a distinguished physicist who spent 35 years at Bell Laboratories and has been a senior research physicist at Princeton University for the past eight years. Welcome.
Ms. Castle is a partner in the law firm of Holland and Hart in Denver, Colorado where she has specialized in the field of water rights and water quality law for over 25 years. All three of the nominees are extremely well qualified and will bring considerable expertise and decades of experience to the positions to which they've been nominated.
I would also like to point out that for those of you who have your family here, welcome to all of your family members and we will ask you if you would like to introduce them before your testimony.
Now, Senator Murkowski.
SEN. LISA MURKOWSKI (R-AK): Thank you Senator Shaheen.
I'm glad to say and I think our nominees will be glad to hear that all but one of the nominees that have been reported by this committee to date have now been cleared through the Senator calendar. I have always believed and I continue to believe that the president deserves to have the people of his choice to fill the key positions in the administration. We've had some discussion over the past few weeks regarding the need for the administration and its nominees to give clear answers to legitimate questions regarding the policies and actions of the administration.
And I'm happy to say that so far we have resolved our concerns to most everyone's satisfaction. Today we've got a new set of nominees, I welcome each of you. Had an opportunity to look at your credentials and welcome you before the committee here this afternoon. Obviously a new set of questions to be propounded to each of you respectively. And it's probably fair to say that while some of the issues that we raise may hit upon some controversial topics and in some cases we may ultimately have differences of opinion, again it's my position that clear and open communication is the key to Senate confirmation here.
I look forward to the conversation that we will have today and again welcome you very much and appreciate your willingness to go through this process and to serve. Thank you.
SEN. SHAHEEN: Thank you. Senator Udall.
SEN. MARK UDALL (D-CO): Thank you Madame Chair. Good afternoon to all of you that have gathered here today and I have the pleasure of introducing an extraordinary Coloradan Ms. Anne Castle for confirmation, the important post of assistant secretary for water and science.
Anne has over 25 years of experience in water and natural resources law. The Colorado bar voted her the best water lawyer in 2004. She's been listed in the best lawyers in America for water law both in 2007 and 2008 and those are the first years that the water category was actually included on that list. In 2008 she was selected by the Women's Vision Foundation to receive its Woman of Vision Award and was featured in Law Practice Management Magazine in its leadership profile.
She was also appointed by two Colorado governors, Bill Ritter and Roy Romer to address numerous questions of water access and water quality on the commissions that were detailed to do so. She has an impressive resume.
I could go on at some length, but what sticks out most about Anne is her proven capacity to build consensus among a broad range of stakeholders. As her lawyer her clients -- and this is an interesting list -- have included small and large municipal districts, waste water treatment providers, farmers and ranchers, mining companies, ski areas, real estate developers, water and conservation districts, lenders and operators of industrial and commercial facilities. That pretty well covers the waterfront, particularly in our state of Colorado.
Madame Chair, if there's one thing I know about water, it takes a special kind of leader to reach consensus with such disparate groups and come back for more. This is the kind of leadership we need at interior, it's the kind of leadership that our colleague as Senator Salazar has provided there at interior and it's the kind of leadership that Anne Castle offers.
When you grow up in the desert, as I did and as Anne has, you learn to treasure water, you realize it's really our most precious resource.
And we combat the problems of water availability and water quality, problems that will only be exacerbated by climate change, we'll need someone with her vision and her experience. We need somebody who's capable of finding pragmatic solutions to difficult problems and building broad consensus. And again Anne's demonstrated this again and again throughout her career.
These challenges of water availability and quality won't be isolated to the west as we move forward and I believe having a westerner, especially one who's one of the nation's foremost experts on water and natural resource law leading the fight offers a unique chance for success. So I'm very proud and pleased to support her confirmation, encourage the committee to do likewise. Welcome Anne. We look forward to your testimony.
SEN. SHAHEEN: Thank you Senator Udall. Now the rules of the committee which apply to all nominees require that they be sworn in in connection with their testimony. So I would ask if you all would please stand and raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give to the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
You may be seated. We also have some standard questions that we ask each of you to answer. So before you begin your statement, I will ask three questions addressed to each nominee before this committee.
We'll begin with Ms. Zoi. Will you be available to appear before this committee and other Congressional committees to represent departmental positions and respond to issues of concern to the Congress?
MS. ZOI: I will.
SEN. SHAHEEN: Mr. Brinkman?
Ms. Castle?
MS. CASTLE: I will.
SEN. SHAHEEN: Okay. 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 have been nominated by the president?
MS. ZOI: All of my personal assets have been reviewed both by myself and by appropriate ethics counselors within the federal government. And I have taken appropriate action to avoid any conflicts of interest.
SEN. SHAHEEN: Thank you. Mr. Brinkman?
MR. BRINKMAN: (Inaudible) -- all my -- I'll start over. All my personal assets have been reviewed both by myself and by appropriate ethics counselors within the federal government. And I have taken appropriate action to avoid any conflicts of interest.
SEN. SHAHEEN: Ms. Castle?
MS. CASTLE: My investments, personal holdings and other interests have been reviewed both by myself and the appropriate ethics counselors within the federal government. I have taken appropriate action to avoid any conflicts of interest. There are no conflicts of interest or appearances thereof to my knowledge.
SEN. SHAHEEN: Thank you. And the third question, are you involved or do you have any assets held in a blind trust?
MS. ZOI: No, I don't.
MR. BRINKMAN: No, I don't.
MS. CASTLE: No.
SEN. SHAHEEN: Thank you all.
We'll ask if each of you would begin your statements. Again, we'll begin with Ms. Zoi and if you would like to introduce any family members, please do that before you begin your statement. Thank you. Ms. Zoi.
MS. ZOI: Thank you Chairwoman Shaheen. I'd like to introduce my husband, Robin Roy of nearly 22 years, my daughter Susha who's about to graduate from high school next year, her big brother couldn't be here because he's in exams at Stanford at the moment, but the real young leader of tomorrow my nice Haley who's 11 today. Thank you.
Chairman Shaheen, Ranking Member Murkowski, and distinguished Members of the Committee, it is an honor and a privilege to appear before you today as President Obama's nominee for Assistant Secretary of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. I am grateful to the President and to Secretary Chu for their confidence in entrusting me with this important and challenging assignment.
I have been immersed in the energy field for over 25 years, working across energy resources on a range of issues in the private, public and non-profit sectors. As a young geologist I worked for an independent oil company, helping the exploration team identify new resource prospects. After studying natural gas markets and completing a graduate degree in engineering, I joined what was then the largest investor owned utility in the country, Pacific Gas and Electric. I later moved to Washington, where I worked as a consultant helping utilities manage their generating resources and plan for future needs.
This broad experience in the private sector helped to inform the next phase of my career, working in the federal government. After joining the U.S. EPA, I was proud to lead the team that created the Energy Star program. A small team of committed government officials worked closely with the private sector partners to help unlock what I still believe is the single largest untapped and immediate energy opportunity in this country: improved efficiency.
After serving in President Clinton's White House, I moved with my family to Australia -- where I spent time in both the government and private sectors, immersed in renewable energy start-ups, green power programs, sustainable urban planning and most recently, smart metering.
Returning to the U.S., I made my first foray into the non-profit sector two years ago when former Vice President Gore asked me to be the founding CEO of his newly formed Alliance for Climate Protection. Applying my management and start-up experience, I worked with the bipartisan board of directors to prepare a business plan, raise funds, hire staff, and build an education campaign that attracted over two million members.
