we are trying to coordinate. and we're not only looking at battery, we're looking at compressed air. we're looking at thermal storage. >> dr. chu, if you could send me the document that reflects this strategy, that's what i'm really asking for. i follow this. all i can see in terms of documents is the proposed cut in storage at the office of electricity. and i wasn't interested in debate that. what i wanted to see was something that would lay out a strategy. as i said, i've gone back several years with dr. kunan and others, and we haven't seen such a thing. if you can get that to me, we'll discuss it back and forth. but i really want to see here that i think would be unifying in this committee is an actual strategy that everybody would understand what the potential is and where we want to go. thank you, mr. chairman. >> just ten seconds. yes, the oe was cut because what we decided was it was much more

appropriate. it's increasing dramatically in offices of science and ere. so we were trying to consolidate where -- where we think it would do the most good in terms of the level of program management. so overall, if we gathered up all the pieces in energy storage, it's actually going up. >> senator portman? >> thanks, mr. chairman. and to the question whether energy storage is part of efficiency? yes. it is. and part of using our system more efficiently. earlier we talked about your commitment to a new enrichment technology that gives the united states the ability to get back on the cutting edge in terms of our technology, create great advanced manufacturing jobs. but also be able to supply our energy needs. and from a national security point of view, to deal with our need for tritium for the nuclear

arsenal which comes from enriched uranium. that comes from enriched uranium, correct? >> correct. >> and is that policy of this administration that we should have a u.s. source of lowly enriched uranium, tritium? >> it's not only the policy. by treaty, we're obligated to have u.s. sources to create our treaty. >> so this is a requirement that we have a domestic source. with regard to other activities, it's a huge campus. and would once again extend an invitation to you to come out. i think you would really enjoy seeing what is going on there and see the incredible work that has been done. over the years at this plant. but there is also a cleanup of is the gas diffusion technology still being used at pad duke car, but now at pie ten through an effort that administrations through the years have supported decontamination and

decommissioning that is going on there are actually 1950 workers involved with that. and i notice in the budget and am very concerned about it that there is a 33% cut from 190 million to 127 million. will this reduction in funding allow the department to maintain the commitment the department has made to accelerated cleanup that was made i think back in 2009? >> well, we are looking very hard at this. and yes, there is a decrease in the budget. we are looking, again, at all our options, whether we can do some bartering, things of that nature. but again, we have to be very careful whether that bartering will affect the markets. and so we are trying to figure out what the tools we have how we can move that forward. >> well, in the passage, you have both bartter and sold some of your own stockpile of uranium

to provide the additional funding and maintain that accelerated cleanup schedule. and it seems to me that that would be the right way forward you. say you need to analyze it more. what do you need to do? >> well, right now we have already analyzed that if we introduce into the market something 10% or below, that we feel safe that won't have a material impact on the markets. and we have not gone -- we don't know what will happen beyond that. >> it sounds like you have done the analysis like you did it in 2011, and it went through the third quarter of calendar year 2013, and you found no adverse impact for the level. >> the 10% market, yes. >> so i would hope having done that analysis that we could move forward to give the folks at the plant some certainty, and also

just to maintain the cleanup schedule on an accelerated basis. as i talked to you about, i worked a lot on the cleanup. and in the end we accomplished something great working with the department of energy on an accelerated cleanup. it was initially opposed by some people, including folks who had jobs at the plant to maintain the status quo. but in the end it saved the taxpayer somewhere between 3 and $4 billion by accelerated cleanup. so i know there is a temptation in the budgets to try to find savings, but i think this is a place where it would be penny-wise and pound foolish. in other words, i think for the taxpayer, it's definitely going to cost the taxpayer if we get away from accelerated cleanup. i strongly encourage you, mr. secretary, to look at that analysis again. and provide the funding through the sales to keep your commitment because i think it's the right commitment. it's gad for taxpayers and good for the site and good for the high-tech jobs that are there. >> yes, senator.

we did do the analysis for bartter and sales at the 10% level or below. right now we see us bumping up hard against that. if you want to ask us do an analysis higher than 10%, we would be receptive. but i think senator barrasso is not here. he might represent an alternate point of view. >> that's why i'm asking while he's not here. >> okay. >> no, i think seriously the analysis done last year was, as i understand it, conclusive as to not having a market impact. >> at the 10% level. but again, with all our obligation we are bumping up against that. so we would have to do another analysis to go higher. >> are you committed to the accelerated cleanup? >> we're committed to whatever the means we have and the constraints we have to do the best we can. and if you want to ask us to do another analysis, we'd be delighted to.

