been and how much time and what the costs would be to get them to the commercial level. and senator shaheen, again, was part of that in adding an assessment for what some of the barriers are for large carbon capture and storage. so my question to you there would be, you know, what is the pathway and what can the department give us in terms of information as to what your scientists believe is the way to move to commercially viable demonstration projects? >> sure. first, the carbon capture technologies that are being tested today, and i'll divide them into two categories. this is after combustion you capture the carbon. there are mea type technology or chilled ammonia type technologies. those are being pilot tested. they're by and large in the commercial sector. we feel that we would like to develop less expensive means

because if you make -- if you put in an estimate of how much it would increase the electricity bills, we think that this would not -- this would not spur -- not in the united states, but it would not spur china and india into using these technologies. so we would like to improve them. we think there are potential ways of improving them. one of the potential ways is to -- these are your very large, high surface areas. so we're investing a lot of research to decrease the size of these capture stacks. totally different ways of doing it. so instead of that being absorbed in certain material, you can use small particulate matter at the nanoscale. so we're investing a lot of research in that. we're investing in ways of -- another way is to separate oxygen from nitrogen. >> dr. chu, i guess what i would ask, this is the danger of having someone who actually knows something about science

testify. >> i'll try to suppress it. >> i guess i would ask, if you're willing, i'll submit a question for the record. i know a lot of members of the committee would be interested in your response. both on the specific technological improvements you would recommend, but also what the department sees as the pathway forward here. and i don't see it in the budget and, again, i think it would be very valuable to the committee. >> in a short, very brief time i say the path forward is to take advantage of the industry's interest on the piloting side in the carbon capture utilization. >> we want it to be cost-effective. it seems to me there is an opportunity here. and we're not taking advantage of it. with regard to uranium enrichment, i appreciate the fact that in the budget you do talk about the need for us to have a domestic source. and, in fact, provide in the defense nuclear nonproliferation account $150 million for domestic uranium enrichment development, demonstration, research. you and i have talked about this a number of times before.

it's interesting you include it under nsa rather than the nuclear energy account. i think it would also be appropriate under the nuclear energy account. is there a reason for that? >> no, that was signed by people more like you than me. >> uh-oh. >> no. >> i see what you're saying. >> no. i'm just saying you have to park it somewhere. it was certainly appropriate to put it in nsa budget. >> we'd be very interested in working with you on that. and i do think there are some appropriators who are particularly interested in knowing which account it's going to come out of and where it's coming from. i think a conditional loan guarantee would be a far better solution. but given where we are and needing to have a domestic source of enriched uranium, i think it's important we move forward. and the more information, the better. with regard to enriched uranium, if you could just talk for a moment about why you think it's so important, obviously we need it for our nuclear power plants. at one point we had a majority

of the enriched uranium in the world being produced by the united states. i think we're down to about 25% of the world's supply of enriched uranium now. and maybe the place to start is where do we get it now that we aren't producing nearly as much as we used to? >> well, there are two parts to this. one is the military side, the secured side. we have international treaties which we want to abide by, nonproliferation treaties which says that the uranium used for nuclear security purposes actually has to be indigenous to that country. it's a very wise treaty. because you don't want one country to be using technology of another country to enrich uranium that they can turn into weapons. >> right. >> so we need our own indigenous source of uranium for our -- to maintain our stockpile.

also uranium that we need to produce tritium for the stockpile. then there's 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 homegrown 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 is 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 issues. so it's for that reason as well. >> in essence, discouraging emerging economies from developing their own enrichment capabilities. >> right. >> saying the fuel they need for a peaceful nuclear power facility can come from the united states. it will be a stable, affordable supply through domestic -- >> that's correct. in fact, if you put yourself 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 be 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 the whole nuclear supply issue. we will be a player no matter what, but it would certainly benefit from that respect as well. >> my time is up. mr. chairman, thanks for giving