After 25 years of broad professional experience in the energy field, I am extremely excited about the possibility of joining the Obama administration and bringing that experience to bear on the challenges we face today. Meeting President Obama's energy and climate goals will require a broad range of energy resources, and I support his vision and Secretary Chu's vision for a more diverse, environmentally sustainable and economically productive energy system. That system will of course continue to rely on nuclear, coal, oil and natural gas for some time, but we also need to rapidly increase our reliance on energy efficiency and renewable energy.
If I am confirmed as Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, it will be my goal to maximize our nation's use of these resources. The potential is enormous. I strongly believe that increased use of both efficiency and renewables will not only improve our energy security and reduce carbon emissions, it will also spur innovation, restore U.S. leadership in these industries, and create jobs.
Federal leadership is essential to creating the conditions for meeting these goals. If confirmed, I look forward to joining Secretary Chu and my other DOE colleagues in working closely with the members of this committee. Together, we can craft energy solutions that serve the American people well, for this generation and for generations to come.
SEN. SHAHEEN: Thank you. Mr. Brinkman.
MR. BRINKMAN: Thank you. I'd like to introduce you my wife Savila(ph) and her daughter Stephanie and her granddaughter Beka with us today.
Chairman Shaheen, Senator Murkowski and distinguished members of the committee, it is an honor and privilege to appear before you today as President Obama's nominee for Director of the Office of Science in the Department of Energy.
I want to thank President Obama for asking me to join his administration and Secretary Chu for his confidence in me to become part of the Department of Energy. I look forward to working with you and various parts of the government in advancing United States leadership in science and technology.
I joined Bell Technologies early in my career and at first did theoretical research in physics and materials, but soon went into research management. I learned how to recruit and support some of the best researchers in the field and aspire them to greater accomplishments. This was truly an exciting time to be a part of what at that time was perhaps the best research institution in the world. During my time at Bell Laboratories in management the research there led to two Nobel prizes, one of which was Secretary Chu's, and to a Japan Prize.
As ATT&T began to split into smaller units it became imperative to drive toward applications. In the 1990's I led a research organization that developed many of the components and systems used in optical communications today. Besides optics, we worked on a broad set of applications including semi-conductor processing and wireless communications. We started internal venture organization that transformed orphaned technologies within the company into new commercial ventures.
The experienced gained in this work will I believe be highly valuable as director of the office of science where it is very important to solve some of the most pressing societal problems while also ensuring that fundamental research is encouraged and supported.
In the middle 1980s I served as vice president of research at Sandia National Laboratories. This was an opportunity to get first hand knowledge of how our national laboratories function. I am proud of the accomplishments during my time at Sandia, including the expansion of the computer science effort which was just beginning in those days. This assignment, and the many laboratory advisory committees on which I subsequently have served, gives me insights into the true strengths of the DOE and its laboratory system.
In conclusion I look forward to working with you and President Obama's administration in maintaining the United States at the forefront of science and technology and in pursuing the administration's energy agenda, both of which are vital to the prosperity and security of our nation.
Thank you.
SEN. SHAHEEN: Thank you, Mr. Brinkman. Ms. Castle.
MS. CASTLE: Let me introduce my husband Frank Davies and our daughter Beth and my brother Tom Castle. Our son Chris is also studying for his finals in California in college so he couldn't be with us today. I want to thank Senator Udall for his lovely introduction and I am humbled by the confidence shown in my by President Obama through his nomination of me for assistant secretary for water and science and I'm very grateful for the support of my family and my friends and my colleagues and that support has allowed me to be here today.
My career in water law started with my graduation from the University of Colorado Law School but my interest in water resources and administration started well before that. I grew up sailing and swimming in a small Colorado lake and my father served on the board of the water district that provided water to our houses in the community and to the lake itself. Our family skied in the Colorado Mountains where the winter snow pack forms the reservoir that supplies downstream water sheds later in the year.
This committee and the Congress have recognized the challenges confronting western water supplies through the secure water provisions of the Omnibus Public Lands Act. That law calls for the development of climate change adaptation strategies for major river basins so that whatever the future brings, our water systems can adjust.
The two bureaus within the water and science office, the bureau of reclamation and the U.S. geological survey are critical players in those efforts and I'm looking forward to being involved in this process that I believe is critical to the future of our country.
Water conservation is increasingly part of the national discussion. The conservation of water equals conservation of energy and conservation of energy also decreases energy related water use. The Bureau of Reclamation should be leading the way in crafting those conservation strategies. And what a treat to have the opportunity to work with the USGS. My father-in-law started his career as a geologist with the USGS in Alaska and my husband followed in his father's footsteps as a geologist as well.
As a agency without regulatory or management responsibilities, the USGS is perfectly positioned to provide objective, science based research that can form the basis for policy decisions. I've had some management experience that should be valuable in this effort. In 2001 my partners elected me to lead the law firm of Holland and Hart which now has about 420 lawyers and a staff of over 800. I'd like to think I learned a lot about leading people and earning their trust through hard work and honest communication.
A summary of my background wouldn't be complete without mentioning my involvement in legal services. Ever since I became a lawyer, I've worked with the programs that provide representation to poor people in Colorado. I've been on the board of various legal aid organizations for over 25 years. I believe very strongly that lawyers have an ethical responsibility to provide their knowledge and expertise to people who can't afford to pay.
All of these efforts, legal, management, and public service, required the reconciling of disparate interests, fostering a willingness to recognize the validity of the claims of others, and to compromise to achieve the greater good. The water and science issues facing the interior are difficult, complex, and even emotional. I'm hopeful that the experiences I've had in the past will be useful in addressing them.
So thank you for the opportunity to come before you. I look forward to your questions and to working with the committee in the future.
SEN. SHAHEEN: Thank you each for your testimony. We'll now go to the question portion of the program.
Ms. Castle, recognizing that you grew up in the west and that the west certainly has water challenges that are unique, can you talk a little bit about how you see interior addressing those challenges and how they compare to come of the challenges that we have in the Northeast when it comes to water?
MS. CASTLE: Certainly the Bureau of Reclamation's mission has been focused on the western states under its authorizing authority. But it does have some planning and management authority for use throughout the United States. I think the U.S. geological survey is the key agency that provides science based services in all 50 states and has been working particularly in some of the Eastern states to provide information on water demands and on water resource availability.
For example I know that the USGS has relatively recently completed a study about the demand for the seacoast area of New Hampshire and that that research can be used for planning for future water supplies. The USGS has also characterized the water resource in various underground aquifers in the Eastern states again forming the basis for decisions about alternative water supplies.
So those are some of the areas where I think that those two agencies within the department of the interior can be useful. I also think that both of those agencies have very important roles to play in assessing climate change and coming up with adaptive management strategies for dealing with a future of reduced water supplies and that effects as you know the entire country.
SEN. SHAHEEN: Thank you. Mr. Brinkman, I was very impressed when I first met with Secretary Chu because he talked about the number of scientists who are being attracted back to the Department of Energy and to government service so I think you're in that category of people that he was talking about so we're delighted that you're willing to take this on.
One of the things he also talked about was the potential for the Department of Energy to take on in a public sector some of the role that Bell Labs for example played in looking at applying the research to actual practice.
And I wonder if you could talk a little bit about what role you see the Department of Energy playing and doing that and how you see that happening.
