And i know your review mentions the administrations federal Infrastructure Project permitting dashboard and the review recommends expanding an online project tracking system. I guess as we look at the Broader Energy picture and given that coal is still the number one source of electricity in america, its number one and 51 is certainly in montana, i would like to ask you to consider perhaps adding tracking coal export projects as we look at the broader National Energy infrastructure as a part of that equation. I think its going to i think we all agree we want to continue to work to improve the outcomes here in terms of coal and coalfired electricity. But the reality is its our number one source of electricity and needs to be an important part of the portfolio. We can look at that. I think coal exports are roughly 100 million tons, i believe. Its quite a large number. Yeah and we look at south korea, taiwan japan, theyre relying on other countries like indonesia and australia. And back to this point, 88 of coal productionen its outside the United States. We have a chance to continue to grow jobs, tax revenue by expanding our coal exports, and i think its a way to keep electricity prices lower as well as create jobs and tax revenues for our infrastructure. I actually have just now was handed some of the words that we have on that. Actually the east coast ports are alone are shipping about 70 million tons. And the companies it says here, quote, companies that own and manage export terminals continue with longrange plans for expansion focused on the potential for continued demand in europe, asia and south america america. So these are data that well look at. Im glad to see the east coast, just turn your attention to the west. Senator barrasso here from wyoming, we have tremendous opportunities right now between wyoming and montana here, looking at west coast opportunities. And getting back to where is the expansion occurring . Over in asia. West Coast Terminals become very, very important. Understood. And i recognize the low sulfur content. Thank you. Yeah. Thank you, madam chair. Secretary, one of the areas im pretty excited about right now just because were seeing such rapid change is the area of power storage where capability is increasing at a pretty good clip. Costs are coming down quite quickly as well. And im wondering if you could take a few minutes to talk a little bit about what you see as d. O. E. s role in accelerating this Technology Sector that could really change the way we think about energy, change our generation needs, really facilitate time shifting and move us forward to a very, very different kind of grid than sort of what weve experienced in the past. Thank you, senator. Yeah storage certainly could be a game changer. As you sea, costs are coming down across the board. Utility scale storage, distributed storage, which is actually very interesting. Sure. And then of course, transportation storage systems, batteries, which of course might also be grid connected in the future. So we are working on all of those. Arpa e, for example has had strong support in this area. We have a hub that we have established at argan national laboratory, across the board with novel chemistries, et cetera, to reduce costs. And we are including storage in a lot of our system modeling activities to see exactly how storage can help us achieve our goals in ways that might otherwise be much more complicated. If i may put in a plug, i think the we did do a report at senator wydens request about a year and a half ago, i think on largescale storage and integration into the grid. And thats very important. Id like to add, however, that the issue of consumerlevel storage combined with distributed generation is getting to look extremely interesting and can be yet another challenge to the utility Business Model that we have to that we have to look at. I think thats quite clear. Im sort of encouraging utilities to get ahead of this and make some decisions about incorporating these things into their Business Model because if they just look at saying no or making it more team to put distributed generation on their homes, distributed solar distributed storage at their homes, you know you could see a very unstable or Business Model moving forward. Yes. It kind of brings up the issue of rate making. And i want to ask you a related question because both the cost the Photovoltaic Panels coming down very quickly plus the Energy Storage changes that were seeing in the distributed market are fueling a lot of change. And i think one of the things we need to see is the ability of states to make very accurate decisions about the costs and benefits, both sides of the ledger of those things being brought onto the grid. And i wanted to ask you if you think that state regulators have the tools that they need to adequately quantify both sides of the ledger, both the benefits and the costs of distributed generation and distributed storage so that they can make accurate rate cases. And is this an area where possibly the labs might be able to help states accurately assess those costs and benefits . I think theres a long way to go. And in fact, one of the major recommendations major, again one of the many recommendations, i should say, i guess in the qer was that we really need to work on Getting Better valuation algorithms for all kinds of services that are being provided in the grid including, of course, in the distribution system, which you were referring to in effect. The and so you alluded to the issue of distributed solar for example, and we know whats going on with the arguments involving net metering and value to utilities. And i think you know, on the one hand there is a real issue of how do you value the connectivity that is still there . But on the other hand, how do you value the benefits to the overall grid system from either distributed generation or efficiency programs . In fact another issue as you know, another court