>> many of these industries are trying desperately to hire experts. i found one they tended to quit fairly often and at the career fair you will see a line out the door and for eddy's other industries it is very difficult not only because of those insufficient workers to be trained it appropriate security but because the competition is so great. >> says they say go to work with the general logic? >> that is why they pursue

that. and then outside of that district but my refrigerator will send tweets. >> with your testimony and then to be reinforced many times. so talk to us about vulnerability is and how they are shared. and with those vulnerability is in the consumer world that is a coordinating agency working in concert with d.h. us to collect information and then provide

to manufacturers. the other pathway is the rewards between researchers and the company's and the other that is disturbingly popular the before there is of a chance and to evaluate to that report is true. >> talking about that they will look at the least secure devices one is the general level of security in the recent attacks prompted any conversation you are aware of? to a casino good news even in my own home icy devices in any one on the internet could just break in.

i have no good news on the security built-in. >> i yield back. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from new mexico for five minutes. >> thanks for holding this important hearing for the ranking member. this is an important discussion of cyberattacks with digital and physical space with the proliferation of cyberattacks all across the country man and to be called out by the national security teams. pertaining to the development of iot with the robust and infrastructure of america, we also know there is more dynamic networks to results from that.

currently looking at ways from all devices to monitor protect have to address the issues of dynamics to joining in closely monitor to detect and respond to malicious behavior. talk about the importance of us moving in that direction with the national laboratories whether in a secure or open space? >> so talk about how to do this type of security well this you have to know your assets that is what you are referring to an second those that matched the specific risk in the third one that we forget is to continuously

monitor the effectiveness to deploy the security prospect today may not work at all. beers while i am little skeptical of those that claim and no the networks as a fact most hospitals refuse to look at the security because they're afraid of radiation therapy devices but they have actually read booted the security product if you're in a facility with nuclear materials i would be very skeptical of the claim of how well they have survived. >> is there a benefit working with these assets? >> i think there could be a benefit with safety critical issues but there is quite a

bit of expertise of the imbedded security. however bayberry interdisciplinary problem coming up in my reports they often tell me we don't have the in-house expert with that situation where any try to help you find a partner. >> as more infrastructure is bought online from inception to delivery what we can do to secure through the internet of things operating systems to secure the protocols. >> so this is part of the

problem so that the left talks about lettuce surreptitiously to send copies of your text messages to china on the plus side it was cheaper but we are worried about switching equipment that comes from china that there could be a hardware switch and these are very complicated questions. anyplace in the stack we could cause an insecurity lots of people are working on this but it is an extreme worrisome issue so this is an american device made in china and many others are meeting countries that may

not be as friendly to us as we would like. and while hopefully will detect these things right now there is an edge it is easier to hide the vulnerability than it is to detective. the nsa uses that to spy on the enemy so there is some good but by and large it is dangerous. >> we need to submit a question relating to the of hardware than we can expect that conversation. >> your time has expired recognize the donald and from texas. >> i have to a mitt last item lost a little sleep

preparing for this hearing because we've focused on a september 21st on the strike with over 600 gigabytes per second and then one month later the same bad actor because after nine years in the navy that the senior staff in four terms of the house i know the biggest threat to our security and prosperity is cyberattacks and cybersecurity but what bothers me the most

execution is from the football field here are the defenders that is exactly what they did but yet they have the success 600 gigabit per second and so in this environment we have to be proactive our government has to be proactive. the people would shake their heads and smile but somehow we have to come together and the love your term meant to

elaborate to run for congress and win her should we help out the american economy? >> thank you. first the built-in not bolted don has been used for many years but i would say to get out in front of a problem to be proactive we have not even done what i consider the five were talking to my students have to do the pre-lab to get firsthand information.

that is right get my firsthand information. to pick up for story after horror story. i cannot really that to you begin to have not seen the people that i talk to you we need to go to the university to see with the struggles are happening. i believe will probably start thinking to have that built-in is economically and know what that would resemble could be more financial incentives? is about corporate liability i don't know the answer of the mechanism but we need to have more congressional visits. >> how do these healthy

organization help with cyberattacks? >> i believe that i intrigue entirely whether business buying or consumer buying technology we have the right incentives whether economic regulation i completely agree with that mindset. i do think there is the significant number with regards to each of those ideals with convenience and use of health and safety. >> very quickly how to approach this from the federal government role. >> and now with the speed of technology they used to be

the laws could lead technology and now it is reversed so we have to figure out the regulatory structure that we cannot focus on technology or rely on that because that is the very end. it is basic and not sophisticated. >> i yield back the balance of my time. >> in the chair now recognizes for five minutes. >> having spent nearly 30 years of my professional career in over technology of what to get more into what we are talking about

particularly with the connected devices. but as i understand it, these have been around almost as long as the internet. they have certainly gotten worse over last few years but we know how to defend them using the technology like the ip packet inspection can you tell us a bit more about those techniques what they had then successful greg. >> every three years we encounter the evolution of the capability. been to have the global internet of the adversaries

of the new capability to direct that the capability. so the community has been fairly proactive to investigate what those bad guys are doing to make sure that capabilities are built into the platform and by redirecting traffic and scrubbing it. what scares us about iot attacks is that typical botnet is in the tens of thousands one of the devices the of the network capability in that we're

taking with great notice and with the majority of the defensive techniques targets the way the traditional attacks with amplification? and regardless of what of traffic looks like woburn to have the upper and lower control so that technology is geared of that control parameter but that big issue is the scale of to comment that dictum -- victim.