MR. BRINKMAN: Well yes. Thank you, of course the Department of Energy has played that role in a number of cases already I mean it has certainly been involved with the development of photovoltaics. It's been involved with the development of sequestration, et cetera. And so it's already playing a role but we both believe that it could do a lot more, and in particular we're hoping that we can take the Office of Science and it's programs and meld them better together with the programs in the more applied parts of the organization. And making that mix work cooperatively is one of our goals and that's one of those kinds of things that you really have to work quite hard on to get people on both sides of the street so to speak to talk to each other and to work together and be confident with each other that you're not going to walk away as soon as the problem gets difficult and that sort of thing.
And so we both have experience in that, we're looking forward to trying to do that and to work more successfully within the department.
SEN. SHAHEEN: Thank you. And Ms. Zoi I certainly agree with you that energy efficiency is the fastest, cheapest way for us to address our energy needs. But it seems to me that it's more of a challenge than it ought to be as we look at the potential savings there. And so can you talk about how you would address this obstacle to encouraging more energy efficiency?
MS. ZOI: Thank you, Senator. There's a combination of things in my 20 years of experience in the efficiency arena, it's a combination of regulations like appliance standards that simply take lousy products off the market so that consumers can save money on good things. And education. And making it easy for people to save.
I mean the energy star program 18 years ago was built on the back of making computers automatically go to sleep after a period of inactivity, because we decided rather than continuing to try to convince people that indeed we should turn their things off, we should just let technology help us out.
SEN. SHAHEEN: Thank you. Senator Murkowski.
SEN. MURKOWSKI: Thank you Madame Chair. I'll go at you Ms. Zoi on the hot seat here and begin my questioning for you. A couple of different things and the first is more clarification of statements that you've made in the past, particularly about oil and coal. It's my understanding that you have asserted that the oil and coal lobbies are blocking the switch to clean power. And then in a letter from last year you went on further to write that oil and coal companies and interests have spent hundreds of millions of dollars in an effort to convince the American people that they are focused on solving our energy and climate crisis. On its face these assertions by oil and coal defy all reason, closed quote.
And I wanted to ask you about that statement. I do happen to believe that the oil industry and the coal industry have been working very hard to ensure that their emissions are reduced, that they are contributing not only to our energy security by providing domestic production, but they're trying to do so in a much more responsible way. So if I can just have you give me a little more clarity --
MS. ZOI: Sure.
SEN. MURKOWSKI: -- as to those comments on coal and oil industries and perhaps their, what you consider their lobbying efforts to be.
MS. ZOI: I appreciate the opportunity. There's no doubt that oil and coal are a significant part of the energy landscape now and they have been for the last century, and they will continue to be as I said in my opening statement. I may be even more ambitious about what they can contribute to solving climate change than you because I am looking forward to the possibility of partnering with the oil and coal industries and getting the solutions out into the marketplace very, very quickly. Some of the companies within the sector have been very good at making investments in clean energy and in non-carbon emitting resources.
However, when you look at the amount of investment in those clean energies relatives to the investments in the carbon based technologies, there is still, there's not parody yet. I'm hopeful that if I'm confirmed as assistant secretary for energy efficiency and renewables that we can tap into the commercial success, the bigness of the oil and the coal industry to help, to have that part of the energy portfolio get involved in managing this transition to an energy economy that is frankly less carbon intensive.
SEN. MURKOWSKI: Well let me make sure that I understand. Are you suggesting that it'd be the oil and gas industry that pay for the technologies for the renewables going forward through say increased taxes on that industry?
MS. ZOI: No, not at all what I'm suggesting is that there's an enormous business opportunity that accompany that as for example an oil company is very well positioned to get involved in enhanced geothermal research, I mean, and then finding and then tapping into the hundred gigawatts of potential power of geothermal that gas companies have a great potential, that coal companies, I mean, I'm quite excited about the prospect for coal carbon capture and sequestration for the coal industry. So there are business opportunities for the fossil fuel sector to lead this transition. And again, I'm very hopeful that we can, that the government can partner with those businesses in crafting a way forward.
SEN. MURKOWSKI: Let me ask you another question here. You obviously are following closely the debate, the discussion here in Congress on both the Senate side and the House side about the renewable tax credits, cap and trade that is advancing on the other side, discussion here in this committee and in over in the House on renewable electricity standard, all those things that are designed to advance those technologies and to reduce our overall emissions. If a cap and trade system were to be enacted, do you believe that indirect regulation of greenhouse gases through the endangered species act, through NEPA, through renewable fuel standards, through an RES, through Section 526 or the Clean Air Act are still necessary?
MS. ZOI: The president and secretary obviously are supporting, very supportive of a cap and trade bill. And the cap and trade is designed to be an economy wide, create an economy wide framework and a glide path toward gradual reductions. In particular the renewable electricity standard does something else and it's a little bit different. It's a complimentary, if you've got a toolbox, it's sort of you've got a pair of pliers and a monkey wrench. And I'm getting short on time but I actually think that they're complimentary policy instruments.
SEN. MURKOWSKI: Well you mentioned, and my time has expired too but I'll just finish the question. You say that an RES is complimentary but we also have other federal acts as I mentioned whether it's the ESA that's one that we in Alaska have been quite concerned about, regulation of emissions through the Endangered Species Act I don't think is a good idea and the nominees that we have had before us to this point in time have all concurred that they don't think it's a good idea. But it is one of those tools that is out there and I think it is an appropriate question to ask if we were to move to such a system, an over industry wide system whether or not there would still be further efforts to regulation of emissions through these multiple federal acts. I'll go back for a second rounding.
SEN. SHAHEEN: Thank you. Senator Udall.
SEN. UDALL: Thank you Madame Chairman. Again, welcome to the panel. I would ask your indulgence. I'm schedule to preside on the floor of the Senate in a few minutes so I'm not going to be able to use the whole amount of my time. I would like to submit some additional questions for the record.
But starting with Ms. Zoi want to thank you for your willingness to serve in the public sector. I look forward to working with you when it comes to the national renewable laboratory. In particular I note this upcoming year's budget does not include as much research in the hydrogen technology area. I would like to pursue that conversation a little bit further. I know that there's some significant questions been raised about hydrogen in vehicles in particular, but it may have real application as you know in generating facilities back up power. But I think we ought to continue to do that research because I think it has a long term potential.
Moving to Mr. Brinkman, I note that, at least it's my opinion that the DOE has not done as much as it could have in the SBIR world with small businesses.
And that's a particular area I think you have expertise and a proven track record, so I would urge you to take a look at what more could be done there as we look to incubate all of these exciting new technologies out there. Not jut in the energy space, but as you know, in the IT space, Biomedical and so on.
And Ms. Castle, thank you again for doing Colorado proud. I know we're going to work together on the southeastern conduit for the lower Arkansas Valley. It's a particular interest to Secretary Salazar or given that's his homeland, and he knows the challenges there keeping faith with the farmers who want to continue to produce our food.
So, again, thank you for all three of you being here and your willingness to serve in the public sector. Thanks.
MS. CASTLE (?): Thank you, Senator.
SEN. SHAHEEN: Thank you, Senator Udall. Senator Bunning.
SEN. BUNNING: Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Ms. Zoi, more than half of the electricity being consumed in the United States is produced by coil, 51 percent approximately. In my home state of Kentucky, 93 percent of our electricity comes from coal fire generated. I realize that there are environmental concerns with coal. I have long said that the future of coal is clean coal.
In the past, I have authored legislation and supported incentives for the development of coal with advanced technologies. Through a combination of commercially available carbon catcher technology and blended feedstock of coal and biomass, we can substantially reduce our emissions.
