the country. it's a wise treaty. you don't want one country using technology of another country of enriched uranium that they can turn into weapons. >> right. >> so we need our own indigenous source of uranium for -- to maintain our stockpile, also uranium that we produce -- >> that -- >> then a larger issue about the civilian nuclear side, much larger amounts of uranium. we think that if the united states -- certainly the united states will be a player. the united states is well respected for its safety record, for its care, and the way it handles its own civilian nuclear industry and for the technologies that it has developed, companies like ge, westinghouse. it would also benefit if we had a, a home-grown new technology

for enriching uranium for, again, so that we can offer for sale to other countries, other developing countries, you know, france is a player in this. russia's a player in this. we think that if the united states is a supplier of this uranium, that we could have a moderating effect, again, on nonproliferation, it's for that reason as well. >> in essence, discourages emerging economies from developing their own enrich mch ment, that it can come from the united states, it will be a stable, affordable supply to a domestic source? >> that's correct. if you put yourselves in the shoes of another country who might want to have nuclear technology, they wouldn't want to see several suppliers so they would not beholden to one or two and we also feel that the united states in its, can lead by example of helping do what we

can do in order to decrease the risks of proliferation. so it's that whole nuclear supply issue. we will be a player no matter what, but it would certainly benefit from that respect a well. >> my time is up, mr. chairman. thanks, mr. chairman for giving me the little time there. i appreciate the follow-up. nch>> senator? >> thank you mr. chairman and for all you are doing. let me begin by saying that i agree with senator shaheen and many others that it's absolutely imperative that we pass the production tax credit at 1603. it is beyond comprehension to me we are not moving forward aggressively and i thank the administration for their support on it. i also want to thank you for your help in the smart grid. probably the first state in america that have almost universal smart meters within a few years and we think if we're

serious about energy efficiency and using electricity as major step forward and i hope can learn the nation can learn from what vermont will be doing. we want to share that with the rest of the country. mr. secretary, it seems to me that one of the sad moments in terms of what's happening in our country today is the degree to which as a nation, as a congress, we are not dealing with the horrendous planetary crisis of global warms, and i say this not to be terribly partisan here, but it is very sad that we have a major political party where many of its leading members actually object what eventually the world scientific xmunt saying, a, about the reality of global warming, b, that it is significantly caused by man-made activities and, c, that if we

are aggressive we can begin the process of leading the world in reversing green house gas emissions. and without getting partisan, it's just sad to me that we have so many people rejecting what is very clear scientific evidence nome in this country or from scientists all over the world. in terms of cutting green house gas emissions, i think that energy efficiency is a huge step forward. i don't think there's much disagreement on that. i think weatherization is a very important part of that. i come from a cold weather state. we are making some progress in retrofitting homes, and when we do it well what we are seeing is often working families, lower income people saying, you know, i've cut my fuel bill by 20% or 30%. i'm saving money as a consumer. we are emitting less greenhouse emissions and creating jobs because people are working on those homes. if there's any win-win-win situation, that i see in this country, being aggressive about

weatherization is it. and yet within a pretty good budget, you guys have cut weatherization. why? >> well, actually, if you look at our request, i believe it's up from what was given to us for fy12, and -- >> well, here's the story. the budget before us actually investments only half as much in weatherization for 2013 as we did in 2008. that was last year of the bush administration. 2012, congress approved huge cuts to weatherization, dropping funding to $68 million in 2012 down from $227 million in 2008. now, you're right. you went up from last year, but significantly below where we were in 2008. would you agree with me that investing in weatherization is a win-win-win situation? >> oh, i agree, and so we've

asked for an increase. not quite double, but a big increase from what we were authorized, but -- and i think programs that with not only the federal dollars but also programs -- because i really think if done right, weatherization can actually savo borrow, whether you're a business or homeowner, if paid back in moderate interest loans can actually decrease your bills. >> right. no. we certainly agree. i hope that you will work with us, because i don't know that there's any, much partisan disagreement on that. it's common sense. if i lower your fuel bill by 30%, why not? right? >> right. >> and if we create jobs as part of that process, that's a winner. let me ask you this question -- ishs i am working on a concept, again which should not be partisan called on bill

