Advanced search    Help

Clear all search criteria

Only 2/3! You are seeing results from the Public Collection, not the complete Full Collection. Sign in to search everything (see eligibility).

• S. 3018, Securing Energy Infrastructure Act, and to Examine Protections Designed to Guard Against Energy Disruptions, Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests, and Mining of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, One Hundred Fourteenth Congress, Second Session, July 12, 2016

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  This is the July 12, 2016 hearing on "S. 3018, Securing Energy Infrastructure Act, and to Examine Protections Designed to Guard Against Energy Disruptions" held before the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests, and Mining of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. From the opening statement of Subcommittee Chairman James Risch: "The purpose of today's hearing is to receive testimony on Senate bill 3018, the Securing Energy Infrastructure Act, and to examine protections designed to guard against grid disruptions. This is a result of, I think, what everybody acknowledges and what everybody knows and that is that the electric grid that we have in America is really, incredibly, dependable. That is true particularly if you have traveled in other parts of the world, you know how dependable our grid is. Unfortunately, because of the development of the worldwide web and those new ways of handling operations of controls, it also now has vulnerabilities. These vulnerabilities, obviously, are targets by people who wish to do us harm [...] This is not a complicated bill. It is a bill that is intended to move us forward in a cautious way but a way that will help underscore some of the vulnerabilities that those of us on the Intelligence Committee have heard about over time". Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Patricia Hoffman, Duane Highley, Robin Manning, and Brent Stacey. The original title was corrected per errata.

  United States. Government Publishing Office

  2017
• Statement of Ambassador Linton F. Brooks, Under Secretary for Nuclear Security and Administrator, National Nuclear Security Administration, U.S. Department of Energy, before the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies, March 30, 2006

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  This document is the statement of Linton F. Brooks, Under Secretary for Nuclear Security and Administrator, National Nuclear Security Administration, U.S. Department of Energy, before the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies. It was presented on March 30, 2006 during a hearing on 'DOE - National Nuclear Security Administration' and discusses the President's FY 2007 budget request for the National Nuclear Security Administration.

  United States. Department of Energy

  2006-03-30
• H. Rept. 106-696, Part 1: Department of Energy Security Oversight Improvement Act of 2000, Report to Accompany H.R. 3906, June 23, 2000

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "The Committee on Commerce, to whom was referred the bill (H.R. 3906) to ensure that the Department of Energy has appropriate mechanisms to independently assess the effectiveness of its policy and site performance in the areas of safeguards and security and cyber security, having considered the same, report favorably thereon with an amendment and recommend that the bill as amended do pass[....] The purpose of H.R. 3906 is to strengthen the internal oversight of physical and computer security within the Department of Energy by establishing in statute an Office of Independent Security Oversight within the Department of Energy and requiring annual reporting to Congress by the Secretary of Energy."

  United States. Government Printing Office

  2000-07-23
• Public Law 110-140: Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  The purpose of this public law is "to move the United States toward greater energy independence and security, to increase the production of clean renewable fuels, to protect consumers, to increase the efficiency of products, buildings, and vehicles, to promote research on and deploy greenhouse gas capture and storage options, and to improve the energy performance of the Federal Government, and for other purposes."

  United States. Government Printing Office

  2007-12-19
• Energy Security and Sustainability (ES2) Strategy

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "The Army ES2 [Energy Security and Sustainability] Strategy is designed to guide the Army's use of energy, water, and land resources well into the 21st Century. Resource management is a dynamic process that will require the Army to continuously incorporate new information and make improvements to maintain freedom of action. The goals and supporting actions presented in this strategy are mutually reinforcing and facilitate a holistic, cross-organizational approach towards goal achievement now and in the future. To implement the aggressive goals of this strategy, the Army will identify initiatives and continually assess and refine efforts to assure progress towards these goals. Where tools and management initiatives already exist, they will be applied; where they do not, we will develop them. Implementation of this strategy is vital to the Army's continued relevance, especially in support of the Army Campaign Plan. This ES2 Strategy will make the Army ready and resilient while preserving future choice in our rapidly changing world."

  United States. Army

  2015
• Lessons Learned from Cyber Security Assesments of SCADA and Energy Management Systems

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "The results from ten cyber security vulnerability assessments of process control, SCADA [Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition] and energy management systems, or components of those systems were reviewed to identify common problem areas. The common vulnerabilities ranged from conventional IT security issues to specific weaknesses in control system protocols. In each vulnerability category, relative measures were assigned to the severity of the vulnerability and ease with which an attacker could exploit the vulnerability. Suggested mitigations are identified in each category. Recommended mitigations having the highest impact on reducing vulnerability are listed for asset owners and system vendors."

  United States. Office of Electricity Delivery & Energy Reliability

  Fink, Raymond K.; Spencer, David F.; Wells, Rita A.