me a little time there. i appreciate the follow-up. we'll be following up. >> senator sanders? >> thank you, mr. chairman. welcome, mr. secretary. and thank you all for all that you are doing. let me begin by saying that i agree with senator shaheen and many others. that it is absolutely imperative that we pass the production tax credit in 1603. it is beyond comprehension to me that we are not moving forward aggressively, and i think the administration for their support on that. i also want to thank you for your help in vermont's smart grid. i think we will be probably the first state in america that have almost universal smart meters within a few years. we think if we're serious about energy efficiency and using electricity as efficiently as we can, this will be a major step forward. i hope vermont 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 congress, we are not dealing with the horrendous planetary crisis of global warming. and it is -- 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 reject what virtually the entire world scientific community is saying, "a," about the reality of global morning. "b," that it is significantly caused by manmade activities. and, "c," that if we are aggressive, we can begin the process of leading the world in reversing greenhouse 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, not only in this country, but from scientists all over the world. in terms of cutting greenhouse

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 gas emissions. and you know what? we're 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, our -- if you look at our requests, i believe it's up from what was given to

us for fy '12. >> well, here's the story. the budget before us actually invests only half as much in weatherization for 2013 as we did in 2008. that was the last year of the bush administration. in 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 we're 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 have asked for an increase. it's not quite double, but a big increase from what we were authorized. and i think we're also trying to

promote programs that -- with not only the federal dollars, but also programs -- because i really think if done right, weatherization can actually save money. and the money one needs to borrow, whether you're a business or a 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 one. it's just common sense. if i lowered 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. i am working on a concept, again, which should not be partisan. it's called on bill financing. because one of the 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 $15,000 he needs to cut his fuel bill by 30% and pay it back by the reduced amount of money he's spending on fuel, we're just lending him 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 tool box, i think it's hud has energy mortgages, not widely appreciated, not widely known. one way to stimulate that is to encourage lenders. lenders, they ask for a person's income. they want to know if they can pay their mortgage, of course. they ask for the property taxes because that's the cost of

owning the house. they ask for a lot of things. they ask for a structural engineer 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 and energy audit from the engineer, and to make a wiser homeowner that can know -- >> i agree. but it is not only people who are just purchasing a home. >> right. >> you have people who have older homes. will you work with us on this concept of on bill financing, coming up with loans that will be repaid as a result of lower bills? i think it's just a win/win situation. will you work with us on that? >> absolutely. just very briefly, i think utility companies can play a role in this as well. >> yes, they can. >> because they have access to moderately low cost capital. >> that's correct. thank you. >> senator hoeven has arrived, but he has asked for a few minutes to review his notes. and i know that some of us have additional questions. i had one additional question, mr. secretary, that i wanted to ask.

and then i will see if others do as well. and then senator hoeven 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 metal you are gy nuclear facility has been put on hold. for many years we've been total 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 is 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 through the nnsa, we have to look at all the other projects. and we could not simply -- we felt we could not simply start cmrr and upf, uranium processing facility, and oak ridge. and we felt there was more compelling reasons to begin that. the -- we're looking at ultimately the plans we can consolidate. the footprint is there. there could be other parts of this.

we're looking at -- as we look toward new start and beyond new start whether, you know, and working with the defense department as to what our requirements to fulfill the duties to the defense department for the new fiscal year will be. so as that gets worked out, that will be folded into it. so we'll essentially begin to complete this new engineering design and then try to figure out how we can reposition. again, because of the -- and what is different, as you well 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.

>> 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, i forget even what the name of it's called. it used to be calmed the nevada test ground. they have a new name for that. also, some issues in what -- so we are looking very closely as how we can best fulfill our obligations and needs for our nuclear security. we believe that -- and our overall plutonium strategy. but there will be some cmr at los alamos, we feel. but, again, we don't know whether there are other options. >> let me ask senator hoeven. are you ready for your questions before i ask others if they have a second round of questions? >> i am, mr. chairman. thank you very much. >> 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 bit 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 aaa and the lundberg survey. that's up 90% since the current administration took office. and so my question relates to why aren't we advancing projects like the keystone xl pipeline to provide more supply and help bring gasoline prices down? you were asked to review that project, or the department of energy was asked to review that 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. difiglio. does that -- dr. carmine difiglio. does that sound about right? >> sounds about right. >> all right. anyway, he was asked to review