fighting. one of the thing problems we have in terms of weatherization if ron wyden here wants to reduce his fuel bill in his home, and knows that retrofitting will do that, but he doesn't have the up-front money. if we can get him the $s 15,000 he needs to cut his fuel bill and pay it back by the reduced amount of money he's spending on fuel, just lending him the money, he's paying it back, what ideas do you have about how we can get middle-class, working families that up-front money so they can weatherize, lower their fuel bill and save money in the long run? >> well, a number of things. first, usually one is most motivated and has the capacity when they are buying a house. and we have in the toolbox, i think it's hud has energy mortgages not widely

appreciative and not widely known. one way to stimulate that is encourage lenders. lenders, they ask for a person's income. they want to know they can pay the mortgage, of course. ask for property taxes because that's the cost of owning the house. they ask for a lot of things. structural engineers because they don't want their asset, the bank's asset, to fall down. it would not be too much to say, why not get a structural energy order from the engineer and to make a wiser home owner that can -- >> i agree, but it is not only people who are just purchasing a home. you have people have older homes. you work with us, will you work with us on this bill financing coming up -- >> yes. >> -- loans that will be paid as a result of a lower bill? >> yes. >> it's a win-win situation. will you work with us on that. >> absolutely. briefly i think utility kp

companies can play a role as well. they have access to moderately low capital. >> that's true. thank you. >> the senator arrived and asked for a few minutes to review this notes. some have additional questions. i have one additional question, mr. secretary irs wanted to ask, and then we'll see if others do as well and then senator hovin can ask his questions when he's ready. i wanted to ask about the department's plans at los alamos national lab, now that the chemistry and metallurgy nuclear facility has been put on hold. for many years now we've been told that the replacement nuclear facility was necessary. now we are told there may be alternatives, that the department wants to pursue. could you describe what changes in operations and staffing you

anticipate at los alamos now that the cmrr has been delayed? >> well, much of the staffing i don't think it's directly -- so what we plan to do is go ahead and complete substantially the design of that building. so what we have been putting in previously was mostly engineering design. we're going to get to perhaps 90% of the engineering design part of it. that's very prudent for a number of reasons, because before you start construction, it's best that you have most of it designed. but you're correct. we are now putting that on hold while -- because of the budget constraints of the nsa. we have to look at all the other projects, and we could not simply -- we felt we could not simply start cmrr and upf, the uranium processing facility, at oak ridge, and we felt there was

more compelling reasons to begin that. we're looking at ultimately the plans. we can consolidate. the footprint is there. there can be other parts of this. we are looking at, as we look towards a new start and beyond new start, and working with the defense department as to what our requirements to fill the defense department, so as that works out that will be folded into it. so we'll essentially begin to complete the engineering design add then and then try to figure out how to reposition. again, because what is different as you all know is that we have severe budget constraints and we do have a deficit.

>> but you are not real clear as to what -- what additional actions the administration would expect to take to meet its needs, the needs it was expecting to meet through the construction of this cmrr? >> there -- yes. we're looking at some of the things that the cmrr building would have done. we are looking perhaps to offload some of that to other, for example, forgetting what the name of it was called. used to be called the nevada test ground. they have a new name for that. also some issues in what -- so we are looking very closely at how we can best fulfill our obligations and needs for our nuclear security. we believe that -- so -- and our overall plutonium strategy.

but there will be some cmrr in los alamos but, again, we don't know whether there are other options. >> let me ask senator, are you ready for your questions before i ask others if they have a second round of questions? >> i am, mr. chairman. thank you. >> why don't you go ahead. >> appreciate it. mr. secretary, good to see you again. thank you for being here. i'd like to ask you a little about gasoline prices. i'm sure you're well aware that the average price for gasoline in the country right now is over $3.50. according to both aaa and the lundberg survey. up 90% since the current administration took office. and so my question relates to, why aren't we advancing projects like the pipeline to bring more supply and help bring gasoline prices down? you were asked to review that project with the department of energy, they were asked to review the project by the state department, and your expert, dr.