  2006-09
• H. Rept. 106-696, Part 2: National Nuclear Security Administration Security Oversight Improvement Act of 2000, Report to Accompany H.R. 3906, July 12, 2000

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "The Committee on Armed Services, to whom was referred the bill (H.R. 3906) to ensure that the Department of Energy has appropriate mechanisms to independently assess the effectiveness of its policy and site performance in the areas of safeguards and security and cyber security, having considered the same, report favorably thereon with amendments and recommend that the bill as amended do pass. […] The purpose of H.R. 3906 is to ensure that the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) of the Department of Energy (DOE) has appropriate mechanisms to assess independently the effectiveness of its policy and site performance in the areas of safeguards and security and cyber security by establishing an Office of Independent Security Oversight within the National Nuclear Security Administration and requiring annual reporting to the Congress by the Administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration. The National Nuclear Security Administration was established as a separately organized agency within the Department of Energy by title 32 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 106-65). The NNSA is responsible for nuclear weapons development, naval nuclear propulsion, defense nuclear nonproliferation, and fissile material disposition. Public Law 106-65 also required the establishment of security, counterintelligence, and intelligence offices for the NNSA as well as prescribed personnel, budgeting, and other management practices for the NNSA."

  United States. Government Printing Office

  2000-07-12
• Memorandum: Delegation of Certain Functions and Authorities Under the Iran Freedom and Counter-Proliferation Act of 2012, Memorandum for the Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Energy, the Secretary of Commerce, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the United States Trade Representative, the Director of National Intelligence, the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, and the President of the Export-Import Bank, June 3, 2013

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 301 of title 3, United States Code, I hereby order as follows: I hereby delegate functions and authorities vested in the President by the Iran Freedom and Counter-Proliferation Act of 2012 (subtitle D of title XII of Public Law 112--239) (22 U.S.C. 8801 et seq.) (IFCA), as follows: […] Section 1244(c)(1) and (c)(2) to the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State; […] Section 1244(d)(1)(A) to the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretaries of the Treasury and Commerce and the United States Trade Representative, and with the Secretary of Homeland Security, the President of the Export-Import Bank of the United States, and the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and other agencies as appropriate, and, once applicable sanctions outlined in section 6(a) of the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996 (Public Law 104--172) (50 U.S.C. 1701 note), as amended (ISA), are selected pursuant to section 1244(d)(1)(A), authority to implement such sanctions is delegated to the relevant agency heads commensurate with any delegation of such authorities and consistent with any relevant Executive Orders implementing ISA; […] Section 1244(d)(2) to the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State; […] Section 1244(f) to the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury; […] Section 1244(i) to the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury; […] Section 1245(a)(1)(A) to the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretaries of State and Commerce and the United States Trade Representative, and with the Secretary of Homeland Security, the President of the Export-Import Bank of the United States, and the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and other agencies as appropriate, and, once applicable sanctions outlined in section 6(a) of ISA are selected pursuant to section 1245(a)(1)(A), authority to implement such sanctions is delegated to the relevant agency heads commensurate with any delegation of such authorities and consistent with any relevant Executive Orders implementing ISA[.]"

  United States. Office of the Federal Register

  Obama, Barack

  2013-06-03
• 2010 Radiation Source Protection and Security Task Force Report

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "Established by the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct), the Interagency Task Force on Radiation Source Protection and Security (Task Force) has made important progress since its 2006 report to the President and Congress to improve the security of domestic radioactive sources given the enduring threat of terrorists seeking radioactive materials to attack the United States. The Task Force is pleased to note in this 2010 report the many accomplishments achieved over the past 4 years, including the closeout of a number of significant recommendations from the 2006 report. As was the case with the 2006 report, this report is limited to issues relating to the security of radiation sources and does not address issues relating to other radioactive material, such as spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste."

  U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

  2010-08-11
• 21st Century Energy Markets: How the Changing Dynamics of World Energy Markets Impact our Economy and Energy Security, Hearing before the Committee on Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee on Energy and Power, U.S. House of Representatives, One Hundred Fourteenth Congress, First Session, March 3, 2015