While working for the Alliance for Climate Protection, you endorsed several anti-coal campaigns, including one that claimed that there is no such thing as clean coal. Do you still hold this position? Do you support clean coal? Would you support projects that combined carbon capture with a blend of feedstock of biomass and coal?
MS. ZOI: Thank you, Senator.
SEN. BUNNING: There's a bunch of questions there.
MS. ZOI: I'm sure you'll remind me if I forget.
SEN. BUNNING: I will follow the answers.
MS. ZOI: First of all, the president has fully supported, as did the Secretary of Energy, continued use of coal. And I have no doubt that we have the capacity to capture the carbon pollution and safely store it underground. As a geologist and somebody who has worked --
MR. BUNNING: Compared to what is now being used and/or the alternative, which is natural oil or oil-based -- or for that matter, natural gas?
MS. ZOI: Well, 50 percent, 50 percent of our electricity comes from coal plants now. Using -- applying that same set of, sort of basic technology, but capturing the carbon pollution, separating it out and storing it underground, I believe that that's a possibility.
And I'm looking forward to working with industry. I'm hopeful -- it's actually not in my portfolio, interestingly. I mean, not, not with any of my background. My responsibilities are going to be in energy efficiency and renewable energy. But the president and the secretary have been very and sort of articulate in their support for quickly commercializing carbon capture and sequestration technologies.
Because that is what makes carbon truly clean. But if we can capture the carbon pollution, then, indeed, coal will continue to be able to play a very large role in our electricity mix going forward.
SEN. BUNNING: My problem is that the Department of Energy in its renewable portfolio standards and some things, doesn't mention nuclear or coal anywhere. Not in any bill. Not in a bill that this Committee is considering. So how do we get from where we're at now to where we want to get to, if we don't use coal and/or nuclear, particularly nuclear? It's not mentioned in any of our things.
MS. ZOI: While it's not in the portfolio for this particular secretary brief, there are other offices. There's an office that focuses on nuclear energy, nuclear power. There's another office that focuses on fossil energy. There are different assistant secretaries that will be coming before you -- before this Committee, sometime in the future, whose sole purpose is to continue to make sure that those resources are used, and used well in the economy.
The president and the Secretary of Energy have made a commitment to an increase use of a diverse set of resources, and so I have little doubt that the administration and you are going to be quite in wild- eyed agreement on, you know, continued use of diverse resources.
SEN. BUNNING: Wild-eyed agreement. (Laughter.) That will be the day. (Laughter.)
Ms. Castle, I'd like to ask you, on December 3rd, 2008, the Office of Service Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, OSM, issued a final rule clarifying the disposal of excess spoil created by coal mining operations. The rule required mine operators avoid disturbing streams to the greatest extent possible, and clarify when mine operators must maintain an undisturbed buffer between mines and inundation streams.
Secretary Salazar has asked the Department of Justice to file a plea with the U.S. District Court requesting that the rule be vacated. Beside from striking a balance between the environmental protections, this new rule clarified the longstanding dispute over how the surface mining laws should be applied.
What is your view on the new law? If vacated, would you support implementation the previous stream buffer zone regulations or initiate a new rule-making process?
MS. CASTLE: Thank you for your question, Senator. I have to admit, however, that I am not familiar with the new law. It's something that I believe would fall under the purview of a different office within the Department of the Interior. But it is something that I know is the subject of continuing discussion. And I'd be happy to look into the question and get back to you on it.
SEN. BUNNING: I'd appreciate that very much. Thank you.
Ms. Madame Chair.
MS. CASTLE: Thank you.
SEN. SHAHEEN: Thank you. I would like to pick up on Senator Udall's comment about the importance of small business. And small business, he referenced the SBIR, which I think -- I would agree with him, has been very successful at encouraging new technological development.
One of the challenges that our businesses in New Hampshire have is that we have -- most of the businesses are small businesses, and they have trouble getting access to government programs or government departments, like, DOE. For example, I've heard from GT Solar, a company in New Hampshire that makes solar panels, that they've had difficulty trying to get a meeting with the Department of Energy. And appreciate that the department is not all staffed up, and so hopefully that will change as you all get onboard.
But I would ask if you have thoughts about how we can make programs and expertise at the department, the ability to collaborate at the department more available to small businesses? And I would throw that open to either one of you who would like to address it. Perhaps, Mr. Brinkman?
MR. BRINKMAN: Well, I would just like to make a couple comments, especially on photovoltaics. It turns out there -- in the United States today, there are 217 start-ups in photovoltaics. It's an enormous number of start-ups. And so somebody is putting some money into this arena.
And the other comment I would like to make about photovoltaics. I have a good friend who works at reducing the costs through, through the production techniques and reduction of the production costs. Their company now is supplying 15 different manufacturing plants.
Based on the technology they've developed in the United States, not a single one is in the United States. Not a single one.
And it's a, it's a major problem in my opinion that we are -- we somehow or other seem to have all this activity going on. I've talked to various people within the photovoltaic world. They're all doing the same thing. They're all going outside the country to manufacture it. And, and I think we have to figure out what is wrong. And I don't think it's just labor. I think it is a more complicated story than that. That we -- and, and get that straightened out so that the small business people in this game can have a chance to do things in the U.S.
SEN. SHAHEEN: So do you have any, any specific thoughts about what the OE can do to help those companies?
MR. BRINKMAN: We need to look -- one of the things I think we have to understand is -- I'm not -- this is certainly not my (daily week ?). But we, we definitely need to try to understand what it is that the incentives -- what are the incentives that are driving all these, these plants out of this country. And I don't -- I really don't believe it's labor. And I've got to try to figure it out myself, but as I say, it's not responsible for this thing, I think.
SEN. SHAHEEN: Ms. Zoi.
MS. ZOI: Well, one of the things that I hope that I can bring to the job, if confirmed, is I have experience with small business and business sector. And I know what it's like to be on the other side, never getting a call back, having to fill out endless forms that are hundreds of pages. That's a real cost of doing business.
So one of the things I'm excited about in this job is the management challenge, and creating a culture that is accountable, that moves at a pace that's responsive to the private sector needs. I mean, we've got the proverbial valley of death approaching us on this. You know, we've got some venture capital money, and then we've lost the capital that was available in markets last year.
And the government has got to fill in, and, and build those bridges, and make sure that the companies that are, that are needing a boost, whether it's a set of regulations, whether it's a bit of advice or whether it's a loan or, or a grant, if that happens in a time that makes commercial sense for the companies.
And my experience that I'm bringing hopefully will inform that and I'll help, you know, create a culture in the four-style building that is perhaps a bit more responsive than it has been in the past.
SEN. SHAHEEN: I think that would be a welcomed change for many small business in New Hampshire and across the country. Thank you.
Senator Murkowski.
SEN. MURKOWSKI: Well, I appreciate the discussion about, you know, the impact on small business and what we do to push, push good opportunities overseas, and how we need to be working to, to stem that. One of the concerns that I have raised as we talk about how we move towards this new, new generation of, of green renewable energy.
We're going to be in a situation where our reliance on foreign sources for our minerals, for the raw materials that we need, is absolutely acute. And so you indicate you're a geologist. I look at some of what we're facing, and the quartz crystal that's needed for the photovoltaics, hundred percent of that comes in from foreign sources.