issue is this question of how do demand side programs propagate back to rto and iso considerations and regulation. So this is a critical problem, and we certainly identified it. We didnt exactly put the solutions forward, but i think thats something to work on. And i think your idea maybe of getting a lab focused on this would be good, particularly in that we have also proposed one of the major, quotes, down payments that we have in our fy 16 Budget Proposal to congress is the grid modernization. Now, the Grid Modernization Program we put forward is not simply about you know, syncro phasers on the highvoltage lines. It includes Grant Programs and includes a whole set of issues. So we could take that on. I look forward to working with you on that and i think now is the time because were seeing a lot of policy decisions made with a very meager amount of data. And the more data we have the more direction we have the better those policy decisions will be. If you have some specific ideas and directions wed love to get together and talk about them. Fantastic. Thank you. Critical issue. Yeah, secretary, nice to see you. I was pleased to see an emphasis upon lng export terminals. As you know, two parishes in louisiana, kind of ground zero for that sort of thing. Mmhmm. And the original qer im told had increased funding to dredge the ship channel which will be so important if two tankers are going to go side by side, that sort of thing. But then im told that omb kind of pulled funding out. Now, of course im representing the state with lots of harbors. Im looking at the Harbor Maintenance trust fund which has more than enough money to pay for all this, and its not happening. So any thoughts as to why when the moneys sitting there, were not emphasizing using the dollars that are raised in order to increase the potential of the infrastructure that you stressed so wisely in your qer . Well you apparently have seen the cartoon that we had in terms of the calcasieu channel and certainly the issue of keeping up with our inland waterways, problems in this case the dredging issues in that channel are obviously very important. All i can say is that i think the administration is committed to trying to accelerate those. And two, can we have some transparency as to their assumptions because its such a complicated project . In terms of some Nuclear Projects, they do a lot of complex projects. I can see Nuclear Projects for a defense vehicle for example, a Defense Project but that would be quite different from this. First of all, of course, its a unique project. So no one has looked specifically at this project other than d. O. E. And the contractors. I want to say when i looked into this job i made it very clear that i wanted to be transparent but also straightforward and data driven. And sometimes the results arent so pretty but when we looked internally at d. U. E. This last year, we came out with a full life cycle cost north of 30 billion. That in fact led to the idea of them going out for an independent contractor to look at that. The increase 30 billion in addition to that which was spent or 30 billion which was spent. It was north of 30 in that case, it was including the 4 to 5 that had already been spent. You know, that scale. Two points about the aerospace, one is that they put in a lot of Risk Management contingency number one. Number two is that the charge was included a cap on the appropriations spending annual appropriations spending that we viewed as being reasonable. Now, the trouble was then that cap and this has been our problem right from the beginning, that cap then spreads the project out so long that it builds up. Informally, we have looked at the implications of allowing a higher appropriations annual appropriations cap and that does lower the life cycle cost significantly, but its still in the high 30 billion, the high 30 billion. And i want to emphasize, thats not just the mocks plant. Partly were talking apples and oranges. The plant itself is only one part of a much bigger project including how you get the pits down into plutonium oxide and, of course, the operating costs over decades. So i want to clarify thats what lets call it the high 30s or 40 billion. Im over time but i look forward to that briefing, thank you. Okay. If i get a second shot, ill take a shot on something else. Okay. Thank you madam chair. First, mr. Secretary, i want to thank you for your role in the iran negotiations. Theres an extraordinary article, i think it was in the New York Times recently about the role the department of energy played in analyzing the various proposealproposals. The labs. And it strikes me as fortuitous and the extreme that at the moment we are under these particular negotiations, we have a Nuclear Physicist in charge of the department of energy. I want to go to an appalling chart on page 226 of the report. Im sure you know what im talking about. Its the differential in gas Natural Gas Prices between new england and the rest of the country. 27 is the number of the chart. This is an infrastructure problem. And i just think its something its absolutely urgent for our region. We went into natural gas in a big way, as you know starting in about the year 2000. Now 50 to 60 of our electricity comes from natural gas. A lot of people like myself switched to natural gas to heat our homes. And last winter, winter before last, we had the highest Natural Gas Prices in the world. And this shows us that almost double the u. S. Rate. So i just hope that the department can be aggressive and forwardleaning in helping the governors, the delegation, the utilities to solve this problem. Its a pipeline problem. Its not a gas problem as you know. I think its going to take an all of the above kind of strategy in terms of permitting and ts aits a really urgent problem for the region. I assume awe gree. Yes. In fact, the very first field hearings that we had for the qer were in new england specifically driven by the gas