>> so to get to the heart of the matter be coz from what we have been told this botnet does not use that is an accurate quick. >> correct to have any protocol. >> so instead of the botnet is bought out of these individuals connected devices and there are millions of them out there that are so numerous that spoofing is a necessary? from those connected devices to make if you want to send a large amount of traffic but with a device like this you don't need that. >> when we were talking

about a defensive techniques looking at amplification if you begin to allude to the house those techniques like that package inspection workout effective friday quick. >> i say probably more effective so the overall capability is more capable but again i will go back to the scale that a lot of that technology is built with the hundreds of thousands of inspections as opposed to the millions. >> but it is safe to say we have a lot of work to do to

handle this new threat. >> i yield back. >> i am understand that a brand name devices are generally safer, it claimed to put on low and manufacturers with the attack that happened and october? >> with specific regards the vast majority from other countries that they have not contemplated that idea to be is in the fashion some were mortified to wrap their

heads around cybersecurity because they have every belief consumers would continue to purchase their product spinet this is directed to all of you so water some ways hard red and software manufacturers can band together quite. >> but together we interdisciplinary. function follows form with the educational system and

they don't actually have the education it is very important to educate people in a way to bring the hardware and software together for to be skilled and trained to solve these problems that is something i would do personally with hardware and software because that cannot be abstract away any more. >> it is challenged. >> thought it is a challenge because the company's that made the deep puerto rico got a tip because they put it in their device say so that to another company then you have a chain so banding

together rebury difficult and now giving the reason it is hard. i don't have a good answer. >> that is why we put him last. >> i would say i greet with cheap iot the focus primarily is on the specific set of applications they get the base line operating system and don't know how all interconnects together.

but the emerging iot to be interconnected to be more disciplined with those disciplines together as / zero as to achieve that hire security standards so it is a long way to go. >> with those cyberattacks and with the same services. >> presumably, yes but because of what was targeted and then to launch an attack.

in net to what extent quick. >> is the entry point to take over the army of the agents but in my testimony i show the medical devices. and through other iot even that we rely on passwords that all is a problem. >> my time is expired high-yield back.

>> the chair recognizes the gentleman for questions. >> >> >> with the internet of things devices dr. it appears one of those reoccurring problems as the and secure operating systems that is easier to infect with the target with the denial of services. have you seen industry react to these issues with the more stabilizing systems or are there other impediments to the switch quick.

>> i have seen down but like most there is a wide distribution. i still seek windows xp that is decades old and a water treatment facility in michigan controlling water pumps for the city. windows expertise in is susceptible to already mideast malware doesn't take anyone much time to cause a problem it is all about the economics blake linear accelerators multimillion-dollar machines certainly one of hospital buys a device that would get a new operating system because it comes with the system but most have capital equipment costs they don't want to have to apply the new mri every tenures issued

last 20 or 30 that is why you will still see windows 95 or windows 98 been in hospitals because we say we really want to have the operating system to keep secure they say by a whole new machine. so there was the unwritten assumption the software is maintained but the health care community felt it should have been kept secure and maintain the from the manufacturing standpoint it was not. >> so those in the act over attack were situated overseas but how'd we protect ourselves from those outside the u.s.? >> i will comment briefly.

i think the important thing about computer security is not to put yourself in the secure environment but tolerate the insecure environment we will never have networks that our full of rainbows the network will always be high style we just need to make sure it can tolerate that malicious traffic however attacks are extremely hard to defend against it is where we are these prepared. >> two things. u.s. regulation especially through the major markets can cause a new environment because companies will not make too devices. it is one device to sell that so we can make a difference like we can with

the so many other industries but the doctor is correct ricans never assume that it isn't going to be a combination of the devices to make them more secure which means it is more minority to build the infrastructure controls and it will always be that. >> i have one more question. >> we have a fundamental belief for those that are based on reputation and the more that they can win collaborate together how much better prepared we will we been. >> one of the biggest concerns of denial of service from hospitals we already know they are

targets so the question is how can hospital's best protect themselves from their current threats to prioritize the health care sector question mike and short-term there isn't a lot of mitigating solutions. the best thing that i can recommend is the inventory of medical devices talking yesterday in the deep just report hospitals don't even know what they are running in their facility in the manufacturers don't know. if they knew we could better understand the risks. >> i yield back. with. >> the chair recognizes for five minutes. >> i will follow-up to displayed more what is your

concern that is the device used in the hospital but the hospitals are not aware of what is on those devices and what mechanism should be have for the asa hospital systems are fully aware of what is in their hospital quick. >> right. so to frame the context they want to make sure that they have operations of the clinical work load so the problem is when you don't know what your assets are hardy project that? if you don't know what ports are open, the manufacturers are not providing enough information so loss bottles staff can do their job to ensure their facilities so to provide that bill of materials was software comes

on the device will not completely solve the problem but will help you cannot do step number two until you have stepped number-one before you can effectively control the security mitigation controls. >> that has life sending a - - saving ending implications so what factors are you most concerned about? of that sector integration that the system is not known ? >> water gas or electric how people laugh and say we don't have security but we will not be laughing when the lights go out to cement looking at sectors is more about interaction. if you ask somebody if they

vulnerability one of the web camera can affect twitter people would say no and be answer if this could mitigate the attack and we're not sure. it is the emergent properties that causes those will abilities if you focus on the sector you're missing the big picture there of computers whether wheels or propellers and they affect each other on the same internet so wait urge you to think illicitly. there are sectors that our more vulnerable or critical but the cause of that comes from. >> so what you're thoughts but if hacking back or some other should be permissible?