the keystone xl pipeline project and comment on it as to whether or not 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 1, the east coast, and 3, the gulf coast refiners would decrease. gasoline prices in all markets served by pad 1 in the east coast and 3, the gulf coast, would decrease, including the midwest. and that was by your expert, dr. difiglio, department of energy, june 22nd, 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 try to explain, that the gasoline prices in the united states are affected by refine capacities and by access of those refiners. the biggest bottleneck was the bottleneck from cushing, oklahoma to houston and that there was a very large price differential of crude in houston and cushing versus crude in houston. so that bottleneck is being 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 plans to enlarging that pipeline, and one pipeline is being reversed.

so that refined products from houston and louisiana can then be deported to the midwest. another pipeline from chicago to cushing also is being built, as far as i know. so much of the pipelines in the united states that would bring oil from wyoming, north dakota, and to get the oil to the refineries that have the capacities to refine this oil and back up are being done in the private sector. 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, twice we have 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 in americans over the lifetime of the ownership of the car about $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 you're unwilling to build a pipeline that will bring 830,000 barrels a day into this country from our closest friend and trading partner, canada, and will help alleviate a bottleneck in my state of north dakota where we now produce more than 500,000 barrels a day, but our oil is now discounted $27 a barrel, light sweet bakken crude off west texas intermediate, $27 a barrel we're discounted because we don't have the pipeline capacity to bring it down to the refineries.

and we will put more than 100,000 barrels a day in that pipeline. instead we have to run trucks over the road. we have traffic fatalities. we have wear and tear on our roads. you just got done saying you're willing to build up the pipelines. why not the keystone? >> the pipelines from wyoming and north dakota can be built. the administration actually has no -- there is not a decision the administration need make on that. this is all on american territory. the only part of the pipeline the administration, 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 that 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 refinery. >> well, my understanding is if

you look at the pipelines that exist today, and you look at the major of the 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 the bottleneck now is in this cushing to houston. there is another bottleneck from chicago. and there is also pipelines that go from your state to chicago. and that pipeline goes from chicago to cushing. so those things are being built. so those are taken care of as we speak. >> i see i have 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 murkowski, do you have questions? >> i do. thank you. and thank you for your patience, mr. secretary. several weeks ago we had a presentation, eia presented kind of the global picture. and i had an opportunity to ask mr. gruenspecht where alaska natural gas fit into the bigger picture as we talk about domestic natural gas. senator wyden has on many occasions before this committee asked questions about the export of domestic product here. and you as a secretary have the authority to sign off on whether or not export is in the national interest. the question i had asked him is whether or not in his opinion alaska was viewed separately

from the rest of the lower 48 market. different type of gas, different processes, and clearly a different market. alaska is much closer to the asian market than we are, most of the lower 48. it was good to get his opinion on it. but you're the guy that ultimately signs 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 domestic production? >> well, given the charge of and 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 interests of the united states. >> certainly. >> and you correctly pointed out

that alaska is in a different location. but we would have to fold all that in. i actually 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 conscious 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 in its totality. so i really can't comment on what it's going to be, the economics. having said that, we are -- alaska does have natural gas. >> lots of it. >> yes. >> lots of it. >> 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 have a long way to go. but it is an issue where for us in the state, it is a very different market. it a very different gas. and i look forward to the opportunity to speak with you more about that. >> sure. >> just segueing here, we have also had a chance to talk about arctic methane hydrates, and the great potential we have. i understand that methane hydrates are going to continue to be a part of the natural gas technologies r&d budget, which is good. we're not the only country, of course, that is working on this. we've got a good partnership going with japan. i guess the question to you on this is right now there is a -- they're scheduled to conduct a

major test up in alaska in partnership with japan on hydrate flows and pressures. i know z. d.o.e. had hoped to follow up on this test. 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 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. so can you give me any updates? >> sure. >> and specifically the commitment the d.o.e. has to this. >> sure. we're going ahead with this tests. it's done in connection with conocophillips. japan is very interested because they have methane hydrate reserves off their coast. and as you noted, it can -- if one can figure out how to extrac w