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  This is a testimony compilation from the March 3, 2015 hearing "21st Century Energy Markets: How the Changing Dynamics of World Energy Markets Impact our Economy and Energy Security," held before the House Committee on Energy and Power. From the opening statement of Chairman Ed Whitfield: "When it comes to energy markets, the transformation over the last decade has been dramatic. In fact, several longstanding energy trends have completely reversed themselves. America has gone from declining oil and natural gas production to unprecedented increases that now make us the world's largest energy producer and a potential exporter. As a result, fears about rising import dependence and skyrocketing energy prices have been replaced with surging domestic supplies that are driving down prices - so low in fact that they are now discouraging additional drilling in the U.S. The downstream changes have been every bit as dramatic. Domestic refineries, a number of which were optimized to handle imported crude, now have the option of transitioning to use more North American oil. And for manufacturers, the offshoring trend has stalled, and in fact some of the manufacturing capacity that had been forced overseas by competitive pressures is now returning to the U.S. because of the low energy prices. And North America's new energy supplies have necessitated a major infrastructure build-out in order to deliver this energy to the consumers and businesses that need it. The changes also have significant geopolitical implications. Many of our energy-importing allies were resigned to growing dependence on OPEC [Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries] and other unfriendly exporters like Russia, but now they see America as a potential new source of reliable and affordable energy supplies. As a result, America has the opportunity to fight back against the geopolitical influence of the countries that used to dominate global energy markets, and exert our own influence instead." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Adam Sieminski, John Kingston, Amy Jaffe, Scott Sheffield, Charles Drevna, Graeme Burnett, and Brad Markell.

  United States. Congress. House. Committee on Energy and Commerce

  2015-03-03
• Department of Energy's Role in Advancing the National, Economic, and Energy Security of the United States, Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Energy and Power of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of Representatives, One Hundred Fourteenth Congress, Second Session, September 15, 2016

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  This is the September 15, 2016 hearing on "Department of Energy's Role in Advancing the National, Economic, and Energy Security of the United States" held before the House of Representatives Subcommittee on Energy and Power of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. From the opening statement of Committee Chairman Fred Upton: "The Subcommittee on Energy and Power has accomplished a good deal to say yes to energy and update and improve the nation's energy policy, and the American people are beginning to see the economic and energy security benefits. The Department of Energy has been a partner in these efforts, and I welcome back Secretary Moniz to discuss what we have already accomplished and what we hope to do in the years ahead. The most direct benefit of America's newfound energy abundance can be seen at gas stations in Southwest Michigan and across the country, where fuel prices have dipped toward $2 per gallon, even in the midst of serious Middle East turmoil. This would not have been possible without the tremendous growth in domestic oil output along with the emergence of a North American energy market that now plays a prominent role on the world stage. [...] Energy has been one of the most important drivers for economic growth, and with expanded domestic energy production, reduced reliance on foreign imports, increased energy efficiency and productivity, and significant cost reductions, we are arguably more energy secure than ever before." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Ernest Moniz.

  United States. Government Publishing Office

  2017
• American Energy Security and Innovation: An Assessment of Private-Sector Successes and Opportunities in Energy Efficient Technologies, Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Energy and Power of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of Representatives, One Hundred Thirteenth Congress, First Session, February 26, 2013

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  This is the February 26, 2013 hearing on "American Energy Security and Innovation: An Assessment of Private-Sector Successes and Opportunities in Energy Efficient Technologies," held before the Subcommittee on Energy and Power of the U.S. House Committee on Energy and Commerce. From the opening statement of Ed Whitfield: "History teaches us that nothing is more efficient than the free market. The only thing you need to spur than improve energy efficiency is profit-seeking companies responding rationally to high energy bills. Any company that doesn't use energy as wisely as possible will lose ground to a competitor that does. This is why free economies are the most efficient and have the lowest energy inputs per units of gross domestic product when you contrast that particularly with centrally-planned economies, which are certainly not as efficient." From the opening statement of Bobby L. Rush: "Mr. Chairman, while today's hearing focuses on the progress made in the private sector, let us not forget that it was the leadership of State and Federal Government activities that paved the way for many of these energy efficiency successes. DOE [Department of Energy] rulemaking spurred dozens of national efficiency standards for appliances and equipment since 1987. ACCC-EEE [American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy], rather, found that these existing standards will provide net savings of $1.1 trillion through 2035, while also reducing carbon pollution by the equivalent amount of taking approximately 118 coal-fired power plants offline by that same year. In fact, in 2010, overall U.S. energy use was 7 percent less than it would have been without these extending-existing, rather, standards." From the opening statement of Fred Upton: "We have got to remember that as the sequester takes center stage this week, that the Federal Government is the Nation's largest user of energy, and sensibly utilizing energy-saving techniques can significantly reduce the amount of taxpayer dollars spent on federal energy costs." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Lisa Murkowski, Jeanne Shaheen, Kathleen Hogan, Kevin C. Kosisko, Britta MacIntosh, James Crouse, Helen A. Burt, R. Neal Elliott, and Ted Gayer.

