[Senate Hearing 109-786]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 109-786
KOLEVAR NOMINATION
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
on
THE NOMINATION OF KEVIN M. KOLEVAR TO BE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF ENERGY
FOR ELECTRICITY DELIVERY AND ENERGY RELIABILITY
__________
NOVEMBER 16, 2006
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
32-819 PDF WASHINGTON : 2007
------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250. Mail: Stop SSOP,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico, Chairman
LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico
CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii
LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska RON WYDEN, Oregon
RICHARD BURR, North Carolina TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota
MEL MARTINEZ, Florida MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana
JAMES M. TALENT, Missouri DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
CONRAD BURNS, Montana MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia KEN SALAZAR, Colorado
GORDON SMITH, Oregon ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey
JIM BUNNING, Kentucky
Frank J. Macchiarola, Staff Director
Judith K. Pensabene, Chief Counsel
Robert M. Simon, Democratic Staff Director
Sam E. Fowler, Democratic Chief Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS
Page
Domenici, Hon. Pete V., U.S. Senator from New Mexico............. 1
Kolevar, Kevin M., nominee to be Assistant Secretary for
Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, Department of
Energy......................................................... 2
APPENDIX
Responses to additional questions................................ 11
KOLEVAR NOMINATION
----------
THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 2006
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:07 a.m., in
room SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Pete V.
Domenici, chairman, presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PETE V. DOMENICI, U.S. SENATOR FROM
NEW MEXICO
The Chairman. The nomination of Kevin M. Kolevar to be the
Assistant Secretary for Electricity Delivery and Energy
Reliability at the Department of Energy.
First, I note with pleasure the presence in the audience of
the Secretary of Energy, Sam Bodman. Mr. Secretary, it's a
pleasure to have you here. I note, for the record, that you
have been present for a number of the confirmation hearings of
your deputies and assistants, and I think it should serve well,
in terms of the relationship that exists, and will exist, in
your office.
We are here today to consider the nomination of Kevin
Kolevar to be Assistant Secretary for Electricity Delivery and
Energy Reliability at the Department of Energy.
Mr. Kolevar, I also welcome you to the committee for this
hearing to consider your nomination. As you know, we spent
significant time and effort fashioning the electricity
provisions of the Energy Policy Act last year. And FERC has
expended a like amount of effort in producing implementing
regulations since the bill's enactment. That's because our
electricity system is the bedrock of our country's economy and
our citizens' well-being. So, the issues you will be charged
with administering are very important to all of us on this
committee, and I encourage you to keep that in mind as you
fulfill your duties, if you are confirmed in this position.
Now, before we begin, do you have family or other guests
present who you would like to introduce?
Mr. Kolevar. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
I have with me today my wife, Stephani.
The Chairman. Stephani, would you stand, please? Thank you.
Mr. Kolevar. And my son, Jake.
The Chairman. And would you stand, please? And how old are
you?
Jake Kolevar. Six.
The Chairman. Six. Well, we welcome you, and thank you very
much for coming. Now, do you have any others, sir?
Mr. Kolevar. No, sir.
The Chairman. Fine.
And the rules of the committee--which apply to all
nominees--require that they be sworn in connection with their
testimony. Please rise and raise your right hand.
Do you swear that the testimony you are about to give to
the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources shall be
the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Mr. Kolevar. I do.
The Chairman. Please be seated.
Before you begin your statement, I will ask you three
questions that are addressed to each nominee before this
committee.
Will you be available to appear before this committee and
other congressional committees to represent departmental
positions and respond to the issues of concern to the Congress?
Mr. Kolevar. I will.
The Chairman. Are you aware of any personal holdings,
investments, or interests that could constitute a conflict, or
create the appearance of such a conflict, should you be
confirmed and assume the office to which you have been
nominated by the President?
Mr. Kolevar. Mr. Chairman, my investments, personal
holdings, and other interests have been reviewed both by myself
and the appropriate ethics counselors within the Federal
Government. I have taken appropriate action to avoid any
conflicts of interest. There are no conflicts of interest, or
appearances thereof, to my knowledge.
The Chairman. Are you involved--or do you have any assets
held in blind trust?
Mr. Kolevar. No, sir.
The Chairman. Now, there are two Senators present. I
assume, Senators, we will proceed in the normal manner. All
right.
And, sir, would you proceed to give your testimony to the
committee?
TESTIMONY OF KEVIN M. KOLEVAR, NOMINEE TO BE ASSISTANT
SECRETARY FOR ELECTRICITY DELIVERY AND ENERGY RELIABILITY,
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Mr. Kolevar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Bingaman, and
members of the committee. It is a great honor for me to appear
before you today as the President's nominee to be Assistant
Secretary for Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability at
the U.S. Department of Energy. I appreciate the committee
holding this hearing and for considering my nomination. I also
want to thank Secretary Bodman for being here this morning and
for recommending me to the President for this position. If
confirmed, it would be my privilege to work with this committee
and with Congress, as well as my colleagues within the Bush
administration, to carry out the Department of Energy's many
important responsibilities in electricity and energy
reliability.
I'd like to introduce my wife, Stephani, my son, Jake, and
my daughter, Jessica. Stephani is my partner and best friend,
and I would not be here today were it not for her constant
encouragement and support.
I want to, again, thank President Bush and Secretary Bodman
for the trust they have placed in me, and the committee, for
holding this hearing and considering my nomination. If
confirmed, I commit that I will do everything I can to help the
Department accomplish its missions, which are so critical to
the Nation's safety and security. It would be an honor and
privilege for me to serve the American people as an Assistant
Secretary for the U.S. Department of Energy.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kolevar follows:]
Prepared Statement of Kevin M. Kolevar, Nominee to be Assistant
Secretary for Electricity Delivery & Energy Reliability, Department of
Energy
Mr. Chairman, Senator Bingaman, and members of the committee, it is
a great honor for me to appear before you today as the President's
nominee to be Assistant Secretary for Electricity Delivery and Energy
Reliability at the U.S. Department of Energy. I appreciate the
committee holding this hearing and for considering my nomination. I
also want to thank Secretary Bodman and Deputy Secretary Sell for being
here this morning, and for recommending me to the President for this
position. If confirmed, it would be my privilege to work with this
Committee and the Congress, as well as my colleagues within the Bush
Administration, to carry out the Department of Energy's many important
responsibilities in electricity and energy reliability.
I would like to introduce my wife, Stephani Kolevar, my son Jake
and my daughter Jessica. Stephani is my partner and best friend, and I
would not be here today were it not for her constant encouragement and
support. I would like to also introduce my parents, Robert and Judy
Kolevar, and my siblings Brian and Kristin Kolevar. My mother and
father spent their entire careers in service to the public; my father
dedicated himself to law enforcement as a federal agent with the FBI,
while my mother chose a career in medicine as a pediatric nurse. They
instilled in me from my earliest memory a sense of civic duty and
responsibility. It is because of them that I entered public service and
why I seek to continue and help take on the great challenge of meeting
this nation's energy needs reliably, efficiently, and with sensitivity
to the environment.
I currently serve as the Director of the Office of Electricity
Delivery and Energy Reliability, which was established in 2005 to lead
the national efforts to modernize the electric grid; implement national
policy to increase grid capacity and reliability; improve the security
and resiliency of the energy infrastructure; and facilitate the
recovery from disruptions in the energy sector.
Prior to this position, I served at the Department of Energy as the
Chief of Staff to then Deputy Secretary Kyle McSlarrow and as a Senior
Policy Advisor to Secretary Abraham. Before joining the Department of
Energy, I spent over ten years serving as U.S. Senate staff in the
offices of Senators Spencer Abraham and Connie Mack. My work at the
Department of Energy has given me a great appreciation for the
importance and difficulty of the national missions undertaken by the
Department. My decade of work in the Senate has ingrained in me the
deepest respect and honor for this great institution.
In each of these capacities, I have worked with the staff of this
Committee and some of the Committee's Members on a variety of matters.
I look forward to continuing to work with the Committee, in my present
position and in the position of Assistant Secretary should I be
confirmed. If confirmed as Assistant Secretary, I am committed to doing
everything I can to work both within the Administration, with this
Committee, and with the Congress to help the Department succeed in
carrying out its missions.
In closing, I want to again thank President Bush and Secretary
Bodman for the trust they have placed in me. I also want to thank the
Committee for holding this hearing and considering my nomination. It
would be an honor and a privilege for me to serve the American people
in this position.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be glad
to answer the Committee's questions at this time.
The Chairman. Thank you, sir.
Senator Bingaman.
Senator Bingaman. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I join
in welcoming the nominee and congratulating him on his
nomination.
I know that Mr. Kolevar has held senior positions in the
Department during the last 6 years and has been the Director of
the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability for
the past 2 years. So, I have no doubt that he's qualified to
perform the functions that are intended here.
I do still have concerns about the need to have an
Assistant Secretary performing these functions. The Department,
of course, has seven Assistant Secretary positions. One of
these has traditionally been responsible for overseeing the
Department's environment, health, and safety responsibilities,
and those functions have now been moved to a new office that's
headed by an office director not subject to Senate
confirmation. I understand that that change was made in order
to give the ``Assistant Secretary'' title to Mr. Kolevar, to
the position that he is now being nominated for. I have
concerns about the reorganization of the Department's
environment and safety and health programs. And I do believe
those are issues we should look into.