The platinum for fuel cell catalysts, 91 percent imported. Indium for LED lighting technologies, 100 percent imported. The rare- earths for advanced batteries, 100 percent imported. And so I think as we talk about how we create all these wonderful jobs and the opportunities and, and build out the green technologies, we've got to be very cognoscente. And, Ms. Zoi, I would, I would hope that you, too, share this concern in thinking about how we can, within the Department of Energy, more effectively coordinate with the Department of the Interior, the USGS to really figure this out.
Because when we talk about energy insecurity, which we have right now and we're close to 70 percent relying on foreign sources for oil, we can just see ourselves going down the same path when it comes to the raw materials that we will need.
More of a statement than a question to you all, but I hope that you're all kind of thinking about that.
Ms. Castle, I wanted to ask you a question on the science side of your nominated position here, the Assistant Secretary for Water and Science. In Alaska, we are currently in a situation where there is almost a -- well, more than a dozen, there's dozens of Alaska's species that are being considered for review under the Endangered Species Act. We've got walrus. We've got a whole different variety of seals. We've got others.
We have established several years back a North Slope Science Initiative. And this is a collaborative effort of all of the agencies, and really designed to bring together all of the science that is out there, so that when we're making important policy decisions, that, that we have the science in place already.
The North Slope Science Initiative has been embraced by everybody. Everyone believes it's a great idea, and yet when it comes time to actually fund the NSSI, it's been very limited. It was almost non-existent in the 2009 Ominous Budget.
So I guess I would -- I don't know if you're familiar with it. If you're not, I would ask you to familiarize yourself with it. If you are, I would hope that we could, we could seek your support. If we don't have the science, we're not doing right by our initiatives. And we may disagree with you at the end of the day on the direction it has taken, but if we can all acknowledge that we had the science upon which we could base, we're going to be having a much better conversation.
MS. CASTLE: Senator Murkowski, I have been made aware of the North Slope Science Initiative. And first let me say that I totally agree that coordination among the various science agencies is critical. Not only in the area of endangered species, but the other things that we've been talking about, climate change, adaptive management solutions, energy use.
So I think that the president's statement on ensuring that policy decisions are based on sound science is also an indication of the support of the administration for the kind of coordination that you're describing. If I'm confirmed, I'd like to work with the committee to try to find sources of funding for those kinds of coordinated science initiatives.
SEN. MURKOWSKI: We'd welcome that opportunity.
Quick question for you, Mr. Brinkman. Are the, are the natural laboratories collaborating with one another to your satisfaction or is there a level of competition that continues, and, and, if so, how can there be greater collaboration?
MR. BRINKMAN: Well, that's one of the things that we would like to -- and another one of those things we want to address to some extent. However, I think that they are cooperating on many things, so together. But there is some competition. And I think I want there to be some competition, right? You wouldn't want them not to be competing with each other in a, a fairly aggressive way.
But one of the jobs that I regard myself as having is, is to bring these people together on, on specific programmatic from dramatic activities. And to see that our program makes sense, and that the people are doing the right things. But if you look historically, you know, of major facilities, such as the SNS in Oak Ridge National Laboratory, it was built by having each different laboratory build a component of the, of the facility. And it worked quite well in the end. It had some rocky start, but it, it ended up of being a really terrific facility stage.
SEN. MURKOWSKI: Thank you, Madam Chair. My time has expired.
SEN. SHAHEEN: Senator Sessions.
SEN. SESSIONS: Thank you. Dr. Brinkman, on the -- you have the labs under your supervision.
We've had some problems with the efficiency and productivity at the labs. And I remember a predecessor as Secretary of Energy, Spence Abraham, eventually competed one of those labs, and I think the government benefited from it.
I do think there is a tendency for institutions like that to sort of settle into their own pace, and to maybe be comfortable. And not to be as energized in helping us meet the challenges of the country. I just ask you, generally, are you prepared to examine the laboratories, the amount of money they're getting and the productivity they're giving the American taxpayer, and try to make sure you get the maximum benefit from it?
MR. BRINKMAN: Well, I must admit I don't think I'd take this job if I wasn't going to do that. But in any case, it seems to me that what has happened over the years is that this process of renewal of contracts that the labs have gone through, I think it's been very beneficial to the laboratories to make them think through what they're doing, and the, and the management structure, etcetera.
And I certainly believe we should continue that. Although, I also believe that it's admired in its own bureaucracy, and needs to be done in a much more streamline fashion.
SEN. SESSIONS: What is, that the procedures, it has its own bureaucratic problems?
MR. BRINKMAN: Yes. The procedure by (ultrathin ?) has its own problems. And coming from Princeton, the Princeton Plasma Physics Lab just went through that whole process, and it took a very long time. In fact, it -- and it was signed off only the last day Secretary Bodman was on the job, which tells you that there was something wrong.
SEN. SESSION: Right. (laughs) Well, I would just say to you that these are fabulous institutions. They have tremendous potential to benefit America, whether it's nuclear weapons or research and development and energy. And I think all those institutions benefit from strong leadership from the top. And I would just encourage you to assert yourself. And --
MR. BRINKMAN: I'll try my best.
SEN. SESSION: Ms. Zoi, you've got two areas that I'm interested in, energy efficiency. I really think that that has continued potential for America. I think, particularly a lot of poor people still are in housing and have energy heating and cooling systems that are inefficient, and it costs them very valuable dollars that they have. And so I think that's a very good area for us to work on, and I look forward to working with you.
I support anything that works. To reduce CO2, to reduce costs for the taxpayer, to reduce imports of energy from abroad, make us more energy-independent. I think all of those things are important. And I'd like -- and I think you do from our conversation that we had.
With regard to the biofuels, we have a situation in which the loan monies that were supposed to go out to help some of these entities get started, I don't think its moved as fast as it should have. And I do believe that there are quite a few companies out there that have technologies that are potentially good, but can't prove it today.
So I guess -- I'm not sure part of the reason that the Department of Energy is slow is they may have felt they were nervous about supporting a new technology. But don't you think that's what the government is for, is to take some chances in making these loans so we can accelerate some of these new technologies, maybe by several years, and prove whether or not they are going to be productive? And where -- what were your thoughts about the loan program?
MS. ZOI: Absolutely. I think the -- and the Secretary has made a commitment to streamline the processes so that the money that's been appropriated and authorized by the Congress, moves out more quickly. It has -- it was -- the previous money just got stuck, and it never sort of came out the other end.
And I think I agree with you, there are a number of places where the, the federal government has a unique role to play. It, it -- that early stage higher risk stuff that the business community might not look at. And some of the biomass examples that you're citing that you and I talked about, may indeed be in that category.
And so, no, I look forward to streamlining the processes, ensuring that the federal government folks have a set of guidelines, so that they know that this is, this is a risk profile that is acceptable for the taxpayers, and that's why we're here.
SEN. SESSION: According to the Environmental Working Group, 76 percent of federal renewable energy subsidies went to coin ethanol in 2007. That represents a total of about $3 billion. While wind, solar, and other renewable sources received roughly $750 million. Do you think that reflects an appropriate balance or are there other ideas that you have that we may could be more effective in bringing on renewable sources?
MS. ZOI: Well, I'm not familiar with the particulars of how the funding has taken place in the past, but what I would pledge is if confirmed, I would, I would love to work with you on the appropriate settings of the priorities and ensuring that the highest value, highest leverage, largest opportunities for the taxpayer investment get made.