carmine -- i'm going to probably miss on the last name. you might have to help me. defiglio? does that sound about right? >> sounds about right. >> all right. anyway, he was ask eed to revie the keystone pipeline project and comment whether it would help reduce gas prices in the united states, and i'll quote from his report. gasoline prices in all markets served by pad one the east coast and three the gulf coast refiners would decrease. gasoline prices in all markets served by pad one on the east coast and three the gulf coast would decrease including the midwest. and that was by your expert, dr. defiglio. department of energy, june 22, 2011. so my question to you is, here we have rising gas prices, putting a strain on our

consumers, on businesses, on the economy, and yet the administration turns down a project that would help us reduce gasoline prices. why is that? >> first, let me say, i'm not aware of this report. so i can get back to you on that, but it is my understanding that, as i tried to explain, that the gasoline prices in the united states are affected by refined capacities and by access to those refiners. the biggest bottleneck was the bottleneck from cushcushing, oklahoma to houston. there was a very large price differential of crude in houston -- in cushing versus in houston. that wa taken care of by the

pipeline, the people who invest in pipelines, and as that is being taken care of as we speak, there are numerous pipeline plans for enlarging that pipeline and one pipeline is being reversed so that refined products from houston and louisiana can be then imported to the midwest. another pipeline from chicago to cushing also in the -- is being built, as far as i know. so much of the pipelines in the united stateshat would bring oil from wyoming, north dakota, and to get the oil to the refineries that have the capacity, back up, are being done in the private sector. and so we think that this is on a path that is creating jobs, that is going to be helping. in the end, the gasoline prices, we are very concerned about, and the administration has taken, in

addition to -- i mean, this pipeline activity occurs because once you see big price differentials the industry steps in and says, hey, we can fix that. in addition to that, we are doing a lot, for example, the -- twice we've changed the mileage standards of automobiles. this directly affects the american public. by 2025, the estimate is, the fleet average would be saving on average americans over the lifetime ownership of that car by $8,000 in gasoline bills. >> mr. secretary, so you're saying that while you've been part of this administration, gasoline prices have gone up 90%, we're looking at $4 gasoline by memorial day. maybe $5 gasoline this summer. you're saying you're willing to build all kinds of pipelines but unwilling to build a pipeline that will bring 830,000 barrels in day into this country from

other klaclosest friend canada where we now produce 500,000 barrel as day, now discounted $27 a barrel, light sweet black and crude off texas intermediate, $27 a barrel discounted because we don't have the pipeline kbaft capacity to it down to refineries and put 100,000 barrel as day in that pipeline. instead we have to run trucks over the road. traffic fatalities, wear and tear on our roads. you just got done saying you're willing to build all of these pipelines. why not the keystone? >> the pipelines from wyoming and north dakota can be built. actually the administration -- there is not a decision the administration need make on that. this is all in american territory. the only part of the pipeline the state department was asked to weigh in on was the part that went from canada to the united states. so specifically, and the

pipelines i was talking about are actually helping bring the oil from your state down to those refineries. those things are things where -- >> that's not the case. i just explained to you the pipeline that would help us bring the oil from my state down to the refineries. >> well, my understanding is, if you look at the pipelines that exist today, and you look at the major pipelines, those pipelines and we're talking now specifically about the part of the pipeline that goes from canada into the united states, those -- that is not the -- my people tell me that for the next decade or so, with the anticipated increase in production of canadian oil, that that will not be the bottleneck. where we have a bottleneck now is in this cushing to houston. there's another bottleneck from chicago and also pipe lines that

go from that go from my state to chicago. so those things are being built. so those are taken care of as we speak. >> i see i'm over my time, mr. chairman. i will defer for a second round if that's the wishes of the chair. >> all right. why don't we go ahead with the second round. senator, did you have questions? >> i do. thank you for your patience, secretary. several weeks ago we had presentation eia presented the global picture. and i had an opportunity to ask the witness his opinion on where alaska natural gas fit into the bigger picture as we talk about domestic natural gas. senator widen has on many occasions before this committee asked questions about the export of domestic product here.

and you as the secretary have the authority to sign off on whether or not export is in the national interest. in his opinion, alaska was viewed separately from the lower 48 market. different type of gas. different processes. and, clearly, a different market. alaska and we are most of the lower 48. ultimately they sign off on export licenses. how do you view alaska's natural gas and whether or not this is something that would be viewed differently than the domestic, the lower 48 natural gas production. >> well, given the charge of the

decisions we would have to make on allowing the export of natural gas, it would again have to be folded into what would be in the best interest of the united states. >> certainly. >> you correctly pointed th eed that alaska is in a different location. but we would have to fold all that in. i don't know what howard said, but it is very clear that before we license anybody as we deal with these applications, we just have to be very cautious of the fact that we don't want to have a significant impact on the gas prices. again, considering the benefit of the united states and its totality. and so i really can't comment on what it's going to be the economics unless, yes, having said that, you know, we are, you know, alaska does have natural gas and -- >> lots of it.