So, I do have some questions. Should I proceed with those
questions at this point?
The Chairman. Senator, I apologize for sort of going in
improper order. And, yes, you should proceed with your
questions at this point.
Senator Bingaman. Okay. I'll be glad to ask a few
questions.
Mr. Kolevar, let me just ask you: Why do the functions of
the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability need
to be performed by an Assistant Secretary rather than by an
Office Director, in your view? I assume that these are
essentially the same functions that you have been performing as
the Office Director, and, now that change is being made,
perhaps you could explain the reasons for that.
Mr. Kolevar. Thank you, Senator.
Of course, the decision to elevate the office was not mine,
and was made without input from me, or a recommendation to that
effect. I do, however, believe that the duties carried out by
this office, and the significance of electricity as a driving
force for our economy, make an elevation of this office to an
assistant-secretary level appropriate. We have seen a number of
instances over the last several years where the interuption of
electricity--the lack of reliable electricity--has been a
national issue, certainly in the cases of the blackout of 2003
and in the wake of the hurricanes last year. It's my opinion
that the electricity title included in the 2005 Energy Policy
Act recognized these concerns and spoke very well to the need
for additional involvement by the Federal Government to help
ensure electricity delivery as a fundamental component of our
national economy.
Senator Bingaman. Let me just follow up on that. As I
understand the Energy Policy Act that we passed last year, it
is--we did have in there various provisions assigning, to the
Secretary of Energy, responsibility for coordinating Federal
authorizations and environmental reviews for the development of
new electric transmission facilities. And the Secretary then
delegated those authorities to FERC, the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission. Would you expect the Secretary to
withdraw that--those functions from FERC and have them assigned
to you? If not, what would be your role in the position as
Assistant Secretary for those subject matters that were
delegated to FERC?
Mr. Kolevar. Sir, I believe the delegation you are
referring to is a new one that was passed to FERC wherein
applications for transmission lines which were located within
national interest electric transmission corridors would be
coordinated by the FERC, and appropriate NEPA review would be
conducted by the FERC as well. As we anticipate the provision
of section 1221(a) working the Department has completed its
study, has taken comments, and has announced recently that any
draft designations that come from the Department would be
published in draft form, with an additional comment period to
allow additional stakeholder input.
Should the Secretary ultimately decide to designate one or
more corridors, then most of the action will then turn over to
the FERC, should there be an applicant to cite a new project
within that transmission corridor. The reasons for that, sir,
were because the Commission has a long and well-established
process of coordinating permits for long line infrastructure.
Their duties under chapter 7 of the Natural Gas Act are the
best example. And so, the FERC has announced that they would
intend to implement the relevant delegations in much the same
fashion as they do chapter 7 of that Act, and that would
involve coordinating the appropriate NEPA review in the event
an application be made for a transmission line in that
corridor.
Senator Bingaman. Let me ask, on another issue. I note your
office is--will share jurisdiction over some programs that have
previously been under the Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy Office, and that some programs that have been under that
office will be transferred to your office. At least that's what
I've been informed. An example here is the Wind System
Integration Program. I'd like to be sure that the important
work that's been going on at this Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy Office in support of wind development in
connection with the--with this project is continued. Could you
tell us about any plans you have to be sure that vital parts of
that program are not lost in the transition to your office, and
any comments you could give us, in general, about how you would
plan to coordinate with that office to be sure that the overlap
between your offices preserves the important goals of renewable
energy projects?
Mr. Kolevar. Yes, sir.
I should note that the decision to transfer some portions
of that program has not been made by the Congress. The
provision that you speak of was included in the Senate- passed
appropriations mark. And so, while we have seen that there was
at least an intent, or a consideration, on the part of the
Congress to move functions from the wind program into the
electricity program, that has not yet happened.
That said, Senator, I will tell you that the Assistant
Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy and I have
taken it upon ourselves to work very closely together and to
construct a program which truly utilizes all of the benefits of
the current wind technologies and seeks to integrate them into
the grid.
Without speaking to any specific levels of funding that
might or might not move, it is my opinion that close
cooperation between the programs is absolutely imperative. Wind
energy is commercially viable now, and we need to be giving
more attention on how to integrate it into a grid--in a
responsible manner that does not upset the balance. And
Assistant Secretary Karsner and I are committed to doing that.
Our staffs have been working cooperatively to fashion a joint
committee to really decide how best to make that happen. And I
have to say, I am very pleased with the progress that has been
made thus far. And the commitment of all the staff is to really
work together to break ground on some new relationships and
break out of the stovepipes that we occasionally see at the
Department.
Senator Bingaman. Mr. Chairman, I'll stop with that. Thank
you very much.
I'll have a few other questions that I'll submit for the
record, if I could.
The Chairman. All right.
Senator Salazar.
Senator Salazar. Thank you very much, Chairman Domenici and
Ranking Member Bingaman.
I very much have enjoyed working on this committee, and
working with the spirit of bipartisanship that you have brought
to it, Chairman Domenici and Senator Bingaman. And certainly
the efforts of the passage of the 2005 Energy Policy Act could
not have happened without the great leadership from both of
you, and I very much appreciate both of you in that regard, and
also as just wonderful friends from the Land of Enchantment.
To you, Secretary Bodman, and to Assistant Secretary Sell,
thank you for being here, and thank you for your continuing
support of the National Renewable Energy Lab in Colorado.
And, to Mr. Kolevar, I congratulate you on your nomination.
I have a couple of questions for you. The first has to do
with a provision that was in the 2005 Energy Policy Act, on the
designation of the energy corridors around the country. In my
State, there are a number--we have tried to work with the
Department of Energy to get the corridor maps given to us so
that we can understand what areas of the State will be
impacted. And, as I have understood what those corridors look
like, they are more than half a mile wide, and have enough a
number--will affect a number of different areas in the State of
Colorado. Can you provide me with an update on what the status
is of the designation of those energy corridors at this point
and will have more specific information as to the description
of those corridors within my State, as well as within other
States?
Mr. Kolevar. Yes, sir.
The corridors that I think you are referring to are those
provisions under section 368 requiring the Department to work
with other land management agencies to identify energy
corridors through which not just transmission, but natural-gas
pipelines, product pipelines, and the like, can run. I have
been very pleased with the close cooperation that has taken
place between the Department and the other agencies. In this
respect, the Department shares a co-chair lead with the
Department of the Interior. And we have been working very
closely with all of the relevant agencies within that
Department and the Forest Service and others to cooperatively
identify corridors across the West. We are looking at it from a
very high-level system view, if you will, so that we can do our
very best to identify those corridors most necessary, but, at
the same time, do so with intrusion upon the least amount of
Federal lands as possible.
The corridors, sir, as you mention, are around 3,500 feet
wide, as currently envisioned. And, a draft map of these
corridors was released in June of this year. We are working
with our partners right now to identify additional steps that
need to be made before we can release any final version.
Senator Salazar. Can you tell us--or can you tell me and
the committee when you expect that to happen?
Mr. Kolevar. Yes, sir. I think that that will happen in the
spring of 2007. We had hoped to be able to produce that faster,
but this is a significant action by the land management
agencies, and----
Senator Salazar. Just because of our time constraints here,
let me just ask you another question--once the--once those maps
are published to show these energy corridors for the country,
what is the process that you anticipate to move forward with,
in terms of finalizing those energy corridors?
Mr. Kolevar. An entire package for proposed final corridors
will include a programmatic EIS, and additional public comment
will be invited on those corridors.
I should note, Senator, that all agencies have been working
very hard to identify the corridors most necessary to
facilitate continued growth in the West, at the same time being
very sensitive to all of the lands out there. Ninety percent of
the corridors we have identified this way are located using
existing rights-of-way across Federal lands.
Senator Salazar. It'll be very important to maintain
communication, I'm sure, with all of the Senators, on those
corridors within our respective States, and I look forward to
working with you on that in connection with the Colorado
corridors.
Let me ask you a second question relative to the
integration of renewable energy into the electric grid. The--
wherever I go in Colorado, whether it's in the eastern plains
or up in the northern part of Colorado, where we now have
significant wind energy being produced, one of the major
concerns that I hear from people who are interested in the
subject is the fact that they have no access to the grid. We
can produce all of the--all of the electricity--a lot of
electricity from wind, but our challenge, then, is access to
the grid. Give us, in a 1-minute summation, 2- minute
summation, what you think we ought to be doing to enhance that
access to the grid for renewable energy from wind.
Mr. Kolevar. I think there are two primary lines of
pursuit, and these are those that would be done in the
cooperative working group that, Senator Bingaman, I described
to you just a little earlier. The first is that there are
interconnection barriers that need to be overcome, and that is
to make sure that when wind is introduced into a system, it is
not doing it to the detriment of reliability of the system. And
the variable nature of wind can make balancing some grids very
difficult. And so, that is a technological challenge that we
will continue to work on, and will do so through research and
development, but within the Electricity Office and in the wind
program.