>> i know this is a fairly large debate within my industry. we have these conversations and other regular basis in free know where a particular exposure exists we can write software to patch that to get the malware of the system we are better protecting the consumers as a whole. and i think that is a fairly dark road to go down that it is an excuse to provide those right incentives in a potentially has impact that the author writing this offer is a necessarily aware of putting that broad set of devices out be. i see your more of a the

consequence and bend the right incentives. >> going back to the question of whether or not we have the appropriate safeguards in place, to moderate 9,000 job openings right now and what are their programs or the degree programs are the certifications that should be offered we are not offering one at the institutions are training programs is there a degree necessary or do we have to have different types of certifications? >> all of the above especially indebted cyber security is a discipline. and that the community college and graduate studies in for your and with the master's program for the already skilled workers who

are experts at designing cars but how do build security into the thinking are there enough opportunities for them to come back to get the training. also the pipeline. with engineering and and to tap the new resources and demographics we need to do much more outreach to high-school with those kids to encourage them to go into these fields especially women and minorities were. >> i yield back. >> five minutes. >> thanks for being here to elaborate on these issues. is it accurate to categorize these attacks is the international issue greg. >> absolutely.

the device manufacturers were for the majority of the locations was foreign. most of what we talk about today would not have a direct significant impact in the october 21st attacks. >> are there any other countries that are focused on these issues right now? >> yes. there are a number of countries that are very progressive cybersecurity with great britain as an example of the cybersecurity work to the telecommunications sector if you're going to be offering telecommunications services that you have to be certified. >> do you see any type of consensus pdf?

>> what recommendations would you give to congress to help the conversation correct. >> i will go back to my original point that i do believe we could get some pressure focused in this area to have that buying in investment patterns that by setting the standards the domestic and international groups coming to set the standards to force those buying behaviors of consumers that is a major step forward. >> allotted reports are indicating the number of connected devices we heard between 20 and 50 billion devices but what should they

think about and general regarding several security or what does that take away? >> i think an innovation is progressing faster than what tends to happen if you go on that biorhythm of lack of unforeseen consequences. our ability to adapt and respond is what keeps the infrastructure protected so i think i average they have to manage different servers tubal condos products of what they are purchasing then there is a significant consequence sewed to focus on to make sure the market

controls are placed with an ever structure is a significant and adaptable win for us. >> with the issue of the default passwords can you elaborate off quite. >> that is intrinsically and insecure one -- any password system would encourage unwise behavior there are some technologies out there that is called to factor authentication with the mobile phone in addition to a password but at the heart of it we need to figure out other ways and i will encourage the a other witnesses but i feel we really need to retire passwords and kill those soft because they are bringing down the most sensitive systems.

>> there's always a role for passwords with low security devices only the sandinista be secure for a short period of time but in general they have outlived their usefulness but with a code that comes your phone one or secure this with my finger print there are many other systems that give more robust authentication and that would go along way with a lot of the systems to help secure that talking about the different ways to break into things of your vulnerability is the way you are excluded also bad user practice of i could get rid of those or reduce one that would go along way. >> i about of time. >> the chair recognizes a follow-up question.

>> this is a little philosophical. you mentioned the tax are easier on this complex system so take that complexity opens up new folder abilities but they build complexity to defend themselves so is there something we can learn from this quake. >> over the past decade there is a lot of research to move that biological metaphor the security there are some lessons in biological systems that will sacrifice the individual to save the species. one. . .

that would lower construction costs, make better use of fuel management then today's reactors which i believe future nuclear power can be bright but we need to prepare now by building more reactors, ending the stalemate on what to do about nuclear waste. senator feinstein and i are uniting on that, stopping washington from picking winners

and losers in the marketplace which does incentivizes the use of nuclear power, pushing back on excessive regulation, witnesses will discuss r&d and steps we can take to maintain the fleet. we received the report in october, the secretary's energy advisory board, the challenges the nuclear industry is facing as well as steps necessary to develop new technologies and emphasize five factors limiting investments in nuclear power in our country. first is nuclear power doesn't get enough credit for being carbon free. new nuclear technologies are complex. we haven't solved the nuclear waste they'll meet which has been going on 25 years, market

conditions, such as an accident. at a time leading science academies of 20 developed countries and many americans say climate change is a threat and humans are a significant cause of that threat nuclear power produces 60% of carbon free electricity, power plants produce 40% of the carbon in the country. my hometown of tennessee, i had 20 fire marshals come around and tell me my house burned down and by fire insurance, my recommendation is we get insurance in this country against climate change was the best insurance in the near term is nuclear power. makes no sense to close reactors at the time people believe climate change is a problem, invest in the next generation of reactors, continue to work with regulatory commission with small