  United States. Government Printing Office

  2013
• Department of Energy Order 205.1: Department of Energy Cyber Security Management Program

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  The objective of this order is: "(a) To establish a Program that integrates cyber security into management and work practices at all levels in the Department according to DOE [Department of Energy] cyber security management policy contained in DOE P 205.1, Departmental Cyber Security Management Policy, dated 5-8-01. The Cyber Security Management Plan (CSMP) is the cyber security element of the Integrated Safeguards and Security Management (ISSM) Program; (b) To protect DOE cyber systems and general support systems, commensurate with the risks they face and the magnitude of harm that could result from the loss, misuse, disclosure, or unauthorized modification of information entered, processed, stored, displayed, or transmitted on/with them; (c) To establish requirements and assign responsibilities for protecting all DOE controlled cyber information and information systems (classified and unclassified); (d) To establish an agile CSMP that addresses rapidly changing threats, vulnerabilities, missions, and technologies; (e) To achieve and maintain cyber security competencies throughout the DOE Federal and contractor workforce sufficient to enable personnel to fulfill their responsibilities in protecting the Department's cyber information and information systems."

  United States. Department of Energy

  2003-03-21
• DOE Modernization: The Office of Cybersecurity, Energy Security, and Emergency Response, Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Energy of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of Representatives, One Hundred Fifteenth Congress, Second Session, September 27, 2018

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  This is the September 27, 2018 hearing on "The Office of Cybersecurity, Energy Security, and Emergency Response," held before the U.S. House Subcommittee on Energy of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. From the opening statement of Fred Upton: "Today's hearing will enable the subcommittee to consider the current setup and plans for the Department of Energy's new Office of Cybersecurity, Energy Security, and Emergency Response. So the CESER office, as we fondly call it, represents an important new element of the Department with a mission to carry out DOE's energy security and energy emergency functions more effectively." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Karen Evans.

  United States. Government Publishing Office

  2019
• Nuclear Security: Security Issues at DOE and Its Newly Created National Nuclear Security Administration, Statement of Gary L. Jones, Associate Director, Energy, Resources, and Science Issues, Resources, Community, and Economic Development Division, Testimony before the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, Committee on Commerce, House of Representatives

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  In this report the General Accounting Office (GAO) provides its observations on the Department of Energy's (DOE) and the National Nuclear Security Administration's (NNSA) security programs to protect against theft, sabotage, espionage, terrorism, and other risks to national security at its facilities. Congress established NNSA on March 1, 2000, as a semi-autonomous agency within DOE with responsibility for the nation's nuclear weapons, nuclear nonproliferation activities, and naval reactors programs. NNSA was established to correct long-standing management and security problems at DOE's nuclear facilities. GAO's testimony focuses on (1) oversight of safeguards and security programs at DOE and (2) security issues with NNSA. This testimony is based on GAO's numerous reviews of security at DOE--in particular, GAO's recently issued report to the full Committee entitled "Improvements Needed in DOE's Safeguards and Security Oversight" --and testimony presented earlier this month before the House Armed Services Special Oversight Panel on Department of Energy Reorganization. Sound management and independent oversight of security at DOE's nuclear facilities is critical to ensure that security problems are identified, raised to the attention of the highest levels in DOE, and corrected. DOE has recently made a number of improvements to its security oversight. However, GAO's February report to the Committee discussed several areas where security oversight could be further strengthened.

  United States. General Accounting Office

  2000-03-14
• DOE Modernization: Advancing DOE's Mission for National, Economic, and Energy Security of the United States, Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Energy of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, U.S. House of Representatives, One Hundred Fifteenth Congress, Second Session, January 9, 2018

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  This is the January 9, 2018 hearing on "DOE Modernization: Advancing DOE's Mission for National, Economic, and Energy Security of the United States," held before the U.S. House Subcommittee on Energy of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. From the opening statement of Andy Barr: "Today's hearing begins this subcommittee's work in this session to identify what steps we need to do to make sure that DOE [Department of Energy] can address the national economic and energy security challenges that are going to be confronting the Nation over the coming number of decades." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Dan Brouillette, Mark Menezes, Paul Dabbar, Frank Klotz, Thomas Zacharia, Donald Levy, Sarah Ladislaw, Steve Wasserman, Dan Reicher, and Rich Powell.

  United States. Government Publishing Office

  2018
• Nuclear Security: Actions Needed by DOE to Improve Security of Weapons-Grade Nuclear Material at Its Energy, Science, and Environment Sites, Statement of Gene Aloise, Director, Natural Resources and Environment, Testimony before the Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats, and International Relations, House Committee on Government Reform

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "A successful terrorist attack on a Department of Energy (DOE) site containing nuclear weapons material could have devastating effects for the site and nearby communities. DOEs Office of the Under Secretary for Energy, Science and Environment (ESE), which is responsible for DOE operations in areas such as energy research, manages five sites that contain weapons-grade nuclear material. A heavily armed security force equipped with such items as automatic weapons protects ESE sites. GAO was asked to examine (1) the extent to which ESE protective forces are meeting DOEs existing readiness requirements and (2) the actions DOE and ESE will need to take to successfully defend against the larger, revised terrorist threat identified in the October 2004 design basis threat (DBT) by DOEs implementation deadline of October 2008. To ensure that DOE and ESE protective forces can meet the terrorist threat contained in the 2004 DBT, GAO made five recommendations to the Secretary of Energy to, among other things, address weaknesses with protective officers equipment and coordinate ESE efforts to address the 2004 DBT. DOE concurred with and accepted GAOs recommendations and provided an update on actions it anticipated taking to address GAOs recommendations."