The second area, Senator, is that I believe that there
needs to be significant outreach efforts--and this is really
going to involve the States, who are the primary regulators of
the electric grids--to make sure that we can work with
utilities to appropriately incentivize their greater inclusion
of wind assets into the grid. It is oftentimes the case that
the potential risks of introducing that new variable in are
such that utilities or regional organizations may be trepid and
not want to pursue that. So, that is an area where we really
need to sit down with the States, with the RTOs, ISOs, and the
utilities themselves, and developers, and see what we can do to
overcome and address some of those fears. And, to the extent
that the States can introduce some new policies by regulation
or statute to help overcome those barriers, the Department
would like to do what we can to assist them.
Senator Salazar. I look forward to working with you on that
issue, and with Secretary Bodman, because I know it's a very
major issue in my State.
I have a number of other questions, Mr. Chairman, but I
will just submit those for the record and for response along
the timelines that you've set.
Thank you very much.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Both of you have asked great questions this morning,
because you've asked the questions that I was going to ask.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. Obviously there's nothing left. But I will
submit mine anyway and let them--let the young man answer them
again. So, I'll submit mine, and you can rethink between what
you gave you and what he's going to give me in writing, and see
how that turns out. And we won't ``catch him,'' I don't think,
since he'll have plenty of time to think. Looks like he is not
very easily ``caught.'' Would that be fair? Whatever that
means.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. Anyway, we're glad to have you. Unless
Senator Bingaman has anything further--we know we've got a few
wires, one ahead of the others, that we ought to get
straightened out here, Mr. Secretary, before too long, if we
can, so as to implement his being moved along, rather than
being a deterrent. And you are well aware of that. Working with
a rather fairminded minority for the next couple of weeks, we
want to get it done, work well with them. If not, we'll be into
next year, and we'll see what happens.
But, in any event, we're finished with you for the day, and
glad to have your family up here. We are glad that they are
interested in your moving ahead in an area like this and that
they're willing to come up here today. And that little guy is
going to do okay, it looks like to me.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Kolevar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you.
We're in recess.
[Whereupon, at 10:32 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
APPENDIX
Responses to Additional Questions
----------
Responses of Kevin Kolevar to Questions From Senator Domenici
national interest electric transmission corridors nietcs
Section 1221 of EPAct directed the Department of Energy (DOE) to
conduct a national study of electric transmission congestion and to
issue a report designating a National Interest Electric Transmission
Corridor--or NIETC--for ``any geographic area experiencing electric
energy transmission capacity constraints or congestion that adversely
affects consumers.'' Once an NIETC is identified, EPAct provided FERC
with ``backstop'' siting authority, if certain conditions are met.
The DOE report, released in August, found southern California and
the area between New York City and northern Virginia to be the most
severely congested regions in the country. The public comment period
closed this fall and DOE is set to release draft NIETC designations by
the end of this year. Those draft designations will also be open to
public comment.
Question 1. DOE's congestion study identified southern California
and the Atlantic coastal area from metropolitan New York through
northern Virginia as ``critical congestion areas.'' These areas will
likely receive an NIETC designation correct? How does DOE plan to deal
with the ``congestion areas of concern'' like New England; Seattle/
Portland; Phoenix/Tucson; and the San Francisco Bay area?
Answer. The Department of Energy (DOE or the Department) is
presently evaluating comments it has received on its congestion study
and other relevant information to determine whether to designate one or
more National Corridors in the classes of congestion areas that were
identified in the congestion study. The Secretary has not yet made a
determination as to whether or where National Corridors will be
designated. In making those decisions, I believe the Department will
consider all comments and feedback from potentially affected States and
stakeholders in those regions.
Question 2. I understand that draft designations may be out by the
end of this year. When does DOE anticipate designating final corridors?
Answer. At this time I cannot estimate precisely when any final
designations of National Corridors may occur. I can say, however, that
the Department is proceeding as expeditiously as possible. The
Department expects that it will decide whether or not to designate any
final National Corridors at an appropriate time after it issues any
draft designations, allows for a comment period, and considers all
comments submitted.
Question 3. Given the long lead times necessary for transmission
construction, is there an assumption that these designated corridors
will be in place for a significant period of time?
Answer. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 is silent as to whether
National Corridor designations should be permanent, terminate at some
time, or terminate upon the occurrence of some event or condition. The
Department has not yet determined how it will deal with this issue. The
point you raise is significant, however, and the Department did request
public comment on this question.
Question 4. There is already some concern in the state of Virginia
that a potential corridor could encompass historic battlefields. Are
state or federally-owned lands subject to eminent domain for NIETC
corridors?
Answer. Pursuant to Section 1221(a) [FPA Section 216(e)], property
owned by the United States or a State is not subject to the exercise of
the right of federal eminent domain, even if such lands are encompassed
within a National Corridor.
Question 5. Similarly, my colleagues from Maine have expressed
concern about the requirement that DOE consult with the States. Will
DOE consult with affected states prior to issuing the draft
transmission corridor designations? On what basis did DOE find that the
Maine-New Hampshire interface is a congested area of concern?
Answer. DOE consulted extensively with many State officials, such
as state regulatory commissioners and their staff and officials from
State energy agencies, before completing and issuing the National
Electric Transmission Congestion Study in August 2006. The Department
repeatedly sought input from States and other parties, and many of them
responded to these invitations by supplying useful comments,
information, and analysis. Others affirmatively sought to meet or talk
with the Department to make their views known. After issuing the study,
DOE again invited public comment and has received much useful and
relevant input.
In addition, DOE has announced its intention to issue draft
designations of National Corridors in order to engage in public comment
and consultative discussions with affected States and other
stakeholders prior to any final designations. Section 1221 does not
require DOE to seek public comment on draft designations, but we
believe that doing so will be beneficial to DOE and to stakeholders.
The DOE historical document which references the congestion on the
Maine-New Hampshire flows is the ISO-NE Regional System Plan 2005. The
interface in question is the Northern New England Scobie Interface. The
Department's conclusion was based on historical market data for that
interface, which showed that the interface reached the limits of its
safe load-carrying capacity during more than 1600 hours in the 2004-
2005 time period.
DOE's independent modeling results were based on simulations using
the GE MAPS model utilizing the CRA proprietary generation database and
transmission configuration from the NERC MMWG load flow. Those models
served to further verify the facts contained in the earlier noted
analysis.
I look forward to working with your office, the Maine delegation,
and other interested Members to ensure that DOE addresses concerns such
as those expressed by the State of Maine.
energy corridors across federal lands
Question 6. EPAct directed DOE and the land management agencies to
designate corridors for energy rights-of-way across federal land in the
West for new infrastructure. I understand that this has been an
enormously complex undertaking, given the number of jurisdictions and
stakeholders involved.
What kind of consultation process has DOE undertaken to identify
these corridors and work through these complex issues? What remains to
be done? Will DOE meet the August 2007 deadline?
Answer. You are correct. The tasks required by EPAct Section 368
are complex, but agencies continue to work together and make progress.
The agencies began work shortly after the Energy Policy Act of 2005 was
enacted in August 2005. At that time, an interagency team was
established with the Department of Energy (DOE) as the lead agency. The
Bureau of Land Management is a co-lead, and the Forest Service, the
Department of Defense, the Fish and Wildlife Service and the States of
California and Wyoming are cooperating agencies. The Coeur de'Arlene
tribe is also a cooperating agency. In addition, the Department of
Commerce is involved as a consulting agency. Pursuant to EPAct Section
372(a), a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was signed by the four main
agencies in February 2006 with respect to cooperative implementation of
Section 368.
Involvement from the States, tribes and various stakeholders
throughout the energy right-of-way corridor designation on Federal
lands is ongoing. The Federal agencies have conducted joint public
scoping meetings concerning the designation of such corridors in each
of the eleven contiguous Western States.
A draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) for the
proposed action is expected to be published in the spring of 2007. The
agencies anticipate there will be a 90-day comment period, including
hearings in each of the eleven western states. After the final PEIS is
issued, the relevant land use plans are expected to be amended by a
record of decision to be issued by approximately December 2007.
Question 7. There has been much debate as to the areas these energy
corridors may cross. There are numerous environmentally sensitive areas
throughout the West. Will it be possible to designate such corridors
while avoiding areas such as wilderness areas and wildlife refuges?
Answer. The agencies are seeking to avoid wilderness areas,
wildlife refuges, and other sensitive environmental areas. The agencies
are going through a laborious process with webcasts, field meetings,
and various face to face discussions regarding the best routes for
energy right-of-way corridors. The objective is to facilitate
additional infrastructure to support demand and supply resources, while
protecting the environment. About 90 percent of the currently
designated energy corridors on federal lands build upon existing rights
of way.
blackouts
Question 8. Last summer's record temperatures and electricity
demands certainly taxed our nation's grid. Are we at risk today for a
significant blackout like the one we experienced in August 2003?
Answer. Last summer's record temperatures and electricity demands
greatly stressed our Nation's grid, and significant weather events
continue to have the potential to cause a significant blackout.
However, things have improved since 2003, largely as a result of our
having identified the causes of that blackout and the progress being
made to implement the recommendations made by the U.S.-Canada Power
System Outage Task Force (Task Force).
The fact that some of the causes of the August 2003 blackout were
seen in previous blackouts led to a strong emphasis in the Task Force's
final report on the long-term need to track implementation of the
report's 46 recommendations, monitor compliance with standards, and
maintain vigilance.