modular reactors. our bill, the appropriations bill includes 95 million for that work, task force recommends we undertake an advanced nuclear reactor program to support the design, development and construction of commercial scale reactor, looking forward to hearing more about that. doctor eisenhower who is here on behalf of the oak ridge laboratory, for advanced simulation of whitewater reactors supported discussion of that. by the end of the year the department would begin to process moving forward with interim storage facilities for nuclear waste solving something senator feinstein and i congratulate him for and encourage. i am pleased to report after our hearing the department took the

initial step of seeking information on private interim nuclear waste sites. we need to move on all tracks at the same time to solve the nuclear waste stalemate. appreciate the secretary's attention. the secretary took that important step, the new congress should take the next step to pass the bipartisan nuclear waste administration act produced last year by senator feinstein, congress should pass the pilot program that will allow the secretary is nuclear fuel, the pilot program and funding are included in this year's energy water appropriations bill, senator feinstein and i have recommended and the committee approved. we need to maintain our existing nuclear fleet, extend licenses from 60 to 80 years where appropriate and safe to do so

and relieve the burden of unnecessary regulation. use supercomputing resources, since another reactor has shut down, the nuclear generation station shut down on october 24th which means we lost another 480 mw of carbon free electricity. in conclusion i would say this. imagine a day when the united states is without nuclear power, that is a day i don't want to see in the future. it seems distant and unlikely but it is the real threat, 2038 just 20 years from now the reactors will have reached 60 years of operation representing 42% of nuclear generating capacity in the united states so our country could lose half of hour reactors, extended from 60 to 80 years and those reactors close. new reactors are being built over the southeast, eight

reactors, three in the northeast, plan to schedule to shut down by 2025. the energy information administration estimates shutting down these eight reactors causes the closing of fort calhoun will result in a 3% increase in total carbon emissions from the us electricity center. we need to take steps to ensure nuclear power has a future in our country. with that i would like to recognize senator feinstein, the distinguished ranking member for her opening statement. >> thank you very much, mister chairman and i think you know there's no one i respect more from either parties and you, one of my great pleasures has been to work with you and we do not agree on nuclear power as you know. because i am a history measure, i thought i would cite some

facts and history about the nuclear experience examining the potential risks and opportunities of advanced reactors is important. they are in competition with federal research funding with other clean energy sources. the 4400 mw california's nuclear power which is in the process of being shut down will be replaced with clean energy. california is going to aim to make 50% of its power all clean power before too long. some claimed the future is bright for this technology. i suggest otherwise. advanced nuclear reactors are those that achieve higher efficiency and electricity production with the use of graphite, salt and metal there's coolant and moderators instead

of water. in 1956 the united states navy admiral rickover, the father of the nuclear navy set of advanced reactors, quote, they are expensive to build, complex to operate, susceptible to lung shutdown, as a result of even minor malfunctions and difficult and time-consuming to repair. strangely enough, his words have been prophetic. in 1965, the sodium cooled fast reactor went online in southeast michigan, 10 months later it suffered a partial meltdown when a coolant inlet became locked and the court overheated. it operated from 1970 to 1972 when it was shutdown because of cost issues. the plants took 9 years to build and operate it only three years.

than in the 1970s the united states spent over $1 billion on the flint river breeder reactor project in eastern tennessee. costs were estimated at $400 million but by 1983 the gao said the project would cost $8 billion going through with uranium and plutonium processing. congress abandoned the project before construction was completed. president carter, a nuclear engineer set of the project, quote, the clinch river breeder reactor is a technological dinosaur. and assault on our attempts to control the spread of dangerous nuclear materials. it marches on nuclear policy in exactly the wrong direction. these are fundamentally the same reactor designs we are still

discussing today. more recently the fast breeder reactor in japan operated only a few months in 1994, and 1995 before a coolant leak caused the fire. then it operated again for three months, 2010 before another accident. after spending $12 billion building, briefly operating and repairing the facility, the japanese government decided last month to abandon the project once and for all. the recent history in the united states is not much better. the energy policy act of 2005 authorized doe to work with industry to develop the next generation nuclear plant. the plant was intended to process heat and hydrogen for

use in industrial applications. the program included cost-sharing research and development activity with industry that would eventually lead to a demonstration facility. by 2012 this committee had invested $550 million in the next generation nuclear plant and was ready to move into phase 2 by inviting industry participation. not a single company could be found to put up the meager $40 million cost share. depot e and did -- into the program in 2013 because the government could not justify spending millions to develop advanced reactor design. they have no real support from the industry. even if advanced reactors overcome their history of disappointment, this congress had not yet grappled with the need to find a workable solution

to nuclear waste despite the best efforts of this committee. a bottom line fact is the existing suite of reactors has generated 77,000 metric tons of highly radioactive fuel, staggering amount is growing by an average of 22 months per year. even if some advanced reactor designs someday run more efficiently or even consume more spent fuel, a future built on nuclear power is impossible if we don't have a solution for dealing with existing waste. the nation faces real challenges in addressing climate change, grid reliability, increased energy efficiency, a proper mix

of generation sources, in each of these areas this committee funds complex and necessary programs for research. i don't see how we can afford to diverge several billion more dollars from these programs in order to explore speculative technologies the industry itself has shied away from. i think nuclear power must overcome its own significant shortcomings, one, astronomical upfront loss, and two, waste that is toxic for thousands of years if nuclear is to be a significant solution to our climate challenges. before this committee decides to devote significant new resources to the development of advanced nuclear reactors i believe we need to see three things. one, a solution to nuclear

waste, long-term and viable. 2, an indication that these reactor designs can overcome their history of technical shortcomings. and 3, and industry willing to make a financial commitment on its own. i know that is a tall order so i very much look forward to our witnesses today. i have known john deutch for a long time and have great respect for him so i look forward to listening to his testimony of the others. >> senator tester. >> thank you, mister chairman for having this hearing, a good discussion to have and talk about the challenges and i appreciate you, mister chairman bringing up climate change because it is occurring whether we want to deny it or not, it is happening. i have been on the farm 1978 and things are happening that never happened before. some of them are good.