SEN. SESSION: Well, that's a good idea. That's the right approach. Your previous Secretary of Energy, Secretary Bodman, I criticize him a bit because I think you should tell us. I think you should say, "This is not working out right. We're not putting enough research and development on this renewable source or that one. You Congress passed a law that may have looked good three years ago, but not good today."
And I think you should come forward and give us your best judgment. We may not agree, but I look forward to you sharing that.
Thank you.
SEN. SHAHEEN: Thank you.
Senator Bunning.
SEN. BUNNING: Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Ms. Zoi, you already have answered the question I was about to ask about the administration's proposal for cap and trade. You already answered it. If the goal of cap and trade is to reduce emissions, do you support making nuclear a component of DOE's Clean Energy Bill?
MS. ZOI: I support the overall thrust of moving the economy in a direction where there's a framework, so that investment decisions can get made by the private sector, and they know what the rules of the road are. And that we, that need to over time be moving toward a less carbon intensive energy --
SEN. BUNNING: Do you think nuclear is part of that?
MS. ZOI: Indeed, nuclear is. And I think that the, the -- no, that's not in my portfolio, but I think the Secretary of Energy --
SEN. BUNNING: But it's in the overall portfolio of DOE?
MS. ZOI: Yes. And the Secretary of Energy has stated on the record, you know, one of his priorities is to restart the nuclear industry is this country.
SEN. BUNNING: 205 and 207, we passed laws. And we've put a bunch of dollars upfront to restart a nuclear power energy business. (laughs) And we had, I think about -- presently we have about 17 applications, and we had more than that. And none of the money has moved. None.
Is there somehow we can get some kind of an assurance that that money and/or additional monies will be used to jumpstart the nuclear power energy, because that is one great way to get our climate control under control.
MS. ZOI: Well, I have to say, I think, I think the Secretary of Energy has made a commitment -- a newfound commitment, perhaps different than the previous commitment of the previous administration to jumpstart, restart, invigorate the next generation of nuclear.
SEN. BUNNING: One thing on cap and trade.
Then I want to follow up on this. Every time I get into a discussion in the finance commitment or this committee on energy on cap and trade, I get the argument from a lot of people that the United States must lead. It's up to us to lead. Now, I'm ready to lead. But I'd also like some followers.
And unless we can get China and India and Russia on the dotted line -- as far as a global reduction in emissions, we get to zero emissions in the United States and 20 years from now we'll have more emissions in the atmosphere if China and India and Russia don't sign on. Is that pretty accurate?
MS. ZOI: Climate change is a global problem, and it's going to require a global solution. And what that means is all of the high- emitting nations are going to have to be party to it. And other, other folks in the administration, up at the State Department and elsewhere, are working very --
SEN. BUNNING: Well, I just saw where the Secretary of Treasury was over talking to China about this.
MS. ZOI: That's right. That's right.
SEN. BUNNING: And so did our prior Secretary of the Treasury go to China. Because when we went there as a Senate, we couldn't even meet with the people that were in charge of climate change in China. They didn't -- they wouldn't meet with six senators. They thought that only the Secretary of the Treasury could really get it done. Not understanding, obviously, that -- how democracies work. Since it's (laughs) -- it's a little different --
MS. ZOI: It's a little different thing.
SEN. BUNNING: It's a little top-down over there.
Thank you.
Mr. Brinkman, as you know, this committee is currently in the process of writing an energy bill. One component of that bill that we have already considered is research and development funding for the Office of Science. Can you discuss the long-term funding needs of the office? Do you believe that this committee's authorization level will meet your and the future needs of that office?
MR. BRINKMAN: Yes. Thank you. The Office of Science has had a very constant budget for the last several years, and -- but now, but now, you and, and Secretary and President Obama are committed to doubling its budget by, by 2016. And we -- this, this is at about a 7 percent rate per year. And it seems to me that that's a rate at which we can easily handle. I'm just -- I'm starting to learn about the budget this week.
And we - there are many, many different research projects that I think are worthy of support. And, and I think that it is true that what has happened in the last eight years is our position. And the world of science has waned a bit. And, and I personally have come here because I thought -- I think we had opportunity to drive it back to -- into a prominent position where we were in past -- in the past.
SEN. BUNNING: Will you answer my question about, did we provide enough? Is 7 percent annually --
MR. BRINKMAN: If that --
SEN. BUNNING: -- increase enough?
MR. BRINKMAN: -- increase becomes a reality, I'll be very happy.
SEN. BUNNING: All right. Thank you very much.
SEN. SHAHEEN: Thank you.
Senator McCain.
SEN. MCCAIN: Ms. Zoi, do you believe that nuclear power is a renewable energy source?
MS. ZOI: I believe that nuclear power is a non-carbon emitting energy source that's very important to our economy. It's 20 percent of our electricity, as you know.
SEN. MCCAIN: I will repeat the question. Do you believe that nuclear power is a renewable energy source? We are accustomed to getting answers that respond to the question.
MS. ZOI: Well, as a geologist I would say there is a finite supply of uranium, so technically nuclear power is not a renewable energy source, but it does have other environmental advantages in that it doesn't emit CO2.
SEN. MCCAIN: Mr. Brinkman. Same question.
MR. BRINKMAN: Oh, same question. Yes, if you define a renewable energy source as one in which an essentially infinite amount resource, it is not a renewable resource, but it is a very good source for mediating and for not emitting carbon dioxide.
SEN. MCCAIN: You believe that nuclear power, that we should have a storage facility for spent nuclear fuel, Mr. Brinkman?
MR. BRINKMAN: I think what we have to do is try to re-examine this issue after President Obama has decided that we will not do Yucca Mountain. He, as you know, has got a Blue Ribbon Committee that he's putting together to work this issue. I think there are some alternatives we need to explore.
I personally want to see us do more research on reprocessing. I think reprocessing. I think reprocessing today is a very complex issue that is not --
SEN. MCCAIN: Reprocessing is a very complex issue in your view?
MR. BRINKMAN: The process of reprocessing is very complex.
SEN. MCCAIN: It is?
MR. BRINKMAN: Yes.
SEN. MCCAIN: Why is it that the Japanese and the British and French are able to do it fairly easy --
(Cross talk.)
MR. BRINKMAN: That's because we haven't done anything in the last twenty years on reprocessing.
SEN. MCCAIN: Pardon me?
MR. BRINKMAN: We haven't done anything about --
(Cross talk.)
SEN. MCCAIN: No, but other countries do.
MR. BRINKMAN: We can do it, but the way they have done it is very expensive and I would hope that we could find a better way.
SEN. MCCAIN: Well, how is it complex if three other countries are doing it routinely, Mr. Brinkman?
MR. BRINKMAN: Well, frankly I don't believe they're doing it routinely.
SEN. MCCAIN: You don't believe they're doing it routinely?
MR. BRINKMAN: Routinely is a funny set of words. I think they're doing it, but in each case it's been a very expensive process.
SEN. MCCAIN: They seem to find it a great way of disposing of spent nuclear fuel. I have been to their facility in Japan, Mr. Brinkman.
MR. BRINKMAN: But I think --
(Cross talk.)
SEN. MCCAIN: It is not rocket science --
(Cross talk.)
MR. BRINKMAN: No. No. Hey, wait -- (inaudible) --
SEN. MCCAIN: Yeah.
MR. BRINKMAN: I'm not against reprocessing. You have to understand that. I want to improve the process.
SEN. MCCAIN: What's wrong with the existing process?