The first and most important recommendation of the Task Force was
that the U.S. Congress should enact legislation to make compliance with
reliability standards mandatory and legally enforceable, which the
Congress did in the Energy Policy Act of 2005. That policy is being
implemented by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission through its
approval and continuing oversight of the North American Electric
Reliability Council to be the Nation's ``Electric Reliability
Organization.'' Utilities, RTOs and ISOs have been working for over a
year to prepare for these new standards, and this preparation is doing
a great deal to improve reliable electric service.
While much progress has been made since August 2003, there is still
much work to be done. By its very nature, the electric grid is complex
and is subject to mechanical and human failures. Thus, we cannot
eliminate the possibility of future blackouts.
Question 9. The North American Electric Reliability Council--the
new ERO--recently released its long-term reliability assessment. NERC
warned that we need to invest in power plants and transmission lines to
accommodate an expected 19% increase in demand over the next decade.
How do you respond to this report?
Answer. We embrace this report. NERC's recent long-term reliability
assessment is consistent with the President's statements, those of the
Department, and that of Congress by its enactment of the Energy Policy
Act of 2005, that our nation needs to modernize and expand our
electricity infrastructure. The Department shares NERC's call for more
generation and transmission, as well as NERC's call for more energy
efficiency and demand response, all of which are essential parts of
modernizing our Nation's electric grid.
coal deliveries via rail
Question 10. As Assistant Secretary, one of your primary
responsibilities will be to help ensure a reliable supply of
electricity for the nation. Last May, this Committee conducted a
hearing on rail deliveries of coal used to generate electricity. At the
hearing, we learned that even though our country is the ``Saudi Arabia
of coal,'' a number of electric utilities are importing coal from South
America and Indonesia to make up for inadequate rail deliveries of
domestic coal.
If confirmed, will you focus on this important issue and keep the
Committee informed as to whether federal policy in this area is
adequate or whether legislative or administrative action is needed?
Answer. I agree that the reliable delivery of coal is an important
factor affecting the reliability of our nation's electricity supply. If
confirmed as Assistant Secretary, I will continue to track this issue
and keep the Congress informed, as well as inform you if it appears
additional actions are needed.
pole attachments
Pursuant to current federal law, cable and certain
telecommunications companies attach their wires to electric utility
poles at subsidized, mandated rates originally instituted to promote
the deployment of nascent video and telecommunications services.
Senator Bingaman and I recently sent a letter to the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) expressing our concern about the effect
of current pole attachment subsidies, as well as two new proposals
related to pole attachment rates and engineering standards, on the
electric rates paid by electricity consumers.
Question 11. Are you aware of the relationship between pole
attachments and the safety, integrity, reliability and cost of electric
distribution infrastructure? Would you agree that the FCC should
refrain from taking action on any proposed changes to pole attachment
regulations in order to avoid any further negative effects on
electricity consumers, and also to allow time for Congress to consider
these issues in a comprehensive manner?
Answer. I am aware that pole attachments have the potential to
affect the reliability of our Nation's electricity infrastructure. I
cannot address what the FCC should or should not do under the laws it
administers. I can say, however, that I believe it would be appropriate
for DOE to make sure the FCC is aware of any potential concerns, such
as common point of failure issues, in connection with pole attachments.
Question 12. As Assistant Secretary, will you be willing to assist
the committee in addressing these critical reliability issues relating
to pole attachments?
Answer. If confirmed, I would look forward to discussions with the
Committee regarding how I might assist in addressing these issues.
doe lead agency authority
Question 13. Pursuant to new Section 216(h) of the Federal Power
Act, what steps has the Department taken to implement its lead-agency
role for transmission-related permits, and how have those steps
improved the permitting process to date? What more can the Department
do, and when can we expect further action in this area?
Answer. On August 8, 2006, the Department of Energy (DOE) and eight
other Federal agencies signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on
Early Coordination of Federal Authorization and Related Environmental
Reviews Required in Order to Site Transmission Facilities on Federal
Lands. Since that time, DOE has assembled a team to implement Section
216(h), and is finalizing the Department's procedures, including the
roles and responsibilities of Federal agencies and transmission project
applicants. I am encouraged by the potential benefits of systematic
coordination among Federal agencies and appropriate State agencies,
Indian tribes, and multi-state entities to prepare the initial
calendars with milestones and deadlines for the Federal authorizations
and related reviews required for the siting of transmission facilities.
To date, no Federal agency has notified DOE that it has received a
transmission line permit application relating to an electric
transmission line. Preparations are now in place to begin to
aggressively work with other Federal agencies to fulfill the provisions
of the MOU and Section 216(h).
transmission expansion
Question 14. I understand that in some states, such as Indiana,
Georgia, Minnesota, and Vermont, municipal electric systems and rural
electric cooperatives have jointly funded transmission upgrades. Is
this an effective model for getting new transmission funded and built?
Answer. I believe that joint ownership is one of several effective
models for getting new transmission facilities funded and built, as it
promotes joint planning, brings new investment money to the table and
broadens the base of support for construction of new transmission
facilities.
emergency replacement transformers
Question 15. One of the more vulnerable points in the electric
system are the high-voltage transformers that step voltage down from
transmission levels, typically above 100 kilovolts, to distribution
voltages in the tens of kilovolts. In 2004, both the Congressional
Research Service and the Congressional Budget Office concluded that
high-voltage transformers are uniquely important facilities for
electric reliability that are generally not produced in the United
States. Recently, the investor rating service Fitch noted that 70
percent of transformers are at least 25 years old, and that the
availability of spare parts was generally a problem in the utility
industry.
Are you aware of the Electric Power Research Institute's design for
an emergency replacement transformer that could be built in the United
States, easily transported when and where needed, and used either until
a permanent replacement was available, or for up to 30 years? If so,
what are the Department's views on this design? Should the federal
government be assisting in this effort?
Answer. I am familiar with the Electric Power Research Institute's
(EPRI) effort to develop a ``Recovery Transformer.'' This project was
performed in partnership with the Department of Homeland Security. It
is an example of a longer-term approach to make large transformers
easier to replace by designing modular transformers that can be more
easily transported.
The Department of Energy's Office of Electricity Delivery and
Energy Reliability is sponsoring complementary research that will
improve the compactness of distribution substation transformers. This
research is focused on increasing the flux density in the core steel
and materials research in high temperature superconductivity (HTS). HTS
will enable the transformers to be cooled without oil, making them more
resistant to acts of sabotage.
pmas
Question 16. Section 1222 of EPAct authorized the Western Area
Power Administration and the Southwestern Power Administration to
accept non-federal funds to build transmission facilities in certain
circumstances to resolve congestion situations. Is DOE aware of any
plans by WAPA and SWPA to exercise this authority?
Answer. I am not aware of any plans by WAPA and SWPA to exercise
this authority. It is my understanding that, to date, WAPA has not
received any financial offers to help build transmission facilities in
congested areas.
epact section 1813
Question 17. I know you are working on the EPAct Section 1813 study
regarding rights of way over tribal lands, which I authored. Because of
its importance, I want to make sure that you are looking at all
perspectives--economic, legal, regulatory, social, and historical. The
study should also be forward-looking. Further, I want to make sure that
the final report is going to give us some solid recommendations on how
to best address these issues.
Answer. DOE's Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability
is working with the Department of Interior (Departments) to complete
the EPAct Section 1813 study regarding energy rights-of-way (ROW) over
tribal lands. The Departments have also consulted with the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission and numerous tribal, industry, and public
participants in the course of this study. A draft report was released
for public comment in August 2006. In the past few months, the
Departments have been reviewing comments and making revisions to the
draft.
I agree with you about the importance of the study, including the
economic, legal, regulatory, social, and historical aspects of this
important issue. I anticipate that the final report will consider each
of these issues in relation to energy ROW negotiations on tribal lands.
In addition, I anticipate that the report will provide data and
analysis with respect to energy ROW negotiations.
The draft report currently contains a variety of alternatives that
could be implemented by parties to particular energy ROW negotiations
or by Congress should any specific public interest concerns arise from
the failure of parties to reach an acceptable agreement. The
Departments are also considering whether to make specific policy
recommendations in the final report.
The Departments are considering publishing the current staff draft
for additional public comment and I look forward to discussing this new
draft with your staff to ensure that your concerns are appropriately
addressed before the report is issued in final form.
Responses of Kevin Kolevar to Questions From Senator Thomas
Question 1. Under Section 216(h) of the Federal Power Act, as added
by Section 1221(a) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, the Department of
Energy (DOE) is directed to act as the lead agency for coordinating
required Federal agency authorizations and related environmental
reviews with respect to the siting of electric transmission facilities.
Under this authority, DOE has executed a Memorandum of Understanding
with other Federal agencies on early coordination and cooperation.
Under Section 216(h)(4)(B), the Secretary of Energy is to ensure that,
once an application has been submitted, all permit decisions and
related environmental reviews under all applicable Federal laws are to
be completed within 1 year. How does the Department intend to assure
that all permit decisions by Federal agencies are completed within 1
year, and what steps will you take if a federal agency delays action on
a completed application?