a lot of them are not so good. just for full disclosure, i have been a farmer my whole life, i lost money on an investment in an energy company that had a nuclear power plant, with that aside i certainly don't have issues with the power. there are positive things about the environment from a co2 standpoint and senator feinstein brought up some points on reactor design, the waste is the problem. we have got to figure out how you can repurpose it. we may be changing co2 for nuclear waste and i don't think we want to do that. we want to make sure if we have something our kids and grandkids and generations and generations from now can deal with, it has got to work so i appreciate the hearing. it is a good discussion and i don't think anybody in this

committee, i have the utmost respect for you, one to do something our kids will deal with forever. thank you very much. >> senator udall. >> doctor john deutch, usually we ask witnesses to take 5 minutes because that gives more time for questions but you are the only witness on the first panel and you have worked long and hard on task force report and you have a lot of experience. if you need more time than that why don't you take it? >> thank you very much, mister chairman. thank you, senator feinstein. i am pleased to be here. i was chair of the secretary of energy task force. >> speak directly into the microphone. >> is that better? if not, poke me again. i'm here to report to you on

this task force that i chaired and i want to make clear what our track was. the secretary asked the task force to describe an initiative that has the potential of giving the country the option, the ability to have between 5, and 10,000 gw of electricity in the time period 2030-2050. that was our task. many other questions about nuclear power were not part of our task and what to do to restore level that for example was here, i joined the department of energy in 1976. that was a task. the summary report, summary charts are in public domain supplied to committee staff so

i'm going to focus on the main views of the committee with the messages and say a few words about 5 or 6. here are the main take aways. if the country is going to have a nuclear option in 2030, it must undertake and initiative of the scope and size this committee described. doesn't have to be exactly the same. but if we do not undertake a major initiative now it is inevitable the 30 the country will not have a nuclear option. secondly, any such initiative will require time, considerable federal resources, redesign of electricity, and sustained skills management, there is no shortcut -- there won't be a

magic technology provider can get you reliable nuclear power. those are the take aways i1 speak to the 5 or 6 federal minded recommendations. first, as you know the nuclear fleet is aging and there have been a number of early retirements. the early retirements i do in many respects to the moves governing electricity rates and mismatch different in different parts of the country. which is the challenge of value-based nuclear power. examples include structure rates and wholesale capacity markets, preferential dispatch rules for renewable generation, exclusion of nuclear power for renewable portfolio standards and rates are inadequate to ensure recovery. the task force of course made several suggestions for

redesign, market rate structure, has to be done on a state-by-state basis and different states are approaching this in different ways, new york -- it seems to be suitable for that state. i believe illinois is under a detailed discussion it the present time for existing reactors. that disparity and market structure has to be addressed at a state level. won't be changed. the outlook for the construction of nuclear plants in the united states is bleak. primarily because of high overnight capital cost of nuclear power roughly $5000 prepared to natural gas, $1000 or less which makes the level of cost of nuclear power for the foreseeable future higher than the closest competitor which was

low natural gas prices and the cost of electricity for natural gas. the cost disparity would be greatly diminished if carbon free nature of nuclear power were recognized with the assessment of carbon emission charge based on the cost of carbon on fossil fuel generating and alternatively on a production payment to new nuclear plants by existing nuclear plants for their carbon free character. that is on the order of 2.7% per kilowatt hour, the carbon free equivalent value. wind, solar electricity generation have the same carbon free character, the ongoing production investing tax credits

making a contribution roughly comparable to the support so that would be a rule i would apply to carbon free electricity generation. task force actually recommends a two part problem not only about advancing nuclear reactors but are there light water reactor technologies which will lead to new structures of lower-cost which have other advantages such as modular reactors. the first aspect of the recommendations is pursue light water reactor technology which no longer have unproven technology but which have a practical place for cost, licensing and waste management, but all plants need to have

production payment towards equivalent in order to prove itself competitive with natural gas generation which is generating carbon. for advanced reactors based on new technology the task force recommends a four part program to bring an advanced program from the research level to construction of the first of its kind plant, first of its kind commercial plant. the task force base the estimate of the time, the cost of that as being $11.6 billion, taking about 25 years. an important aspect of that judgment is based on carefully looking at a stage by stage

development program concept to the structure of the first commercial scale plant. there are many who believe that could be shorter. we mentioned, mister chairman there are 20 or 30 venture capital based processes exploring these. they would see a smaller time in cost going through the advanced reactor. we don't believe that, one important way is to compare for development the task force proposed into the private sector. in any event what i want to leave with the committee, our judgment, roughly speaking a $6.5 billion program for the period to the point where you