MR. BRINKMAN: Well, we can use the existing process, but one of the problems it has, it has a non-proliferation issue that needs to be worked. For example, it tends to create -- one of its products is a highly radioactive plutonium and that's a thing that you can make a bomb out of, so we would like not to have that as one of the process steps, and we need to think that through.
SEN. MCCAIN: Well, we'll go through this debate some -- the fact is that that's a far better problem to face than having spent nuclear fuel in pools at 100 and some nuclear power plants around the country.
This administration says that it wants nuclear, but yet they're going to shut Yucca Mountain where we've been working on for fourteen years and they're against reprocessing for the -- may I say for the reasons that I don't accept when three major nations in the world are able to do it and not pose a threat to this world's security.
So I don't have any more questions, Madam Chairman.
SEN. SHAHEEN: Senator Bennett.
SEN. ROBERT BENNETT (R-UT): Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.
I want to pick up on what Senator McCain has been talking about, because I too have been in one of the reprocessing plants. The one I was in was in France, and the French have been dealing with nuclear power now since the days of Charles DeGaulle.
Charles DeGaulle looked around France and realized there wasn't any coal to speak of and there wasn't any natural gas to speak of. Charles DeGaulle is not my favorite politician, but he made the decision France is going to be nuclear and in that process France is going to be independent and roughly 80 percent of France's power. And they've solved the proliferation problem obviously fairly well.
And I join with Senator McCain in urging you to say let's make the policy decision that we're going to do reprocessing, let's get on with building new nuclear plants as rapidly as we possibly can. They can't be built overnight. And in the period of time while they're being built, you can deal with the reprocessing issue and have it ready to go.
Now react to that. What's wrong with that?
MR. BRINKMAN: There's nothing wrong with that, but you also should understand that this is hardly my bailiwick --
(Cross talk.)
SEN. BENNETT: Oh, okay.
MR. BRINKMAN: -- my responsibility, but --
(Cross talk.)
SEN. BENNETT: I walked in on something. I apologize.
MR. BRINKMAN: But what I was trying to say is one of the things I would like to do in a position as the Director of the Office of Science is see to it to see if we can do anything to improve the process, and it seems to me that that's a very legitimate goal in trying to figure out a better reprocessing technology.
SEN. BENNETT: Okay. I can agree with that.
MR. BRINKMAN: A perfectly legitimate thing to do.
SEN. BENNETT: I think I share with Senator McCain the concern that for all of the rhetoric, we've not laid down the marker that this nation is going to go forward with nuclear power, with reprocessing in a very vigorous fashion.
MR. BRINKMAN: Okay.
SEN. BENNETT: And I want to be very clear that that's where I feel we need to be going, because if you're going to talk about power that does not have greenhouse gas emissions, that is reliable --
(Cross talk.)
MR. BRINKMAN: Yeah.
SEN. BENNETT: -- you come instantly to nuclear.
Wind is fine as long as the wind blows, but it doesn't always blow and there are times when its interruption is dramatically damaging to the grid to which it is connected.
Solar is fine but the sun doesn't always shine and there's a lot of land to get covered with these solar panels, so everybody says, yeah, nuclear is the answer but I don't see the kind of commitment to it beyond the rhetoric and that's just the point I wanted to make.
MR. BRINKMAN: The only thing I wanted to add is that one of the programs, as you may know, Secretary Chu has created some hubs, he calls them hubs in their new thrust, and one of the thrusts is not in lithium batteries for cars but rather batteries and storage mechanisms for renewables.
I mean, one of the big issues as you've just pointed out is the fact that renewables are intermittent and can you do anything about that and I think that's a very good research area for us to try to see if we can find a breakthrough which would change that dynamic.
SEN. BENNETT: All right.
Ms. Zoi, maybe we should be focusing on you given your portfolio of energy efficiency and renewable energy.
If we did have massive amounts of electricity available, and we do at night, but if we could add to that, the nuclear capability that we're talking about of these kinds of plants, we could have, what, 17 million -- no more than that -- 100 million batteries sitting in our garages and plug in hybrids if we moved in that direction and you wouldn't need any additional battery technology to get there. You could just have the incentive to move in that direction.
So are you as committed to nuclear as the rhetoric has been around here?
MS. ZOI: Nuclear is not in the portfolio for which I've been nominated and it's energy efficiency and renewable energy specifically, so --
(Cross talk.)
SEN. BENNETT: Okay. By definition nuclear is not under your --
(Cross talk.)
MS. ZOI: No. No. There's another office within the department that deals with nuclear power.
SEN. BENNETT: Okay.
Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.
SEN. SHAHEEN: Thank you, Senator Bennett.
I wonder if you all could clarify something for me and I'm not sure that you know the answer to this, but given the questions about nuclear power and reprocessing, am I to understand that the Energy Department under this new administration has changed the policy relative to nuclear energy?
MR. BRINKMAN: I don't know what you mean by change. Let's see, if we --
(Cross talk.)
SEN. SHAHEEN: Relative to reprocessing for example.
MR. BRINKMAN: I don't think it changed that process, as far as I know.
Do you know? No.
SEN. SHAHEEN: I appreciate as Senator McCain said, there has been a change relative to storage of nuclear waste.
MR. BRINKMAN: Well, that's for sure.
SEN. SHAHEEN: Thank you.
Senator Murkowski.
SEN. LISA MURKOWSKI (R-AK): Thank you, Madam Chair.
It seems the longer we sit the interest we get in our nominees. I appreciate your endurance. I've got one last question.
I think you've heard the comments from some of my colleagues here about why -- because nuclear is absolutely carbon free in terms of its emissions, why we aren't seeing more support from the administration on it.
Another area where when we're talking about renewable electricity standard and looking to the definition, one area that has just befuddled me is hydro. I was born in a rainforest. I was born in the Tongass National Forest in the Ketchikan General Hospital.
It rains over 300 days a year there. There's no intermittent in what comes out of the skies there in Ketchikan. Twenty-four percent of our state's total power comes from our hydro plants and in none of them, so far as I know, in none of them are we blocking a free-flowing river, we don't harm the fisheries.
I look at that and it's as good as it gets when it comes to hydro and yet for purposes of a renewable electricity standard, you know, we're putting all kinds of barriers in front of hydro itself. Now hydro is clearly in your portfolio under renewables.
Can you tell me as you're working to reduce our emissions to move towards a -- (inaudible) -- fuel, your view of hydro power's role?
MS. ZOI: Hydro is a huge and important resource and we've obviously relied on it for many decades, but I think the reason that hydro has not been supported by some of the renewable energy advocates in Washington is because there's a bit of a legacy of non- environmentally sustainable hydro, and to the extent that there are opportunities for developing hydro in a way that doesn't damage fisheries, forests, etc cetera, then it makes total sense to the extent that there are opportunities to where there is an existing dam where the Ketchikan is well managed both upstream and downstream to upgrade the turbines so that we get more out of it.
That makes total sense and I am told that there are a variety of opportunities like that. I think probably hydro doesn't get a free pass unless all of the other environmental impacts can be ameliorated.
SEN. MURKOWSKI: Well, let me ask you about it, though. You're saying okay, well if there's no environmental damage or degradation, so is that same standard to be applied then with wind and with solar?
You want to put big solar panels out in a desert and it interferes with the jackrabbit or whatever. The wind turbines do great damage to some of the migratory birds that are coming through. So I mean how do you differentiate then between what we said for hydro and any other form of renewable energy that will have environmental impact?