The statute authorizes DOE to issue any regulations necessary to
implement the lead agency authority within 18 months, or by February
2007. Is the Department planning to issue any such regulations?
Answer. As you indicated, on August 8, 2006, the Department of
Energy (DOE) and eight other Federal agencies signed a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) on Early Coordination of Federal Authorization and
Related Environmental Reviews Required in Order to Site Transmission
Facilities on Federal Lands. Since that time, DOE has assembled a team
to implement Section 216(h), and is finalizing the Department's
procedures, including the roles and responsibilities of Federal
agencies and transmission project applicants. I am encouraged by the
potential benefits of systematic coordination among Federal agencies
and appropriate State agencies, Indian tribes, and multi-state entities
to prepare the initial calendars with milestones and deadlines for the
Federal authorizations and related reviews required for the siting of
transmission facilities.
To date, no Federal agency has notified the DOE that it has
received a transmission line permit application. The preparations are
now in place to begin to aggressively work with other Federal agencies
to fulfill the provisions of the MOU and Section 216(h).
Question 2. Section 1815(b) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005
requires an interagency task force to study and report on competition
within wholesale and retail markets for electricity in the U.S. The
task force was required to report to Congress within 1 year of the date
of enactment of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. A draft of the study was
published for comment in June, but to date, the final study has not
been submitted to Congress. When can we expect to see this study?
Answer. A draft of the report to Congress is in interagency review.
I hope that the Department will be able to send you the final report
within a few weeks.
Question 3. Under the Federal Power Act Section 216(a), as added by
Section 1221(a) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, DOE is charged with
the designation of National Interest Electric Transmission Corridors
(NIETC). I am aware that DOE has completed a congestion study that is a
prerequisite to NIETC designations. Why is DOE requesting yet another
public comment process on yet to be proposed NIETC designations?
Answer. The Department has announced that, due to the significant
public interest in the NIETC (National Corridor) issues, before
designating any National Corridor, it will first issue any designations
in draft form to facilitate focused review and comment by affected
States, regional entities, and the general public. DOE noted, when it
announced this process, that a comment period on draft designations is
not required by Section 1221(a). I support this process because I
believe further public input will inspire greater confidence in the
process, and any final National Corridor designation will benefit from
comments addressing the specifics in a draft designation.
Question 3a. DOE has not provided a timetable for making the first
proposed NIETC designations. Given how badly the nation needs new
electric transmission capacity, when will the Department finalize the
first set of NIETC designations?
Answer. I do not have a firm timeline, but I can say that I believe
the Department is proceeding as quickly as it can. The Department's
August 8, 2006 Congestion Study highlighted numerous geographic areas
where electric congestion or capacity constraints exist. Fortunately,
DOE is not operating in a vacuum--many States and regional planning
entities have been active in working with the private sector to address
the need for new transmission. Accordingly, I believe that it is
important that before DOE makes any final designations, we fully
consider the comments and results of consultations with the States and
others in order to ensure that the designations, if any, are well
grounded. DOE is actively analyzing the comments that were submitted
following publication of the Congestion Study.
Question 3b. How does DOE intend to assure that the national
interest is paramount in the designation of the corridors in the face
of competing local or public interest group pressures?
Answer. Congress has given DOE a significant new authority, and has
stated that the Secretary may consider in any designation whether the
National Corridor would be in the interest of national energy policy,
among other factors. In order that DOE properly and appropriately
exercise the authority given it in Section 1221(a), if confirmed as
Assistant Secretary, I will ensure that there is a designation process
that appropriately considers all relevant factors.
Question 3c. Can entities proposing projects ask that The
Department of Energy (DOE) look at specific paths for transmission
lines before DOE completes its NIETC designations? If not, why?
Answer. Project sponsors and other entities have been able to
submit proposed transmission paths to DOE for its consideration as to
whether a National Corridor should be designated. These submissions
have been included in the public comments requested by the Congestion
Study, and are currently being reviewed as part of the entire record.
Question 3d. Your initial studies did not identify Wyoming as a
NIETC but found that, in the future, markets in the southwest will need
access to Wyoming coal resources. Transmission lines take a long time
to plan and build. Do you believe that work should begin now by relying
on the Rocky Mountain Area Transmission Study, and other studies, which
made it clear new transmission lines are needed in the West?
Answer. I agree that transmission projects have long lead times,
and that it is vital to plan ahead for future electricity needs in the
Southwest, as it is in other current and future high-demand areas.
Wyoming is blessed with an extraordinary coal resource that can make an
enormous contribution to the future economic growth in large
electricity demand centers in the Southwest. Accordingly, I encourage
prospective transmission developers to actively pursue their proposals
with appropriate State and Federal agencies with siting authority.
Question 4. In terms of an appropriate role for DOE in facilitating
major electric transmission construction that affects more than one
state and multiple electric utility service territories, should DOE
take the lead in bringing stakeholders together to achieve sufficient
consensus in order to assure that needed transmission infrastructure
is, in fact, completed?
Answer. I agree on the value of consensus among stakeholders on the
need for additional transmission infrastructure. If confirmed as
Assistant Secretary, I intend to continue DOE's role in supporting and
facilitating efforts by States to work together on a regional basis to
plan for meeting electricity demand. For example, the assistance DOE
offers has included access to experts at DOE national labs and other
national experts who can assist with studies and analyses. DOE also
continues to assist the Western Governors Association's Committee on
Regional Electric Planning Coordination with various studies and
related technical assistance to help them improve Western regional grid
planning and coordination. And, several years ago, the Department gave
the Rocky Mountain Area Transmission Study access to national lab
experts on advanced transmission technologies.
I would hope to further advance this work as DOE implements its new
authorities under EPAct. These new authorities include calling on DOE
to cooperate with the Federal land management agencies to designate
specific energy corridors crossing Federal land (Section 386), to
coordinate Federal permits required by transmission facilities (FPA
Section 216(h)), and to conduct periodic congestion studies to focus
national attention on the significant challenges the Nation faces in
keeping up with growing electricity demand.
Question 4a. If so, what tools does DOE have to accomplish that
objective?
Answer. DOE can provide access to experts at DOE National Labs and
other national experts who can assist with studies and analyses, expert
facilitation, and related areas of expertise existent in other
Departmental programs (e.g., market data in EIA and coal generation
information in the Fossil Energy Office).
Question 5. Given that much of the western United States is federal
land, what role will DOE play in the selection, permitting and review
of major transmission projects that affect federal lands? How will DOE
ensure coordination with the Department of the Interior, the Department
of Agriculture and other relevant federal agencies?
Answer. The agencies affected by Section 368 began work shortly
after the EPAct was enacted in August 2005. At that time, an
interagency team was established with DOE as the lead agency. The
Bureau of Land Management is the co-lead agency for this project. The
Forest Service, the Department of Defense, the Fish and Wildlife
Service and the States of California and Wyoming are cooperating
agencies. A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was signed by the four
main agencies in February 2006 with respect to cooperative
implementation of Section 368. The Coeur de' Arlene tribe is also a
cooperating agency. The Department of Commerce is involved as a
consulting agency. DOE, along with the other agencies involved in
energy corridors in the West, are not selecting specific projects.
As mentioned above, DOE also will play a role in facilitating
transmission projects both on and off of Federal lands. Pursuant to the
new FPA Section 216(h), DOE will coordinate Federal permits required
for the siting of transmission facilities, as outlined in the
Memorandum of Understanding.
Question 6. How will DOE interact with Indian tribes in the
decisions on siting and operation of transmission facilities that may
impact Indian country?
Answer. DOE has been working on many levels with Indian tribes
regarding decisions on siting and operation of transmission facilities.
Pursuant to Section 368 of EPAct, DOE is working with an interagency
team and conducting outreach to the tribes through regional meetings,
conference calls, face to face meetings, and government-to-government
consultations. The interagency team has developed a tribal protocol so
that all field and headquarter staff would be well prepared when
working with the tribes.
DOE and DOI also have been holding discussions and receiving
comments from Indian tribes, industry and the general public in
developing the report on Indian Land Rights-of-Way, required by Section
1813 of EPAct. I expect a new draft will be published this year for
public comment. Working in conjunction with the Department of the
Interior, DOE will examine comments from the Indian tribes and other
members of the public on the specifics of this draft once it has been
published.
Question 7. How will DOE coordinate with FERC given FERC's
``backstop'' permitting and eminent domain authorities under the Energy
Policy Act of 2005?
Answer. DOE has been coordinating with FERC with respect to
implementation of Section 1221. If confirmed as Assistant Secretary, I
intend to strengthen that coordination, particularly as it relates to
the DOE's FPA Section 216(h) requirements to coordinate Federal permits
for transmission facilities, both personally and through recently hired
staff who have experience at FERC.
Question 8. Do you believe that the construction of new
transmission capacity needs further regulatory or financial incentives
to move forward in a timely manner?
Answer. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 included several provisions
designed to ease regulatory obstacles and provide additional financial
incentives for transmission development, including changes to the
Internal Revenue Code and new authority to FERC to grant incentive-
based rates to attract new investment. Thus far, I understand that
there have been some encouraging responses from the electricity
industry, but I believe that it is too soon to know whether or what
additional Federal actions might be required to stimulate construction
of additional transmission capacity.