start spending money, we talked about financing, that it should be in a well-run program roughly half provided by the federal government mostly in the early stages, efforts to reduce technology. the latter half by private-sector investors, practicality of these new reactors. let me next turn to us, cool cycles and waste management. when i was in the department of energy, the department confirmed the decision not to do commercial processing. the department continually proposed no additional funding but there was a great effort to

maintain white water reactor technology, the basis of the technology for next generation plants. no question about it. advanced reactors will have a different fuel cycle and therefore require different approaches for licensing and waste management as part of the challenge. we recommend for the management of this program we propose, 25 year, $11.9 million program, the creation of a qualified public corporation created by congress with a 1-time appropriation with that long period i was difficult

task going through several administrations which pay attention responsibly to the program. the blue ribbon task force you both support recommends the same thing, creation of a quasi-public corporation to carry out waste management there may be a possibility for having a single has committee staff suggested quasipublic corporation to carry out the new reactor development. the nrc today has only recent experience with white water reactor plants, that means if you want to proceed to an advanced reactor the nrc must develop a way to do that, licensing carefully requiring more time, more resources to do

the job event in a report we discuss the chairs of the regulatory commission on the task force staged approach, licensing advanced reactors, hedging some developers may choose to construct and licensed new advanced reactors in other countries for example china. i remind those developers it was here, the first time one of those plants come back to the united states they have to go through the entire nrc process always have the oversight. final point, mister chairman has to do with international law. for a long time counter proliferation policy of the united states when we were a world leader is based on the influence we had through our knowledge and our activities in

nuclear power technology. the plants built around the world won't be in europe or the united states which they will be in china, india, russia, several countries in asia, their first plant, turkey, jordan. we want to make sure the proliferation and safety of plants is maintained which we have a national security, maintaining international activities, especially safety. the future of nuclear power. i want to make a concluding remark. the task force is completely

unanimous in its report, a wide range, unanimous especially unanimous on the point that if the united states does not take an initiative like this the nuclear option won't be considered. that leaves open the broader question senator feinstein addressed, does the country need this? is a practical thing we can do given the fact we have a changing administration and there are widely ranging different views on that. it is not the case that everybody but our task force believe the country must do that though we all believe if you don't do something like it there is no possibility of nuclear power. a set of people say what is the consequence of not having that generation? it will be done with clean power. the differences on that too depends heavily, this committee

knows how the grid developed. let me say it again, we give you a program to which is in scale and time of dollars one way of getting a 30% cheaper, not 0 cost, nuclear power, and we raise a warning that if you don't do something like this the country does not have a nuclear option. thank you. >> thanks to you and your committee for your leadership as we have a round of 5-minute questions and i will begin, just to reiterate, today we have 99 reactors, about that, they produce 20% of all our electricity, 60% of our carbon

free electricity in the region i come from, tennessee valley authority expects to have 40% of its electricity from nuclear power within a few years and when combined with its pollution control equivalent on call it will be a very clean, lower cost mix of power. you are saying your committee unanimously agrees that if we don't take some action like the one the committee recommended that by 2030 as a country we won't have the option of having electricity produced by nuclear power, is that what you are saying? >> precisely. when i joined the department of energy 6 or 7 nuclear plants

were being fielded every year, we had four us manufacturing reactors at wilcox, percussion engineering, ge and westinghouse, four competing us firms. that kind of capability won't be there in 2030 for sure, no new plants will be built in the united states unless they have a very favorable regulatory finding about managing the market problems. >> we would lose 20% of our base load capacity for electricity based on capacity in this case and 60% of our carbon free. what is likely to replace that? >> natural gas. said of the or so plants will reach 80 years of age by 2038.

i personally do not think it likely the companies that manage those plants are likely to go from 60 to 80 years, they would require quite a lot of additional investment without any attention to not whether their cost of construction is cheap but if they don't have their electricity dispatched, they are not going to be there. >> to reiterate again you gave a recommendation and said unless you do something like a 25 year $11.6 billion program to create advanced reactors we won't have the option. something like that we were more likely to have the nuclear option. >> one step further, the first 5 years we propose the r&d thing,

meanwhile you have these white water reactors coming on, they may fit the bill but they will need some help and there is no certainty that will be there. there may be someone who comes forward with a white water reactor proposal to advance reactors, we are not married to any particular technology, the best technology developed. >> you said one of the difficulties, you mentioned five difficulties but one of them is nuclear power doesn't get credit for being carbon free at a time when many people think carbon free electricity is important and if i heard you write you said in order to get credit that would be equal to the credit given to wind power it would be two.7 cents per kilowatt hour. >> roughly. that is the tax credit. as you know, the penetration of wind and solar increases there

is an intimate the cost which has to be carried by somebody one way or the other. >> so at the moment taxpayers give winds for example a 2.7 sent advantage over nuclear power, both of them are carbon free. >> yes. i hope i would not be misunderstood to say we should take that away. >> i understand. >> carbon free electricity generation is important in the united states, the world, nuclear is an essential piece of that here and elsewhere in the world. >> i have known you for a long time. interesting to me because i look at this so differently. i look at it from a california perspective.