  United States. Government Accountability Office

  2005-07-26
• DOE Modernization: Legislation Addressing Cybersecurity and Emergency Response, Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Energy of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of Representatives, One Hundred Fifteenth Congress, Second Session, March 14, 2018

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  This is the March 14, 2018 hearing on "DOE Modernization: Legislation Addressing Cybersecurity and Emergency Response," held before the House of Representatives Subcommittee on Energy of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. From the opening statement Fred Upton: "This mission is to ensure the supply and delivery of energy that is vital to our economic and national security, our public welfare, and health. For the last two Congresses we have been working to update the Department's authorities and capabilities both to mitigate against and respond to energy supply emergencies, especially with respect to critical energy infrastructure and to cybersecurity. For example, we directed the Department to modernize its strategic petroleum reserve and response capabilities. We clarified and enhanced DOE's [United States Department of Energy] role as the sector-specific agency for the energy sector, especially for critical electric infrastructure. We moved through the House H.R. 3050 last summer to strengthen DOE's support for state energy emergency offices in their cybersecurity efforts and the common theme has been to update DOE's cybersecurity and emergency coordinating functions and provisions of technical assistance to other agencies, states, and asset owners. So in keeping with these modernization efforts, the legislation today continues that work." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Mark Menezes, Tristan Vance, Zachary Tudor, Mark Engels, Kyle Pitsor, Scott Aaronson.

  United States. Government Publishing Office

  2018
• American Energy Security and Innovation: An Assessment of North America's Energy Resources, Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Energy and Power of the the Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of Representatives, One Hundred Thirteenth Congress, First Session,February 5, 2013

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  This is the February 5, 2013 hearing, "American Energy Security and Innovation: An Assessment of North America's Energy Resources," before the U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee on Energy and Power. From the opening statement of Ed Whitfield: "Certainly, we are very much aware in the last quarter our GDP decreased by .1 percent. Our unemployment has ticked up from 7.8 to 7.9 percent, and so we all face this challenge of adopting policies and taking actions that can help stimulate the economy. Certainly, one of the primary factors that affects the economy is energy policy, and certainly there are other factors as well but that plays a vital role. […] We have had all sorts of new discoveries--the Bakken field, the Eagle Ford, developments in Colorado--and most of these shale fields have been discovered on private lands, and even though the number of permits on public lands has gone down, the production on private lands has increased dramatically. So this is a real game changer, the possibility of a game changer in America. We have heard the term for many, many years, we have the opportunity to be energy independent, and that is actually the reality today, and I tell you what, people around the world are focused on it too because some of our witnesses today attended the World Economic Forum in Davos, and we know that many Europeans are expressing great concern about the abundance of energy that we have in America and their ability to compete in the global marketplace because their energy costs are going up in Europe and we have the opportunity to decrease our energy costs because of this abundance of fossil fuels that we have." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Ed Whitfield, Bobbly L. Rush, Fred Upton, Joe Barton, Henry A. Waxman, Eliot L. Engel, Adam Sieminski, Daniel Yergin, Jennifer Morgan, Mary J. Hutzler, and E. Harry Vidas.

  United States. Government Printing Office

  2013
• American Energy Security and Innovation: Grid Reliability Challenges in a Shifting Energy Resource Landscape, Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Energy and Power of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of Representatives, One Hundred Thirteenth Congress, First Session, May 9, 2013

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  This is the May 9, 2013 hearing, "American Energy Security and Innovation: Grid Reliability Challenges in a Shifting Energy Resource Landscape," before the U.S. House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee on Energy and Power. From the opening statement of Ed Whitfield: "This hearing is entitled 'American Energy Security and Innovation: Grid Reliability Challenges in a Shifting Energy Resource Landscape.' Today's discussion builds on earlier hearings that addressed the challenges posed by changes in the nation's electricity generation portfolio. The proportion of electricity we get from coal, natural gas, nuclear, hydroelectric, and non-hydro renewables has remained relatively constant over the last several decades. However, a shift is occurring and what is alarming is how fast the mix has changed during the past few years. And it is this rapid transition that presents a number of pressing concerns that must be addressed in order to ensure a reliable and affordable electricity supply. Most significantly, we are seeing a sharp drop in coal use and its replacement with natural gas. Part of this is due to market forces, namely the increased supply and relatively low price of domestic natural gas. But part is also the result of policy decisions made in Washington, particularly EPA's [Environmental Protection Agency] regulatory attack on coal. Policy decisions are also behind the increase in intermittent renewable resources such as wind and solar power, especially the generous federal tax breaks and subsidies that favor them as well as state-level renewable electricity mandates." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Ed Whitfield, Fred Upton, Gary Sypolt, John Shelk, Paul Cicio, Daniel Weiss, Robert Gramlich, and Jonathan Lesser.