>> but we certainly would appreciate that analysis, if that's what it takes to be able to keep the commitment. because i do think it's the right thing to do for the taxpayer. and it's also the right thing to do certainly to keep onsite a lot of highly skilled people who are otherwise going to be found without a job or moving on and more difficult to bring them back to continue the good work that they're doing. the other issue, of course, we're very interested in being able to take some of the materials out of the decontamination and cleanup effort and be able to recycle those materials. we appreciate your cooperation with that effort. i know there is a concern with other agencies looking at the safety of that. but we they is an enormous benefit, again, to the taxpayer. and also through the processing provides good economic opportunities for our region.nk. >> senator franken? >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, mr. secretary, for your patience. i want to follow up on what senator sanders is talking about

in terms of i call it retrofitting. and i started a retrofitting initiative in my state called back to work minnesota. and i really believe that this is low-hanging fruit. that we -- what i'm trying to do is find innovative financing mechanisms to get that up-front money to retrofit commercial buildings, mush, municipals, universities, schools and hospitals, et cetera, and residential buildings. knowing that it pays for itself and it puts people back to work. it puts people in the building trades to work who are in a depression or a recession right now. they need the work. it helps our manufacturers in minnesota and would do this all around the country. it's sort of part of the president's better building

initiatives as well. i would like to just bring up few little areas in this. you talked about utility companies can provide the financing for this. in minnesota, we have a mandate for utility companies that they have to increase the efficiency of their users by 1.5% a year. this is a mandate that actually encourages the utilities to find retrofits or energy efficient projects that they can help finance. i was wondering if that -- do you think there could be -- if we legislated that as a national part of maybe the clean energy standard, if that would be helpful? >> i'm not sure. i think -- i don't know whether that has chance of passing, quite frankly. but let me just say -- >> let's say it did. >> that would be helpful.

here is another thing that would be helpful. it happens now in new york and massachusetts and california, maybe a couple of other states. if the regulatory agencies who set the rates say that if the utility company gets an equal return on an investment if they help a customer, a business, a homeowner and they loan them money to retrofit that that is seen as investment of the utility company which they're entitled to a return on their investment. utility companies -- a highly rated utility company has access to fairly inexpensive capital. >> yes. >> so they're -- they became a bank for the business, for the homeowner. but you're entitled to recover for your investment in energy efficiency. so instead of building another

power plant -- >> oh, exactly. that's why minnesota put this in. >> right. >> let me talk -- i have limited time -- pace. property assessed clean energy financing. this is basically done for commercial buildings we say a state or a county can lend money to a commercial building to do a retrofit. sometimes an esco gets involved in all this. but some part of the financing can be this p.a.c.e., which puts a property tax on even if the building gets sold, that property tax continues. and it's a great model. and again, what i'm trying to do is just find financing models for this. on residential p.a.c.e., putting a property tax on doing retrofit, to finance retrofit, the fhfa will not give mortgages

to a resident -- residential -- to a home with p.a.c.e. because p.a.c.e. would get paid back before the mortgage do. you think that's a wise policy by fhfa, and is there anything you can do? i've written them a letter. would you join my letter or would you -- >> well, i've been talking to shawn about this. and he and i are trying to be supportive as possible. i think the issue was even the lenders don't want to even be -- let's say you have loaned 200,000 to buy a home, and the homeowner wants another $10,000 for home energy improvements. and to be -- to have equal footing in the payback. the lenders are fighting back and say no, we don't want to do that. that has to be -- the p.a.c.e. is viewed as essentially a mortgage, and it has to be behind the initial mortgage.

even to get it even would be of great help. so we're trying to work this thing through. but the lenders really feel that nothing should stand in the way of them and the first mortgage. >> well, very often the lender would be the city or the county. and this is when someone is buying -- buying the house, but it may be when they've been in the house for a while. it's just about making that home for efficient and, again, putting people to work, putting people to work who are in the building trades, people who are in the manufacturing, and making that home more energy efficient, and bringing down the cost of energy in their community. >> i'd love to talk to you. the time is up. >> yes. >> if the chair would indulge me a minute there are a couple of

other ideas we think are worth thinking about. on the commercial sector, there are real estate investment trusts. >> reits this. >> reits. we feel all we is perhaps even a clarification from treasury that if this real estate investment trust of a commercial building wants to invest in a new hvac system or more energy efficient windows, let's say an hvac system. >> okay. >> would you allow that to be depreciated as a capital expenditure cost as differentiated from the deappreciation rate for the building. and just the clarification of that i think would spur a lot of investment. because these reits quite often own office buildings. and they pay the energy bill because occupants come and go and they don't want to simply meter all the time. and then it goes into the rent. so a very simple clarification