>> yes. >> right. >> and we're still trying to figure out how we access that. and that's our challenge in the state right now. but one of the things that we are looking at is the prospect of rather than sending it through canada through an extraordinary transportation system to move it through the state liquefy it and move towards export. it's not a decision that has been made yet. we've got a long way to go. but it is an issue where for us in the state it is a very different market. it is a very different gas. and i look forward to the opportunity to speak with you more about that. just segueing here, we also have had the chance to talk about arctic meth and hydrates and the great potential that we have. i understand that meth they're going to continue to be a part of the natural gas technologies and are budget which is good.

we're not the only country, of course that, is working on this. we have a good partnership going with japan. i guess the question to you on this is right now there is a -- there's scheduled to conduct major test up in the arctic in los angeles in partnership with japan on hydrate flows and pressures. i know doe had hoped to follow up on this test. so i'm wondering if you can tell me what the level of commitment is from d.o.e. to continue this public-private -- the progress that has been made to advance the research in an area that i think we recognize holds great potential. it may be further out in the distance than some of the technologies that are in front of us. but exciting if we can get there. can you give me any updates? >> sure. >> specifically the commitment that the d.o.e. has to this. >> sure.

we're going ahead with this test. japan is very interested. they have reserves off the coast. and as you noted, it can -- if we -- if one can figure out how to extract it without plugging gas lines and all those other things, it would be -- it could be as significant or even far more significant than the technology that was developed for shale gas. so we are looking forward to the test. but test is one part of a program going forward before quite candidly before industry actually would want to begin to invest in it on their own. so, again, it's this balance. right now industry is not, you know, they view meth and hydrates as something that clogs up their lines rather than a potential source. and just like with shale gas, if

it looks like it can be developed and initially gets invested, that is part of the strategy. then they can take it over. right now the program being done in alaska is actually being directed by a d.o.e. scientist and so it is a research project. but it's just one part of that research project. after this stage, we see it continuing. >> well, i think that's important. we recognize that apparently there's 12 million now proposing this budget for all methane hydrate next year. it's my understanding that this test is going to -- is going to be more expensive. so the commitment then from d.o.e. will be important. we'll follow up on this conversation. thank you, mr. chairman. >> senator widen? >> you've been a patient soul. you have sat in that seat for 2 1/2 hours. as you can sttell, up on this se

of the desk, there are diverse views with respect to energy. folks would care about wind and solar and coal and nuclear. and so there is a wide variety of opinion. i want to ask you about an area that i think would be unifying and something that i think you in particular could champion and that is energy storage. when you look at energy storage this is something that makes wind and solar, for example, more economic. but it also is hugely beneficial to base load technologies like coal and nuclear. kit help them meet their peak electric demand and helps the transmission system operate more efficiently. so you've got something that is cross cutting in terms of technology, literally benefits every corner of the country. in other words, i can't find a corner of the country that wouldn't benefit from it. and, yet, we haven't been able to get in place a clear strategy

to tap the potential of energy storage. a couple years ago your science adviser, a very distinguished individual. i asked him about energy storage. he said we're going to wait and see what happens. and basically we have gone through a variety of debates. i'm concerned, for example, then in the office of electricity in this budget it looks like energy storage is cut. but i want to set that aside. i want to ask you what would it take to get you and the department to lay out for us a significant strategy to tap the potential of energy storage? i mean it has the real potential for production and distribution. it's not consumption. it's almost the other side of the coin of energy efficiency. and it could be something that would be backed by democrats and republicans. it would be cross cutting in terms of technology and, yet, so little has been done to lay out

an opportunity for real strategy here. could we persuade you to do that? >> you don't have to persuade me. we are doing that. this is one of the reasons why one of our hubs is in energy storage hub not only for automobiles but for utility. it's compressed air. it's thermal storage. i talked about how can you use night time energy to process heat. sometimes when the wind is blowing, there is nowhere to put that electricity. you can put that in lots of kinds of storage. either hydrostorage. that is something that we're pushing very hard. it is a form of storage. and we have a target. you know, we know that energy storage at the