Question 9. Currently, IRS ``private use'' restrictions limit the
use of certain tax-advantaged instruments to government owned
utilities. There are a number of State infrastructure authorities that
are developing public-private partnerships to build transmission. As is
provided for in Sec. 3011 of Senate bill S. 2755, do you believe it
would be helpful if these entities had the authority to issue tax
exempt bonds in order to lower the cost of capital for large scale
transmission projects?
Answer. I believe the creation by some States of infrastructure
authorities is a good way to help ensure that needed transmission is
built. I am aware of the language in Senate bill S. 2755 that would
expand the IRS ``private use'' restrictions to allow State
infrastructure authorities to issue tax exempt bonds. However, I defer
to the Department of the Treasury for a position on Section 3011 of
Senate bill S. 2755.
Question 9a. To what extent is the Department of Energy working
with state infrastructure authorities?
Answer. DOE has been in frequent dialogue, attended meetings with,
and otherwise consulted with State infrastructure authorities. For
example, DOE has worked with the Wyoming Infrastructure Authority as
part of its work on the proposed Frontier Line. In addition, DOE has
worked with Western entities on regional planning and coordination
through groups such as the Western Governors Association's Committee on
Regional Electric Power Coordination. Also, the Department's Western
Area Power Administration is part of a three-way memorandum of
understanding with TransElect and the Wyoming Infrastructure Authority
to evaluate various ways of addressing the ``TOT-3'' transmission
congestion that exists between Wyoming and eastern Colorado.
DOE was recently briefed on the newly-created Kansas Infrastructure
Authority. If confirmed as Assistant Secretary, I would look forward to
meeting with and discussing infrastructure issues, including public-
private partnerships, with it, and as well as other State
infrastructure authorities.
Question 10. What role do superconductor wires have in increasing
the reliability of electric delivery in the United States? Do you
believe that western states, over which electricity must travel
comparatively longer distances than other areas of the country, are an
important place to demonstrate and encourage the advancement of
superconductor technologies?
Answer. Superconducting cables have an important role in increasing
the reliability of the electric delivery system. Superconducting cables
are underground cables that increase the capacity in constrained areas
of the transmission and distribution system. These cables have been
tested in small lengths at both transmission and distribution voltages.
I believe the Western states can take advantage of superconducting
systems in congested metropolitan areas, but the cost of putting these
cables underground presents a major obstacle that may prevent
superconducting cables from being the technology of choice over
distances in excess of 100 miles.
Question 11. In what ways does the Department of Energy coordinate
with the Department of Transportation on ensuring that the reliability
of our nation's electric supply is not jeopardized by insufficient rail
delivery of coal? Do you believe there is room for improvement in this
regard and, if so, what do you propose doing about the federal role in
remedying the so-called captive shipper' issue?
Answer. I agree that the reliable delivery of coal is an important
factor affecting the reliability of our nation's electricity supply.
DOE is currently reviewing this issue, and I look forward to working
with the Committee on this issue.
DOE has been in discussions with the Department of Transportation
regarding the importance of supply assurance to electricity
reliability. However, DOE does not have the authority to address
railroad rates or pricing policies.
Question 12. As the Department of Energy moves forward with the
creation of right-of-way corridors on federal land, pursuant to Section
368 of the 2005 Energy Policy Act, how does the agency intend to
protect private property rights in the corridors and the continuance of
uses such as grazing and mining?
Answer. It is my understanding that Section 368 only applies to
Federal lands, and that it does not address the designation of energy
corridors on private, tribal or State lands. Where possible, I believe
the Federal agencies are incorporating interagency operating principles
(similar to best management practices) which outline various uses,
including grazing and mining, and stipulations for the energy
corridors.
Responses of Kevin Kolevar to Questions From Senator Alexander
Question 1. The Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy
Reliability was recently formed as a merger of the Office of
Electricity Transmission and Distribution and the Office of Energy
Assurance at DOE, subsuming newly formed programs and initiatives such
as GridWise, GridWorks, and Transmission Reliability. What is the
rationale for reorganization now and why will this reorganization serve
the goal of the reliable delivery of electricity to our nation.
Answer. I believe this reorganization has made the Office of
Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability (OE) more effective. OE was
formed by Congressional direction to build upon the synergies in the
Office of Energy Assurance at DOE and newly formed initiatives such as
GridWise, GridWorks, and Transmission Reliability.
Question 2. What are the most promising and significant
technologies under development for ensuring the reliable delivery of
electricity? Do you anticipate a role for innovative materials, such as
superconducting wires, to improve the reliability of the electricity
grid? Given the impressive results of computer modeling and
visualization applied to improve our understanding of other complex
systems, do you foresee significant application of computer modeling
and visualization to improve the stability of the electricity grid and
other critical energy infrastructure? What is the Department of Energy
doing to develop, validate, and implement these innovations?
Answer. I believe the most promising and significant technologies
under development include superconducting materials, storage, power
electronics, load management technologies and visualization/controls.
Yes, I do anticipate a role for innovative materials such as
superconducting wires to improve the reliability of the electric grid.
DOE, partnering with industry, is validating innovations through
laboratory scale and commercial scale demonstrations including the
superconducting cable demonstrations in Columbus OH, and Albany, NY. I
foresee the application of computer modeling and visualization to
improve the stability of the electric grid and other critical energy
infrastructure. The Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy
Reliability (OE) is currently working with the Office of Science on a
joint activity that will look at mathematical supercomputing to
increase our understanding of grid dynamics and stability.
Additionally, OE is developing a departmental visualization tool for
increased situational awareness during emergencies.
Responses of Kevin Kolevar to Questions From Senator Bunning
Question 1. A number of Kentucky rural electric cooperatives,
municipal electric companies and investor owned utilities have been
having serious problems with the Tennessee Valley Authority for several
years. Specifically, TVA has been unwilling to interconnect with these
Kentucky companies and transmit power from suppliers other than TVA.
This refusal to cooperate costs these Kentucky communities jobs and
millions of dollars a year in extra power costs. TVA's unwillingness to
provide interconnection and transmission service may have a significant
adverse impact on Kentucky's ability to provide reliable electric power
to its communities. What do you foresee your office doing to ensure
electricity reliability in situations like this one and what
interaction will you have with the TVA?
Answer. If confirmed as Assistant Secretary of Energy, I look
forward to working with you to address your concerns. Although DOE does
not have jurisdiction over the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), EPAct
does require the Department to identify areas of electric transmission
congestion (Section 1221(a)). In its August 8, 2006 Congestion Study,
DOE's identification of historic electric transmission constraints in
the SERC Reliability Corporation region indicated that among the most
limited flow directions in the TVA area were from Tennessee to Kentucky
(mostly flows from Cumberland into the LGE system in Kentucky).
However, in that same study, DOE's independent simulations for the
Eastern Interconnection did not identify this flow area as among the
most congested paths in the Eastern Interconnection. Accordingly, DOE
did not designate any areas in Kentucky or the SERC Reliability
Corporation Region as Critical Congestion Areas, Congestion Areas of
Concern, or Conditional Constraint Areas. Nevertheless, DOE will
continue to review all the identified constraints and congestion areas
as it develops its planned progress report on congestion, which is
expected to be released in late in 2007.
Additionally, I am cognizant of the potential impact of limited
sources of generation for reliability and other adverse affects on
consumers. I will, if confirmed, continue to focus on what DOE can do
on these issues.
Question 2. Part of the responsibility of your Office is to
modernize and enhance the security and reliability of the electric
grid. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 gave the Department of Energy the
authority to establish National Interest Electric Transmission
Corridors. As you know, siting electric transmission lines has
traditionally been a state matter. How do you see your office working
in consultation and cooperation with the states on the issue of siting
high voltage electric transmission lines?
Answer. I recognize that the EPAct provisions are new, and require
care as they are implemented. I look forward to working with your
office to ensure that DOE addresses these concerns as it works to
exercise its statutory authority.
DOE consulted extensively with many State officials, such as state
regulatory commissioners and their staff and officials from State
energy agencies, before completing and issuing the National Electric
Transmission Congestion Study in August 2006. The Department repeatedly
sought input from States and other parties, and many of them responded
to these invitations by supplying useful comments, information, and
analysis. Others affirmatively sought to meet or talk with the
Department to make their views known. After issuing the study, DOE
again invited public comment and has received much useful and relevant
input. In addition, DOE has announced its intention to issue draft
designations of National Corridors in order to engage in public comment
and consultative discussions with affected States and other
stakeholders prior to any final designations. Section 1221 does not
require DOE to seek public comment on draft designations, but we
believe that doing so will be beneficial to DOE and to stakeholders.
Question 3. I understand that a number of new technologies that
will allow for the efficient transmission of large amounts of
electricity over long distances with little line loss are in the
developmental or early deployment states. What is the status of these
new technologies and what is your office and the DOE doing to
facilitate their deployment?
Answer. Superconducting cables can play an important role in
increasing the reliability of the electric delivery system through the
efficient transmission of large amounts of electricity with little line
losses. Superconducting cables are underground cables that can bring an
increased capacity to constrained areas of the transmission and
distribution system. These cables have been tested in small lengths at
both transmission and distribution voltages in Albany, NY and Columbus,
OH. DOE is currently requesting proposals to demonstrate longer lengths
at transmission level voltages of superconducting cables.