could spur a lot of investment. because it will make to them. it won't cost the government any money. but that would be good. there are a couple of other things. i think if sometimes retrofits actually there is a community block that a couple of homeowners get together and one homeowner has a good experience. you know, i'm saving a lot of money. but now you can capitalize on it have. the block party. talk about it. and make it a group thing. so if you get five people, eight people to say we will do this, but you demand a discount rate, a 30% discount on the energy ordered and the insulation and everything else. because to the contractor, it's great. they send a truck out and they go bang, bang, bang, down the row. that can greatly reduce the price of retrofitting and drive it up and actually get some social awareness in this as well. but it's all about saving money by saving energy.

the finance part of that, you know, if you lower the price by 20, 30, 40%, the finance decreases. go back to utility companies, companies that have access to low-cost financing. moderate interest rate is a no-brainer. you don't -- you're not out-of-pocket expenses. you're saving more and paying back the debt -- the money to pay back the debt is less than the money for your energy bill. and it's immediate jobs. >> exactly. >> and that is immediate jobs that could be for decades, right. >> yes. >> we have 140 million homes. >> right. >> i think probably 80 million could use an energy uplift, face-lift or whatever you want to call it. so there are many things that we are mulling about and trying to get programs. and we have a number of programs to -- those are some of the ideas we're talking about. also to stimulate state and local governments, to think of

better ideas. again, a lot of this can be driven by the private sector. >> absolutely. >> because energy efficiency does save money. >> absolutely. it doesn't need government money. it just needs -- but can my office work with your office? because right now i have written down reits and house parties. >> yes. block parties. >> block parties. that's what i meant. i'm glad you corrected me. thank you. >> thank you. senator hoeven, you have the final questions. >> assuming nobody else wanders in here, which i very much hope. >> i'd like a third round on block parties. >> we'll schedule that for the week after christmas. good ahead, senator hoeven. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and again mr. secretary, thank you for being here. you've been out to our state i think several times. we appreciate it. we would like to have you back. but i really am looking for help on this vitally important issue of energy infrastructure. in our last question and answer

period here, we went through pipelines. and you said well, we're trying to build all these pipelines. and you talked -- if i could finish -- you talk about all these pipelines that we're trying to build around the united states. so my question to you -- and you'll acknowledge that there is thousands of pipelines under the entire country. so why are we unwilling to build a pipeline that will bring crude in from canada and will help us move our crude in the country? why is that? >> well, first, we're not unwilling. the president's position and the state department's position, not the doe's, but we're not in decision-making loop. we're asked to give technical advice on certain things. but is that they wanted an evaluation of the environmental impact. the pipelines that are being built in the country are investments of the private sector.

and i see a lot of healthy movement in the pipeline construction within the united states. in large part because of the ability to get oil from shale-like rock. this is a big boon in your state. and you got to get that oil to the refineries. and this is also wealth creation. and it's decrease oil dependency, all good things. the private sector is the one that is investing in the pipelines. and that's what has brought about -- the only time the government actually steps in is -- well, there is ferc issues. but in terms of the one you're worried, concerned about is the one that goes across the border. >> right. >> and then that's a state department issue. >> if i may, mr. secretary, you brought up two great points. your technical advice, again, the department of energy. this administration's department of energy the report i sided said that the keystone pipeline

will lower gas it will lower gas prices, east coast, gulf coast and midwest. it includes the gulf coast refineries will likely consume additional canadian oil sands well in excess of what would be provided by keystone xl pipeline. again your experts. the reason i cite this is some have said we'll bring it in from canada and then export it somewhere else. your own exports have said it will be used here and we're going to need more, not less. so it won't be exported. so again on your technical advice you said the department of energy that will reduce prices and it will be used here, not exported. your expert. i appreciate your technical advice. i think it's very good. i compliment you for it and thank you for it. private sector investment, this

is a $7 billion private secretary iron vestment, not one penny of government spending. again i say given it would bring us more crude which we otherwise have to get from the middle east and venezuela and you know what's going on in the middle east and it helps us with the bottle necks, we have $27 a barrel crude in my state, unbelievable traffic because of truck traffic and oil trucks that we'd like to use the pipeline for. not only do we have discounts for our producers and infrastructure problems, we have consumers and businesses paying $3.52 a day, the highest it's ever been this time of the year in our country, which hurt our economy. why would we conceivably allow this, i don't understand it, when you said we're willing to build pipelines. i don't understand it. >> well, senator, i don't know the particulars. usually when you have trucks, trucks are short-term interim