MS. ZOI: Well, I absolutely agree that there are standards that need to be set so that what we're investing in is economically sensible and environmentally sensible and environmentally sustainable, and I think that if we sharpen our pencils, we're going to be able to do that with a variety of resources.
SEN. MURKOWSKI: So will you work with us on hydro?
MS. ZOI: Absolutely.
SEN. MURKOWSKI: Thanks, Madam Chair.
SEN. SHAHEEN: Senator Sessions.
SEN. JEFF SESSIONS (R-AL): Thank you.
Ms. Zoi, on renewables, well the definition, I guess we're wondering why it's such an artificial definition. Fundamentally most people I believe think that renewable is good because it emits no CO2, it's a renewable resource, and that it helps the environment and the economy.
So in terms of what's really important for our environment, I think that the nuclear meets that test and should be given -- whether you call it a renewable or not, should be given the same incentives that we might give to other sources.
So, Dr. Brinkman, there has been some changes. The President cancelled immediately the storage site at Yucca and he announced a two-year Blue Ribbon Study on recycling, and those are major changes, and both of which are retrograde direction for most of us. That's what we think so. We worried about this, and I notice every time a witness comes up we're asking about this because this is troubling to us.
The cost of electricity from nuclear power is competitive with coal and it is base load, 24 hours a day, and it does allow the possibility that you could use plug-in cars and set your charger from midnight until 5 a.m. or some such and when that base load is available and just do great and not use a drop of oil.
So that's what we're worried about and I think you're going to continue to hear from the Congress, and Democrats as well as Republicans about our view on that.
With regard to renewables, to me the renewable energy standards, the renewable portfolio, Ms. Zoi, is driving the use of biofuels to electricity. As you and I have discussed, and I think you are aware, there is great possibilities of converting biofuels to liquid that could be used in automobiles.
I would assume you have about the same environmental benefit, but economically it's to me much more important that we replace that liquid fuel that goes in our vehicles because 60 percent of it is imported, our wealth is going out every year to countries who do nothing but sit there and watch it pump out of their soil and some of these countries are not even friendly to us.
So do you see a problem, and shouldn't the incentive be at least as well, or the mandate which is a renewable portfolio as mandate shouldn't we balance that so that we are at least incentivizing biofuels, particularly wood or corn to be utilized for liquid fuels rather than just electricity?
MS. ZOI: I think I share your excitement and enthusiasm for the possibilities of biofuels replacing our imported oil. I recently visited the joint bio-energy lab in Northern California and the researchers are just on fire. They're about to turn the corner on a whole bunch of ways to take what had almost been viewed as trash plants and turn it into fuel and put it into an engine that burns very, very efficiently.
So there's a huge amount of promise there. The particular policy instruments, again, if confirmed, I look forward to working with you, the members of the committee, on what are the policy instruments that make the most sense and getting --
(Cross talk.)
SEN. SESSIONS: But I want you to think about this: If you mandate renewable energy for electricity, in certain areas of the country like my region, about the only thing that can be used is wood, maybe switch grass, woody bio products.
I think that product would be better utilized for the nation's economy as well as the environment for liquid fuels where possible and we could be mandating in a way that's contrary to our highest and best use.
Would you look at that --
(Cross talk.)
MS. ZOI: Absolutely --
SEN. SESSIONS: -- as you go forward?
MS. ZOI: Absolutely.
SEN. SESSIONS: Thank you.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
SEN. SHAHEEN: Thank you, Senator.
Senator Bennett.
SEN. BENNETT: Thank you very much. Let me just make a quick comment about environmental degradation, whether it comes from hydro or whatever. The environment itself is not static.
Mother Nature is constantly changing, and so an attempt to say that today's environmental circumstance must be preserved at all costs, is to fight against nature, and if we decide, for example, as some people have said well, we must get rid of the Glen Canyon Dam so that the Colorado River can revert to its normal pattern, we've made a decision what the normal pattern is, and the eco system that now exists below the Glen Canyon Dam will be destroyed completely and I don't know where the moral decision is of the plants and the animals, whatever that have grown up as a result of the existence of the Glen Canyon Dam are somehow less -- that deserve our concern less than the kind of thing that would come back if we just destroyed it and then Mother Nature would bring about an earth quake or some other change and it would all change again.
I had that brought home dramatically to me when I was a businessman and we were looking at an investment circumstance, and they said you can't possibly do this because if you do, you'll interfere with the fish in this stream, and a little while later they said well, we're going ahead.
And I said what happened to the fish in the stream? And they said, oh, we had a drought and it dried up and the stream went away, so all the fish died anyway, and sense nature did it and we didn't, why now we can -- you know, this is the kind of thing that frustrates me a little with those who say we must preserve the environment at all costs.
I say preserve which environment, because it's constantly changing.
All right. I apologize for that harangue, but that's a comment that I wanted to make in this conversation.
Ms. Zoi, let's talk about algae. I have looked at the plants. I have looked at the statistics, and of all of the things that can be grown and turned into oil, I've never seen anything that has the potential that algae has.
I have voted against corn ethanol at every opportunity in my Senate career because I don't think it makes any sense, and I think the more we learn about it, the more we discover that it doesn't make much sense.
This is something that can produce scale. Corn ethanol cannot produce any energy at a significant scale without tremendous -- contradicting my earlier comment -- tremendous environmental degradation. The amount of land that is used, the amount of water that is used, and you can get algae and you can grow it in brackish water. We can get energy out of the Great Salt Lake, which is incredible because it's not good for anything else.
Now, that's not true. You can get salt from the Great Salt Lake and some trace minerals and it has wonderful sunsets, but are you familiar with all of the work that is being done with respect to algae?
MS. ZOI: About nineteen years ago, I visited the National Renewable Energy Lab, and at that time they were doing some very early-stage research on trying to harvest algae and I still remember looking --
(Cross talk.)
SEN. BENNETT: Yeah.
MS. ZOI: -- at the big receptacles that they had there. If confirmed I look forward to getting up to speed on where the state of the science is now --
(Cross talk.)
SEN. BENNETT: Oh, it's --
MS. ZOI: -- because it sounds very exciting.
SEN. BENNETT: Oh, it's way beyond that. Way beyond that, and I can give you the names of companies that are ready to start producing it on a very significant basis.
MS. ZOI: Sounds great.
SEN. BENNETT: And finally, the question is, well to you, you haven't changed. I would point out in the supplemental in my role as the Ranking Member on the Energy and Water Subcommittee of Appropriations, with the full cooperation of Senator Dorgan, who is the Chairman of that, we put in $100 million for loan guarantees and it got taken out by the House, and I got ads run against me in my home state because they said I was the tool of the nuclear industry because I was willing to put in these loan guarantees, and those loan guarantees would have made a significant contribution to seeing that we move forward.
So I'm not blaming the administration. I'm blaming the House. That's easy to do here, but I would ask you all to look at that from administration policy because the loan guarantees are essential for all kinds of carbon emission energy and the fact that nuclear is one of them that has used those loan guarantees has been the excuse to cut them back and, Ms. Zoi, you will find the loan guarantees valuable for everything that you think and talk about other than nuclear.
It's been the decision of Congress that they are to be used for both, the more traditional renewables and nuclear, and that's one place where I think a little bit of leaning on the House would be helpful.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
SEN. SHAHEEN: Thank you, Senator Bennett.
I can't imagine that anybody suggested that you were the tool of any industry.
Seeing that there are no more questions, members will have until 5 p.m. tomorrow to submit additional questions for the record. At this time the committee stands adjourned.
END.
Source