Responses of Kevin Kolevar to Questions From Senator Bingaman
reliability of oil and gas pipeline systems
Question 1. In September, this Committee held hearings on the
failure of a critical oil pipeline in the Prudhoe Bay area of Alaska.
Many of us were surprised that such an important piece of our oil
supply infrastructure had not been adequately maintained and was not
subject to federal safety regulation. DOT pipeline safety regulators
apparently do not have a mandate to consider the importance of
particular pipelines to supply reliability.
Can you tell us what your approach to energy infrastructure
reliability will be? How will your office interact with the Department
of Transportation, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and the
Department of Homeland Security to assure that we have a reliable and
resilient pipeline infrastructure?
Answer. Homeland Security Presidential Directive-7 has designated
DOE as the lead energy agency to work with sector security partners to
ensure a robust, resilient energy infrastructure. If confirmed as
Assistant Secretary of Energy, I would seek to ensure that DOE, through
the DHS National Infrastructure Protection Plan (NIPP) and the Energy
Sector Specific Plan, continues to collaborate with energy sector
security partners to help identify key assets and systems and to
encourage collaboration in restoration and recovery activities.
As the Co-Chair of the NIPP Government Energy Coordinating Council,
DOE is working closely with federal, State and local governmental
representatives, including most particularly with DOT, the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission and DHS Transportation Security
Administration, in focusing on pipelines. Identifying vulnerabilities
and working with the energy asset owners and operators is a key focus
of our efforts. I understand that the DHS-led Transportation Sector
Specific Plan will have a Pipelines Modal Implementation Plan which has
been developed in close cooperation with DOE and the Oil and Natural
Gas Sector Coordinating Council. DOE is also working very closely with
FERC and DOT to ensure timely availability of information on pipeline
system disruptions.
national interest corridors
Question 2. The Department of the Interior, along with the
Department of Agriculture and the Department of Energy, is conducting a
programmatic environmental impact statement on the determination of
corridors of national interest for transmission lines on public lands
in the West. It seems, from DOI's statements in that proceeding, that
their belief is that we, in the passage of EPAct 2005, overturned prior
law to make it unnecessary for Congress to give specific approval for
transmission lines on Park Service lands. My view is that we did not do
so. We left prior law in place to continue to require specific
legislative approval for transmission lines on Park Service lands. Do
you have a view on this question?
Answer. I recognize that the Energy Policy Act of 2005 provisions
are new, and require care as they are implemented. I look forward to
working with you and the Committee to ensure that DOE addresses these
concerns as it works to exercise its statutory authority.
In implementing Section 368 of the EPAct, ``Energy Rights-of-Way on
Federal Lands,'' I believe the interagency project team (consisting of
the Departments of the Interior, Agriculture, Defense and Energy--
Commerce has a consultant role) has worked to understand the importance
of avoiding environmentally sensitive areas wherever practicable.
However, I cannot speak for the Department of the Interior with regard
to the statement you have cited.
conservation easements
Question 3. Again, on the question of determination of transmission
corridors of national interest, It would seem to me that the process
that you have laid out, coupled with FERC's final siting proceedings,
may leave some questions of importance unexamined. The effect of a
corridor or a line on state granted conservancy easements, for example,
may not have a proper place for consideration without a programmatic
environmental impact statement, which you do not intend to conduct for
corridor determinations on private lands in the east. Also, the
comparative viability of competing or alternative routes may not come
to the fore in either your process of determining corridors or in
FERC's siting process. Do you believe that issues like these can be
adequately addressed in the process that is going forward, and if so
how.
Answer. I believe the process DOE has announced regarding how it
will consider whether to designate a National Corridor will allow for
the important issues that you raise to be appropriately addressed.
As you are aware, in its Congestion Study, DOE invited public
comment on the study and on the issues relevant to designation of
National Corridors. In my current role as Director of the Office of
Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, I am participating in the
evaluation of these comments, and that work is ongoing.
DOE has decided that, prior to issuing a report that designates any
National Corridor, DOE will first issue a designation that it is
considering in draft form, so as to allow additional opportunities for
review and comment by affected States, regional entities, and the
general public. I support this process because I believe public input
is crucial. As part of its analysis, I believe that DOE will seriously
consider comments relating to potential routes for transmission relief
as it considers whether to designate geographic areas experiencing
transmission capacity constraints or congestion that adversely affects
consumers. However, I believe the designation of a National Corridor is
not a siting process that endorses any particular transmission proposal
or route.
Regarding DOE's obligations under the National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969, as the director of OE, and if confirmed as Assistant
Secretary, I will work to ensure DOE satisfies any NEPA obligations.
public participation
Question 4. I also have concerns that the process for development
of the corridors rulemaking may not have been as open as it might be.
My understanding is that there has been little opportunity for input
from states, environmental groups, property owners and consumers. I
also understand that you have now determined that any communication
with such entities after the closure of the comment period for the
rulemaking on October 10, would be ex parte communication and so
proscribed. My understanding is that such communication is not
considered ex parte communication in the rulemaking context. What has
been the process for public input on development of your rule?
Answer. DOE consulted extensively with many State officials, such
as state regulatory commissioners and their staff and officials from
State energy agencies, before completing and issuing the National
Electric Transmission Congestion Study in August 2006. The Department
repeatedly sought input from States and other parties, and many of them
responded to these invitations by supplying useful comments,
information, and analysis. Others affirmatively sought to meet or talk
with the Department to make their views known. After issuing the study,
DOE again invited public comment and has received much useful and
relevant input. In addition, DOE has announced its intention to issue
draft designations of National Corridors in order to engage in public
comment and consultative discussions with affected States and other
stakeholders prior to any final designations. Section 1221 does not
require DOE to seek public comment on draft designations, but we
believe that doing so will be beneficial to DOE and to stakeholders.
Responses of Kevin Kolevar to Questions From Senator Wyden
impact of new doe preemption authority on siting electric transmission
in the northwest
Question 1. Our region is served by the Bonneville Power
Administration--which is also part of the Energy Department. BPA has
very specific statutory responsibilities and roles, including providing
much of the region's electric transmission. By federal law, we also
have established a regional power planning council, now called the
Northwest Power and Conservation Council. How do you intend to
coordinate your Energy Policy Act process with the existing planning
process in the Northwest? And what assurance can you give me that we
won't find our own planning and siting processes preempted by you and
the Energy Policy Act process?
Answer. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 directed the Department of
Energy (DOE) to study transmission congestion and authorized DOE to
designate National Interest Electric Transmission Corridors where
appropriate. As a result, DOE needs extensive transmission planning
information. I have great respect for the regional transmission
planning entities and processes that exist in various parts of the
Nation, and if confirmed, would seek to coordinate DOE's efforts with
the work those organizations, including BPA, have in process.
relationship of mr. kolevar's office to bpa and other doe power
marketing administrations
Question 2a. As you know, DOE runs four major regional electric
systems--the Power Marketing Administrations (PMA's)--Bonneville,
Southeastern, Southwestern, and the Western Area Power Administrations
including significant amounts of electric transmission. These PMA's
don't report to you, but your office is supposed to be the Department's
expert on what it takes to make sure the electricity system works. I
would like to know what role you are going to play in how the
Department oversees the PMA's in general.
Answer. Decisions in these matters are vested in the Secretary. The
Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability (OE) supports the
Secretary's responsibilities, and in so doing has developed and
maintains a strong working relationship with all four PMAs.
Question 2b. Last year, the Administration proposed a budget that
would have forced BPA to take its ``excess'' power revenues--``excess''
as defined by OMB--and pay them to the Treasury. As your own
transmission report points out, we already have transmission
constraints in the Northwest. We also need to build additional
transmission to support the growth of new wind and other energy
sources. Plus, BPA has a hydro-based system, and it's often the
weather, not BPA, which determines what level of revenues BPA actually
has to operate the system from year to year. In other words, the idea
that BPA has excess revenues is incorrect. What are you going to do to
ensure that the Administration is not going to shortchange BPA in its
efforts to operate its system and meet its transmission needs?
Answer. I recognize the importance of improving transmission in the
Pacific Northwest. If confirmed, I will work with BPA in its efforts to
operate a reliable transmission system. I will seek to work with BPA on
a variety of solutions to address these concerns, and ensuring the
appropriate funding is secured to operate the grid is essential.
Question 3. Failure of Mr. Kolevar's office to improve transformer
standards.
Your office is supposed to be source of expertise on electricity
transmission at DOE. Yet, earlier this year, the Department's Office of
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy finally issued a proposed
standard for electric distribution transformers. There are some 40
million of these transformers in the U.S. And the result was a standard
that even the electric utilities that need to buy these transformers
say isn't good enough. Eight of them wrote to Secretary Bodman in
September complaining that the standard DOE proposed would cost
American utility companies and their customers an additional $11.1
billion over the lifetime of these transformers, waste 459 billion
kilowatt hours of electricity, and increase peak load by 6,600
megawatts over a more efficient standard that DOE considered and
rejected. I understand that you and your office didn't have any role in
putting this proposal together, but my question to you, is why not?