solution to a region if you expect sustained oil production, they're very expensive, as you well know, as well as being very disruptive. >> i agree. which is why we need the pipelines. >> so, again, if we're talking about the trucks in north dakota and wyoming, the private sector -- i don't know the particulars about this but i think once you see a lot of truck traffic, that's almost the last resort. it goes pipeline, then -- >> mr. secretary, i'm looking for help here. frankly your experts have been helpful and they've been right on the money literally. they've reported this thing straight up and i appreciate it. maybe we conclude with is you a you know in our state when we talk about all of the above energy development, we don't just talk about it, we do it. if you go to our state, you'll see wind, biofuels, you'll see

ethanol, biodiesel, shale gas, oil, you'll see hydro, biomass, all of these. in other words, we're really doing it. but the reality is to get to that all of the above, that means we have to try to develop ought of them, not pick winners and losers. so i'm looking for help in this endeavor. let's touch for just a minute on in-situ. mr. chaeirman, i may go over my time just a minute. with the development of the canadian oil sands oil, 80% of the new development is in situ, whereas instead of exka craving, you'd actually drill, so your greenhouse gas is the same as conventional drilling, right? talk to me in terms of with canada, united states, and some help from mexico, we produce 70%

of our crude, add keystone and we go to 75 plus add the possibility for much more. 80% of the new development is in-situ. why wouldn't we be trying to do all of of that that we can from an energy standpoint, the concept of the north america energy independence, isn't it th a plan that gives us an opportunity to truly get to all of the above? why aren't we doing it? how can you help us get this done? >> well, again, the first -- i agree that in-situ is environmentally much preferred than the open pit mine that started with the oil sands because it leafs a lot of the really gunny stuff that we don't want down in the ground -- >> 80% of the new development is

in-si in-situ. >> it is much preferred than open pit mining. again, it's not a question of why don't we. this is where industry's going because as they develop those sands, they're finding out they're going to have to go deeper and it doesn't mack sense economically to do open. mining. there's also environmental clean-up they have to face with open pit mining. the in-situ recovery is much more desirable. >> and you address that problem, too, correct? >> again using natural gas to heat steam is going to cause more carbon. refining issues are much easier, all sorts of issues are easier. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> mr. chu, you've been very generous with your time. we appreciate you being here. so that will conclude our

hearing. >> thank you, mr. chairman. the house committee talks about the president's 2013 budget requests and remarks by the chinese vice president. house budget committee chairman paul ryan said on wednesday that the white house greatly exaggerated deficit reduction figures in its 2013 budget request. testifying before the house budget committee, acting

director jeffrey zients said it includes infrastructure and other programs while also taking steps to reign step to rein in the long-term budgetl matters. >> welcome all to this importann hearing.

and mr. zients i do not envy your task today, you are new to the job and got thrown into the breech and you came late with respect to preparing this budget and you have got a very tough dt job ahead of you. with the departure of jack lou, you got thrown in at the late moment.ch i want to tell you first bring g you into this.go thank you for serving our country. you came from a successful private sector career back to government and we applaud that. i think that these things go d without saying but they are -- they bare repeating. an problem is, you're in the position of defending a budget that dodges the most difficult he challenges that our country ecuy faces.on's the new york times reported that

this is more a budget than it is this is more a budget than it ih for the campaign.lity for it's hard to disagree with thist the associated press quotes, takes a pass on reigning in jack government growth, instead it leaves the drivers of the debt and entitlement programs largelt unchecked and the programs threaten to end the guarantee on the security that they provide d for the nation's seniors and it breaks the president's promise to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term. days as abc news reported, this budget doesn't come close. we have heard a lot of excuses from this administration ask to why the president broke his promise but we have not heard u any accountability. to the best of my knowledge, no one in the white house has taken responsibility for this failure instead we get a blame game that does not stand up. jack lou, your former boss, t claimed that the reason that ths senate democrats have not passe a budget in over 1,000 days because republicans have rce threatened to filibuster, and cn that is false. we all know, that budget resolutions cannot be filibustered, they can be passed with a majority vote, but the senate democrats chose not to do so, the source of dysfunction comes from the members of the is president's own party who have been unwilling for three years e now to go on record in support