pipeline issue. The representatives of all six governors were part of that meeting. And frankly the remarks that they made were such that the governors felt that they kind of were going to have this under control and would take care of it. In fact, i understand that next year, in 2016, there will be a substantial expansion of capacity taking gas from the marcellus, at least into kind of the boston area through there. But getting up farther north is a challenge there. I dont know how this will turn out, and im happy to work with you, senator king. Well this is the problem with our system. Were either federal or state. We dont have regional entities and i think this is a case where were not asking for federal intervention, but were asking for a federal quarterback, in a sense. Yes. I think you can help to convene and move this process forward. And we are happy to do that. Again, i think the issues for the southern part of new england look like theyre coming under control probably next year. I dont know, but a good discussion. There are discussions about getting marcellus gas up to canada. Right. And that might provide an opportunity for moving gas to northern new england. That brings me to my next question. There is a discussion about reversing the maritime pipeline which runs from Eastern Maine from massachusetts to nova scotia, reversing it and then exporting the natural gas from canada which would mean it would be technically not under the National Interest review. I would hope that you would consider, as that project moves forward or the discussions, inserting a requirement that that gas be divertible during times of peak demand rather than going to canada, that there be a provision that during peak demand, it could be retained in the region. We can discuss this further, but i hope youll think about it. There certainly will be a National Interest determination. Good. And i commend that issue to you. Quickly, i want to associate myself with the comments of senator hinrich about distributed energy and storage. I recently rewatched the graduate. And the guy in that movie says plastic, famously, plastics. I would say if it were today, hed say storage, Energy Storage. Thats going to be a huge issue. I think one of the things you can do, and i think one of the troublesome issues and this is a National Security issue s it seems to me, and its also sort of a private rights, personal rights interest to have energy generated at your house. But the challenge is whats the right number for the grid charge for backup and capacity . And its got to be sufficient so that other rate payors arent bearing the cost but it also cant be so high as to unreasonably burden this nacent development which is very important which i think is going to happen anyway. I think another area where you could be very helpful to us is to have your smart people thinking about what would be the formula for determining a reasonable backup charge or a reasonable capacity, however you characterize it. And finally, to really help us start thinking about i think, weve got to get to the point of realtime time and date metering and theres great value to the grid if solar is on at 4 00 in the afternoon. Theres not so much value if its 10 00 in the morning, how to figure out those kinds of issues so that the compensation to the homeowner is fair and reasonable and also provides the proper incentives for that power being generated when we most need it. Again thats the whole issue of the valuation which we need to look at desperately. And its going to become more and more critical including for what i would call especially maybe semirural areas that have a grid and distribution system, and yet if as people go, perhaps off the grid because storage becomes useful obviously that then, spreads the cost over a smaller population. And it can be a real issue. So i think we have a real challenge as we look through what is an opportunity of the new Technology Possibilities and yet the transition from our current model is going to have some real strains in the system. Thank you. Yeah. Thank you. Mr. Secretary, thank you for your work on the iran negotiations. Thank you, madam chair. Thank you, senator king. Secretary, i understand in response to questions from both senator gardner and senator barrasso where they probed a little bit on the issue of oil export. You said for purposes of this qer, you didnt go into that. And i understand i understand why. Were talking about infrastructure. But i also understand that this is one of those connects or nexus where if you if you have policy decisions that are made with infrastructure today as it is in place youre probably not going to be prepared for tomorrow and recognizing when were talking about the issue of oil exports and what that might do for increased production domestically, bringing on new sources of supply which will then require additional infrastructure, that there is a connection there. I understand why you would defer on a question like this but i do think that as we are talking about an Energy Infrastructure and policies for the country going forward, we need to be looking at the United States it is our partners to the south and north, and its that north American Security and integration. And you spoke a little bit more a little bit in previous responses about what were doing to collect and share data. I think that thats critically important. But our reality is is were still looking at these permitting delays for crossborder pipelines. Obviously keystone xl is something that is out there in the news but its not just keystone xl. It is so much more that we have going between our borders to the north and to the south. Can you elaborate just a little bit more on how we really achieve what i think you and i would agree is critical not only to the United States but to our partners, mexico and canada as well . How do we get there . Because right now we cant even get moving with a simple swap between cana