i have been to california edison, seen the reactors. they have a problem with steam generator. they buy from a japanese company. they are faulty, they end up having to shut down the plant, they have 3300 rods in spent fuel pools. no place to put them, they have a big security force, they have a plant on a shelf with 6 million people living around. then i get a call from tony early of pg and the that they are going to shut down most of their reactors because they believe they can find cost effective clean energy to replace their 1100 mw. so i have all this spend fuel

sitting in metropolitan areas in an earthquake prone state, the rim of fire going around the pacific with big quakes, the latest -- 7.8. i don't understand the push for this and the absence of a push to safely secure the waste. we have tried and he has enormous patience with me. we have tried year after year to get a pilot waste. we know there are people who want to build it, waste facility where some of this waste, even if you went ahead, it would be filled and we have 77,000 metric tons of hot waste all over the country.

to me, until you have a methodology to properly harbor this waste for the millennium it is ridiculous to talk about any of this because something is going to happen one day and it is probably on the pacific coast, some kind of fukushima is going to happen and all the properties -- probabilities of a big quake are up so i sit here and listen to this and it is like i am in a fairytale. what i see in my state the biggest reactors shutdown, waste filing up, it makes no sense to me and i don't understand why the industry doesn't help us push for waste facilities, and

they don't. >> i want to remind you these are very sensible questions to raise. our task was to describe it. just waste alone but i want to make some remarks about that. this congress commissioned a group of people under the chairmanship of hamilton, 2012 they came out with a report which was systematic approach to managing the waste. i got to say i am old enough to remember kansas trying to put the waste away and i will tell you that proposal from congressman hamilton is an absolutely sound way to in an orderly fashion address all the

concerns you properly are raising. >> we had hamilton, sat there with the chairs of the authorizing committee, we put together a nuclear waste policy for this country which was voluntary. we went through three chairs of the energy committee working on this from new mexico, bingaman, wyden, murkowski worked with us all along, we have a bill, two appropriators, two awful risers all support and it sits in committee and the nuclear waste industry does nothing to help pass it why? i don't understand this and we see the accidents take place. it is a kind of madness to build stuff and not be able to properly dispose of the waste.

>> pass the bill. california, if i can say a word about california which i know little about except i have two grandsons living there in palo alto who have much bigger interest in their safety. i don't know how california will manage without those plans that i don't think it is so clear that it is going to be cost free in a risk sense. i don't know the pg&e head but a lot of people in california know all about energy. won't be easy to get that energy. >> so far so good. >> so far so good, we have to keep at it but it is not at all clear. how it will come out. >> i plead with the industry to

help us get a permanent waste facility, and there have to be a number of them. the wet backs costing in the billions of dollars is expensive stuff. we deal with the waste, plutonium, uranium processing and it is the same kind of thing, comes in in the hundreds of millions and grows to the billions of dollars to build these facilities so somebody like me that sees what is happening in california says why are we thinking about this if we can't provide the infrastructure to do it right? >> we have to be players because there will be bigger problems with these issues in india and china and people will be building these plants will be russian firms, japanese firms, chinese firms, we have to be

players. >> thank you, senator feinstein and i will figure out that passage. senator udall. >> thank you for your commitment to this and thank you for the interesting testimony up until now and i hope it will continue. 110 nations ratified the paris climate deal which will demonstrate and initiate a need for nuclear power. here at home more than 360 businesses and investors support the paris climate agreement and a low carbon energy future for the united states. i am concerned about president-elect trump's statements about withdrawing from the paris agreement. many nuclear companies recognize the need for nuclear energy to meet a mission goal especially in the short term when we need dramatic movement on emissions.

withdrawing from paris will have potentially negative consequences on the future of nuclear power. can you give me a yes or no on that and expand the change i don't think so. i can't give you a yes or no -- i don't think it is a question -- my credentials here are to report on the secretary of energy's advisory board, not to make comments -- >> your expertise that you have directly reflect on this question. >> i'm just not going to be able to be helpful to you on this. i would go a different direction but this is not the occasion to address the question of paris. or more rocco now. secretary carrie, unless they are coming back, the top 22.

but i am not the person to ask about it. >> today, 20% of the us electricity and as the chairman said 63.3% of carbon free electricity is produced by approximately 100 nuclear reactors but many of these plants may be premature the closing before their 2030 planned retirement which will result in an increased proportion of energy produced by carbon emitting sources and other renewables, solar, wind, are able to replace the capacity of these. what structural or statutory changes are needed to ensure that our current nuclear energy fleet remains a part of the us's the permit the free energy grid and what structural or statutory changes are needed to enable

nuclear innovation and modernization of nuclear energy reactors? >> the answer is there has to be market redesign. that subject is dealt with in great detail, market redesign, what choices have to be made in the report that you would not want to hear me talk about all of them. let me just say you cannot have the circumstances around the country, not everywhere, southeast united dates, cannot have the market giving preference to dispatch of electricity to non-baseload generating plants, even if they were cheap. you have to find a solution to that on a state-by-state basis and it is a tough task but otherwise you continue to have

more early-retirement like california. >> i want to ask the first question in a different way. there are many efforts, at the international level, the state level, and our national level towards renewable sources of energy. pulling back on those, do you think would be a good idea? >> no. >> nuclear energy has a tax credit incentive, for many years as you know but that credit expired and the nuclear industry is preparing to ask congress for new forms of support. renewable energy credits were expanded as you know, they are being phased out and there is no guarantee they will be extended