  United States. Government Printing Office

  2013
• Nuclear Security: DOE Needs Better Information to Guide Its Expanded Recovery of Sealed Radiological Sources, Report to the Chairman, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "Concerns remain over the control of sealed radiological sources, widely used in many industrial and medical devices and applications. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), the Department of Energy (DoE), and states have responsibilities for ensuring the safe and secure use and eventual disposal of these sources as low-level radioactive wastes. DOE must ensure disposal availability for greater-than-class C (GTCC) waste; states must do so for non-GTCC waste, that is, classes A, B, and C waste. NRC and DOE also collaborate to identify and recover unwanted sources that are not safe or secure. GAO examined DoE's (1) efforts to recover unwanted sources and develop a GTCC waste disposal option, (2) actions to recover and dispose of non-GTCC source waste, and (3) ability to identify sources for recovery and disposal. GAO recommends that DoE and NRC evaluate and report on the cost implications of DoE's recovery and disposal of non-GTCC waste, options to recoup these DoE costs from licensees, the feasibility of using DOE disposal sites, and how a national source tracking system can be designed and implemented to improve DOEs recovery and disposal efforts."

  United States. Government Accountability Office

  2005-09
• Securing America's Future: Realizing the Potential of the Department of Energy National Laboratories, Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development of the Committee on Appropriations, United States Senate, One Hundred Fourteenth Congress, First Session, October 28, 2015

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  This is the October 28, 2015 hearing titled, "Securing America's Future: Realizing the Potential of the Department of Energy National Laboratories," held before the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development of the Committee on Appropriations. From the opening statement of Lamar Alexander, U.S. Senator from Tennessee: "We have 17 [national] laboratories. Ten included are Office of Science laboratories. Three are weapons labs managed by the National Nuclear Security Administration, and four applied energy laboratories--one each that does work for the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, the Office of Environmental Management, the Office of Fossil Energy, the Office of Nuclear Energy. All that is under the Department of Energy. The national laboratories employ about 55,000 people. They received approximately $11.7 billion in new funding from the Department of Energy in fiscal year 2014. Our national laboratory system is critical to our Nation's competitiveness, national security and way of life. They are the engines that help create new cutting-edge technologies that can transform our economy. [...] Supporting governmental sponsored basic research is one of the most important things our country can do to encourage innovation, help the free enterprise system create good jobs, and make America competitive in a global economy. I look forward to discussing the commission's recommendations on how to maximize the potential of our 17 national laboratories." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: TJ Glauthier and Jared Cohon.

  United States. Government Publishing Office

  2016
• Nuclear Security: DOE Faces Security Challenges in the Post September 11, 2001, Environment

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "The attacks of September 11, 2001, intensified long-standing concerns about the adequacy of safeguards and security at Department of Energy (DOE) and the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) that facilities that store plutonium and uranium in a variety of forms. These contractor-operated facilities can become targets for such actions as sabotage or theft. NNSA has not been fully effective in managing its safeguards and security program. Without a functional management structure and with ongoing confusion about roles and responsibilities, inconsistencies have emerged among NNSA sites on how they assess contractors' security activities. To compound the problems in conducting security assessments, NNSA contractors do not consistently conduct required analyses in preparing corrective action plans. Finally, NNSA has shortfalls at its site offices in the total number of staff and in expertise, which could make it more difficult for site offices to effectively oversee security activities. GAO made recommendations to improve the management of NNSA's safeguards and security program. NNSA has begun to respond to these recommendations. With respect to DOE and NNSA's response to September 11, the agencies took immediate steps to improve security in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks. For example, DOE and NNSA moved to a higher level of security, which required, among other things, more vehicle inspections and security patrols. While these steps are believed to have improved DOE and NNSA's security posture, they have been expensive and, until fully evaluated, their effectiveness is uncertain. Currently, DOE does not have a reliable estimate of the cost to fully protect DOE and NNSA facilities."