again. rather than congress debating and continuing technology specific tax credits like the nuclear ptcs with the best policy being technology neutral price on carbon which would promote all clean energy technology including nuclear renewables and carbon capture. >> i didn't quite get the last sentence. >> the last is a long one. rather than congress debating and continuing new technology specific tax credits i mentioned earlier like the nuclear ptcs, with the best policy be a technology neutral price on carbon which would promote all clean energy technology including nuclear, renewable and

carbon capture? >> absolutely yes and i would include all the oil and gas as well which gives subsidies for certain -- i would answer yes. a single carbon charge. how the revenue is spent, how it looks elsewhere, the most efficient way to do it, some members of my task force, that is not part of my report. that is an initiative not to say as it is discussed. >> thank you very much. >> thank you for being here and your work on the report.

i share the issues with respect, to address the need to reduce carbon emissions, i share your concerns about the importance, and nuclear safety around the world. i remember, talking at the nuclear power plant in new hampshire relayed to me what is happening with russia after chernobyl to address safety there. those are very important and relevant as we think about, and several of the people here, and produce an energy bill, to make it to the floor. we have another bill currently being negotiated, not at all clear what makes it out of

congress and the future of nuclear power, we have not been responsive, to address the future challenges. in new england 30% of total electricity comes from nuclear power. the retirement of nuclear generators, you recommend significant reform for energy and electricity markets to produce nuclear reactors, discuss in a little more detail than you did in response to senator udall what those reforms should look like. as we look at wholesale electric operator in new england it is a challenge we have now and looking at in the future. what kinds of things are you

talking about? >> i won't do as good a job as i could if i were here with my task force, and the case of illinois, two reactors because there was no way to dispatch. at night, wind will bid negative prices in order, the production payment and tax benefits. you cannot have a situation where some sources of technology get dispatched with a favorable rate because of a government subsidy. others don't have a government

subsidy if they can't dispatch it. that is specific. many states do not acknowledge the kinds of rates that need to be set given the dispatch rules they have, get back the negotiation between regulatory commission but there is a balance not being met in many places. every state is different, the southeast, much more accommodating but without market reform, this won't happen. everybody in the committee with the task force. >> and burke have a role in this, to avoid this issue? >> i will get myself into trouble, a much larger role have

a supreme court decision, we have a long jealously guarded history of having local and regional utilities set their own rates on their own basis. it does in my mind require more of a role and another battle. >> i want to raise an issue at the nuclear power plant for relicensing in the early 2020s. they encountered issues concerning the asr reaction and they led to concerns about the safety, and licensing process.

is this something the committee looking at the future of nuclear power looked at? how should we address safety issues -- >> these plants turn -- >> this is not going to be 80. it is relatively young. >> as they get to be older questions are going to be raised that plants have to conform to. and assessment of the risk, we will not have to repair this and that will be done on a case-by-case basis. i don't know the circumstances. at one time i knew it pretty well but those questions, concrete is a big deal. >> thank you, mister chairman. >> john deutch, you have been a

perfect witness, good to have your experience and straightforwardness here, we thank you and your committee for your time and work. if you have additional comments you would like us to consider, we welcome you are sending them after you leave. it is time to go to the second panel. we will excuse you and ask doctor mckenzie and doctor eisenhower who i introduced earlier to come forward. doctor eisenhower's associate laboratory director at oak ridge, and doctor mckenzie, senior scientist, national defense counsel. doctor eisenhower, we will start with you if we may and i will ask each of you to summarize your testimony in five minutes

which will give us time to consider, to ask question, senator feinstein, we will conclude by then were not long after. doctor eisenhower. >> thank you, chairman alexander and ranking member feinstein. i am pleased to participate in this panel today. oak ridge national episode, i am privileged to lead a group of scientists and engineers as we address scientific and technological challenges in profusion of energy, and nuclear security. our efforts include advanced reactor technologies, sustainability, fuels, use

nuclear fuels, modeling and simulation such as consortium for advanced simulation of whitewater reactors, materials and extreme environments, manufacturing and maintenance technology, safety analysis and approaches. and nuclear security safeguards nonproliferation r&d, we are familiar with the nuclear cliff, which is the point in time the current plea to plants rapidly retires, how will we replace that capacity? how can we rapidly innovate and enable affordable and reliable advanced reactor technologies? the united states has historically led nuclear energy innovation and i believe we must continue to do so, and provide clean secure affordable energy,

and ensure it is positioned to compete internationally. rapid deployment of advanced nuclear systems requires a science-based design and licensing approach, with contemporary science-based tools and techniques, development is accelerated with high performance computing environments, and accelerate licensing, and nuclear systems directly affect economic performance and safety. the opportunity is a new generation of reactors will also employ a new generation of materials. we have the opportunity to see into reactors as never before. modern instrumentation and sensing techniques can optimize operations to further enhance safety. ..

rapid innovation will be essential. it requires collaboration month national laboratories, industry and universities your we must also leverage existing assets. for example, oak ridge national laboratory has unique facilities such as our research reactor and hot sales or the safe handling experimentation, and analysis of nuclear materials. we are working with idaho and oregon national laboratories to implement the department of ener