  United States. General Accounting Office

  2003-06-24
• Subcommittee Hearing to Examine the Cybersecurity Threats to the U.S. Electric Grid and Technology Advancements to Minimize Such Threats and to Receive Testimony on S. 79, the Securing Energy Infrastructure Act, Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Energy of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, One Hundred Fifteenth Congress, First Session, March 28, 2017

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  This testimony compilation made by the HSDL staff is from the March 28, 2017 hearing, "Subcommittee Hearing to Examine the Cybersecurity Threats to the U.S. Electric Grid and Technology Advancements to Minimize Such Threats and to Receive Testimony on S. 79, the Securing Energy Infrastructure Act," before the United States Senate Subcommittee on Energy of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The purpose of this hearing was to, "examine the cybersecurity threats to the U.S. electric grid and technology advancements to minimize such threats and to receive testimony on S. 79 [Senate 79], the Securing Energy Infrastructure Act," which "establishes a two-year pilot program within the Department of Energy's (DOE) national laboratories to identify the security vulnerabilities of certain entities in the energy sector, and research and test technology that can be used to isolate the most critical systems of such entities from cyber-attacks." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Michael Bardee, John DiStasio, Ben Fowke III, and Thomas Zacharia.

  United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

  2017-03-28
• Analysis of Marine Corps Renewable Energy Planning to Meet Installation Energy Security Requirements

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  From the thesis abstract: "The purpose of this thesis is to analyze Marine Corps installation energy consumption and the pursuit of increased renewable energy generation goals across Marine Corps installations. The main objective of this report is to determine the cost of interruption and the net present value (NPV) of renewable energy generation needed to meet the Marine Corps' energy security objectives. First, we determine installation-specific energy consumption, resource requirements, and current renewable energy generation projects. Second, we analyze current Marine Corps installation energy portfolios to determine shortfalls from minimum energy targets and the cost to generate those shortfalls through renewable energy technologies. Finally, we identify installation energy security requirements, determine cost of interruption, and conduct a sensitivity analysis of the cost--benefit of renewable energy generation alternatives to meet energy security requirements. This study determines how investment in renewable energy to meet baseline energy consumption requirements increases energy security across Marine Corps installations. Furthermore, considering the cost of interruption, the investment in renewable energy technologies yields a positive NPV at the majority of Marine Corps installations. Based on this research, we recommend that the Marine Corps develop a quantitative method for assessing energy security and invest to meet energy security goals at each installation."

  Naval Postgraduate School (U.S.)

  Chisom, Christopher M.; Templeton, Jack C.

  2013-12-03
• DHS and DOE National Labs: Finding Efficiencies and Optimizing Outputs in Homeland Security Research and Development, Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Cybersecurity, Infrastructure Protection, and Security Technologies of the Committee on Homeland Security, House of Representatives, One Hundred Twelfth Congress, Second Session, April 19, 2012

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  This is the April 19, 2012 hearing on "The DHS and DOE National Labs: Finding Efficiencies and Optimizing Outputs in Homeland Security Research and Development," held before the U.S. House Committee on Homeland Security, Subcommittee on Cybersecurity, Infrastructure Protection, and Security Technologies. From the opening statement of Daniel E, Lungren: "First of all, I want to thank you for being here. I think this is an important issue because as much as anything else, we are going to stay on the cutting edge in the areas of responsibility for the Department of Homeland Security if we, in fact, maintain our technological edge. We have tremendous resources with the Department. We have tremendous resources specifically with the National Labs. The question is: Are we doing the best job to ensure that we get the best bang for the buck? The No. 1 stated goal of the DHS Science and Technology Director is to, ''deliver knowledge, analyses, and innovative solutions that advance the security mission of the Department.'' The Homeland Security Act of 2002 included the necessary statutory authorization for DHS to work with these labs in support of homeland security needs. It also established a special relationship allowing DHS to use the DOE Lab system on an equal basis. In addition, the DHS Office of National Laboratories coordinates with DOE to meet mission goals and avoid duplication." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Daniel E. Lungren, Yvette D. Clarke, Bennie G. Thompson, Daniel m. Gerstein, Huban A. Gowadia, Daniel Morgan, Jill M. Hruby, and Michael R. Carter.

  United States. Government Printing Office

  2013
• Department of Energy: Views on Proposed Civil Penalties, Security Oversight, and External Safety Regulation, Statement of Gary L. Jones, Associate Director, Energy, Resources, and Science Issues, Resources, Community, and Economic Development Division, Testimony before the Subcommittee on Energy and Power, Committee on Commerce, House of Representatives

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "Since its creation in 1977, DOE has conducted technically complex and hazardous activities at its facilities across the country. These activities include developing, producing, maintaining, storing, and dismantling nuclear weapons; managing nuclear fuel storage and disposal sites; operating nuclear reactors; performing research and development to enhance energy efficiency and to develop innovative nuclear, renewable, and other energy sources; and cleaning up environmental contamination from its past weapons production. Besides being potentially dangerous, some of these activities are highly classified and require sophisticated security measures. However, in conducting these activities, DOE has a long history of safety, managerial and security problems. DOE is essentially exempt from regulation by NRC for nuclear safety and by OSHA for worker protection. These exemptions originated from concerns about national security that characterized DOE's historical role in nuclear weapons production. The facilities that this legislation would subject to external regulation are substantial. DOE maintains 3,500 nuclear facilities at 34 sites in 13 states, covering, in all, more than 85 million square feet of building space."

  United States. Government Accountability Office

  2000-03-22
• U.S. Department of Energy Cyber Security Program: Cyber Security Strategic Plan, Version 1.0

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "Over its history, the Department of Energy (DOE) has shifted its emphasis and focus as the needs of the nation have changed. [...] To keep pace with this continually changing environment, the DOE must develop comprehensive, risk-based approaches to protect and support our national security, science, and technology missions. Implementing an agile, effective, and cost-efficient approach to cyber security requires the DOE to develop improved and systematic processes, and to leverage technologies to streamline implementation and improve effectiveness of security controls. In this cost-constrained environment, the Department's leadership needs to balance and prioritize security activities, based on risk and mission, and translate its strategies into effective tactical actions. This Cyber Security Strategic Plan outlines the goals and objectives of the DOE cyber security program to safeguard the DOE's information assets and assure the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the information vital to achieve the DOE's missions. The details of how the Department will share information, counter new and evolving threats, and develop new methods for protecting information and information systems will be defined in the policies and in the mission-centric Senior DOE Management Program Cyber Security Plans (PCSPs). This strategic plan contains the goals and strategic objectives for the DOE Cyber Security program. Each strategic objective is organized into near-term, mid-term, and long-term element. The elements are 'time boxed' with near-term elements expected to be addressed in the next 12 months, mid-term elements addressed in the next 18-24 months, and the long-term elements addressed in the next three years."

  United States. Department of Energy

  2007-02-12
• Current Energy Security Challenges, Hearing Before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, One Hundred Eleventh Congress, First Session to Receive Testimony on Current Energy Security Challenges, Jaunary 8, 2009

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  From the opening statement of Jeff Bingaman: "The Energy Independence and Security Act that we were able to enact here in the Congress increased fuel efficiency standards, set a new course for U.S. biofuels policy, developed a wide array of energy research and development programs in areas such as energy storage and enacted a large slate of new energy efficiency standards. The committee also got heavily involved in the America Competes Act legislation which set long term priorities to keep our country competitive in the world. Our President-elect Obama has committed to support these initiatives. He also, of course, has made energy a very high priority for his new Administration. We look forward to working with him on that. Today's hearing is intended to give us the broad overview of these issues. The witnesses today are representing organizations that have spent a great deal of time in energy trying to devise blueprints and plans that we could follow in this country to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and meet our future energy needs in an environmentally responsible way. So we wanted to get the benefit of their views at the beginning of the legislative session before we went into the process of trying to craft legislation to address these issues." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Kit Batten, Jeff Bingaman, Karen A. Harbert, Lisa Murkowski, Dianne R. Nielson, and Eric Schwartz.

  United States. Government Printing Office

  2009
• Drilling Down on America's Energy Future: Safety, Security, and Clean Energy, Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of Representatives, One Hundred Eleventh Congress, Second Session, June 15, 2010

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  This is the June 15, 2010 hearing on "Drilling Down on America's Energy Future: Safety, Security, and Clean Energy," held before the U.S. House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee on Energy and Environment. Fro m the opening statement of Edward J. Markey: "Fifty-seven days ago, in the dead of night, the worst environmental nightmare in U.S. history began. On a screen here and in homes across the country, we now see the live video of tens of thousands of barrels of oil billowing into the Gulf of Mexico every day. For years the oil industry swore this could never happen. We were told the technology had advanced, that offshore drilling was safe. BP said they didn't think the rig would sink; it did. They said they could handle a Exxon Valdez-size spill every day; they couldn't. BP says the spill was 1,000 barrels per day; it wasn't and they knew it. Now the other companies here today will contend that this was an isolated incident. They will say a similar disaster could never happen to them, and yet it is this kind of blind faith which is, ironically, the name of an actual rig in the gulf that has led to this kind of disaster." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Edward J. Markey, Fred Upton, Henry A. Waxman, Joe Barton, Bart Stupak, Michael C. Burgess, John D. Dingell, Michael F. Doyle, Parker Griffith, Jay Inslee, Ralph M. Hall, Doris O. Matsui, Mary Bono Mack, Jerry McNerney, Cliff Stearns, Gene Green, Roy Blunt, Lois Capps, Joseph R. Pitts, Jane Harman, Steve Scalise, Tammy Baldwin, Mike Ross, Peter Welch, Jim Matheson, G.K. Butterfield, Charles A. Gonzalez, Rex W. Tillerson, John S. Watson, James J. Mulva, Marvin Odum, Lamar McKay, and Tony Barr.

  United States. Government Printing Office

  2013