Answer. The Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, and
not OE, is responsible for developing energy efficiency standards for
consumer appliances, and industrial equipment, including standards for
distribution transformers. As a result, I as Director of the Office of
Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability did not play a role in
developing that proposed rule. However, I understand your concerns and
have discussed this matter with Assistant Secretary Karsner of the
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. I am confident that
OE will be involved in any future activities relevant to transformers
and will have the opportunity to contribute to future work in this
area.
Question 4. Role of Mr. Kolevar's office in the integration of
renewable resources.
What role are you going to Department policies and programs that
are primarily the responsibility of other offices within the
Department, such as the transformer example cited above, that impact
the ability of our country to keep electricity reliable, viable, and
affordable such as the integration of wind and other renewables into
the electric grid?
Answer. In my view, a critical mission of the Office of Electricity
Delivery and Energy Reliability is to enhance the security and
reliability of the nation's energy infrastructure. Potential impacts to
the reliability, viability and affordability are first and foremost
concerns in all of the work this office does on advanced technologies.
OE has developed a partnership with the Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy to assist that program in assuring that a variable
generation source such as wind energy can be reliably integrated onto
the US electricity grid. The partnership has examined state of the art
integration methods for wind energy, and is developing a plan for
disseminating the use of such methods throughout the industry. OE is
using wind energy as the pilot for integration of variable technologies
onto the electricity grid. I expect this effort will result in lessons
learned from wind integration that can be applied to solar energy,
hydroelectricity, biomass and other generation sources.
Question 5. Role of Mr. Kolevar's office in addressing ``seams''
issues
Answer. In September, FERC conditionally approved a proposal by the
California Independent System Operator (CAISO) to implement a complex
program of market mechanisms, called the Market Redesign and Technology
Upgrade (MRTU). Several of the neighboring utilities filed comments
with FERC, saying that there are numerous technical ``seams'' issues
that must be addressed before MRTU is adopted. Several Northwest
Senators, including me, also sent letters to FERC expressing concerns
that seams have not been addressed and urging FERC to ensure that my
region will not be harmed as a result of these changes. As you know,
``seams'' issues occur when one utility, like the CAISO, has different
operating protocols than its contiguous neighbor utilities. To address
these issues, FERC plans to schedule one or more technical conferences
between the CAISO and other regional utilities. What role will your
office play in addressing seams issues within the Western electric
grid?
Answer. I agree that this issue needs to be comprehensively
evaluated and resolutions identified. OE has a variety of analytical
tools and talents that we are prepared to offer in support of the
efforts by FERC, the ISOs and the States to address ``seams'' issues.
Responses of Kevin Kolevar to Questions From Senator Cantwell
Question 1. You currently serve as the Director of the Office of
Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability for the Department of
Energy. Now you are before the Committee to serve as an Assistant
Secretary of Energy for Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability.
If confirmed as Assistant Secretary, will you have greater
influence over the administration policies related to electricity
delivery and reliability?
Answer. I believe the elevation of this office to an Assistant
Secretary level will increase its effectiveness both inside and outside
the Federal government.
Question 2. As you know, the Bonneville Power Administration has
the ability under federal statute to borrow from the federal treasury
to build high-voltage transmission lines. Using this authority, the
Bonneville Power Administration has built hundreds of miles of lines in
the Northwest. These high-voltage lines have allowed the region to
continue economic growth and added to the reliability of the nation's
transmission system. The amount of borrowing authority is finite and
BPA has sought to partner with non-federal interests to increase the
availability of capital for needed transmission investments.
Do you agree that we need to encourage creative and cooperative
financing methods to get high-voltage transmission built?
Answer. Yes, I do, to the extent that such creative and cooperative
financing methods are consistent with sound financial and operational
management, and comply with Federal laws and policies.
Question 2a. Given the superior record of transmission investment
in the service area of the Bonneville Power Administration, don't you
agree that proposals from the Office of Management and Budget to limit
the use of third party financing limits a proven 'creative and
cooperative' option for the region's future transmission investments?
Answer. In past budgets, I know that the Administration proposed
legislation that it believed would promote the financial transparency
of the Bonneville Power Administration and Tennessee Valley Authority.
I certainly agree that all four of the Department's PMAs have excellent
operational records, including in the area of transmission reliability,
and if confirmed, would look forward to working with you and the PMAs
to see that excellent record continue.
Question 3. The Pacific Northwest National Laboratory in Richland,
WA has created the Electricity Infrastructure Operation Center (EIOC)
to provide a unique platform for grid research and development that
will collect capabilities to provide the context for technology R&D and
quantify the impacts of new technology. I invite you to visit the EIOC
in the near future.
Are you familiar with the EIOC? Do you agree there is a federal
role to invest in high-risk, high-value R&D that will benefit industry
as well as consumers? What role do you see for national laboratories
like PNNL and for universities?
Answer. Yes, I have been briefed on the Electricity Infrastructure
Operations Center. I agree that there is a federal role to invest in
high-risk, high value R&D such as superconductivity, high voltage power
electronics, storage and advanced visualization tools that will benefit
industry as well as consumers. The National Laboratories and
universities have an important role in, among other things, the
researching the next generation visualization tools and the
mathematical modeling of the grid system for increased reliability.
They also provide the opportunity to support the next generation power
engineers required by the electric industry.
Question 4. Last Spring, we were very excited about the start of
the Northwest Demonstration project which is designed to demonstrate
balancing load with demand in real-time on the Olympic Peninsula. This
demonstration should be complete by next spring and we look forward to
the final results and evaluation with respect to energy savings. I
understand the demand side programs such as the NW demo have now been
folded into the OE portfolio called Visualization and Controls. Where
do you see this portfolio going and will you continue to invest in
demand side R&D and technology demonstration programs?
Answer. I am excited about the Olympic Peninsula activity that
enables customer choice based on real-time pricing information and
grid-friendly appliances. If confirmed, I would seek to focus DOE's
future efforts on long-term, high-risk research on visualization and
control tools such as communication architecture standards and
vulnerabilities of new control systems related to the utility sector. I
also would seek to continue DOE's investments to investigate scenarios
under Distributed Systems Integration to reduce peak loads by 20
percent on a constrained feeder system.
Responses of Kevin Kolevar to Questions From Senator Salazar
Question 1.: Earlier this year, DOE published a map of the draft
designation of energy corridors in Colorado: http://
corridoreis.anl.gov/documents/docs/WWEC--PrelimDraftMap--Colorado.pdf
The black lines on the map indicate potential corridors that are
3,500 feet wide. I understand public comments were due by July 10,
2006, but without a better map, I don't know how people could figure
out exactly where the corridors would be located.
Please provide me and other members of the Energy Committee with
better maps of the proposed corridors. For Colorado, I would like a
state-wide map that identifies the specific locations of the proposed
energy transmission corridors.
When will the draft EIS be released?
Will there be another opportunity for the public to comment at that
point?
Can you assure me that these corridors will not affect private
landowners?
Answer. I recognize that the EPAct provisions are new, and require
care as they are implemented. I look forward to working with you to
ensure that DOE addresses these concerns as it works to exercise its
statutory authority.
It is my understanding that Section 368 only applies to Federal
lands. The Federal agencies were not given the authority by this
provision to designate energy corridors on private, tribal or State
lands. Where possible, the Federal agencies are incorporating
interagency operating principles (similar to best management practices)
which outline various uses and stipulations for the energy corridors.
If confirmed, I will work to ensure the interests of private landowners
are harmonized with the implementation of Section 368.
We received over 500 comments on the publication of the map, and I
understand the interest in a greater level of map detail. However, the
agencies are continuing to refine our analysis based in very large part
on the comments received to date. Much more information (including GIS
data) will be available in spring of 2007, when the entire document is
published. Until that time, the agencies cannot release the
deliberative body of work currently underway.
A draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for the
proposed action will be published in the spring of 2007. The agencies
anticipate hosting a 90-day comment period for review-including
hearings in each of the 11 western states.
Question 2. Congress took an important step in last year's Energy
Policy Act by passing important provisions related to electric grid
reliability. If confirmed, what steps do you think are necessary and
what steps will you take to ensure the reliability of the Nation's
electrical grid?
Answer. If confirmed as Assistant Secretary, grid reliability will
continue to be one of my top concerns and I intend to work within DOE
to utilize the available tools to ensure grid reliability. There are
two principal tools available to the DOE to help ensure grid
reliability. The first is the ongoing research and development into new
forms of generation, whether produced by fossil fuels, hydro,
renewables or nuclear energy, and electric transmission and
distribution technologies to help ensure greater control and efficiency
of electricity delivery. The second includes the new responsibilities
contained in the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The effort to designate
corridors on Federal lands for transporting energy (Section 368), the
electric transmission congestion studies (Section 1221(a)) to identify
significant congestions areas that need to be addressed, and the
discretionary authority to designate National Interest Electric
Transmission Corridors as appropriate, all significantly enhance the
DOE's ability to help improve the reliability of the electric grid.
Question 3. If confirmed, what will you do to integrate more
renewable energy into the electric grid while maintaining and improving
the grid's reliability?
Answer. I believe that renewable energy must be a major component
of our nation's energy strategy if we are to achieve clean,
domestically -produced and economical supply sources as a significant
component of our nation's energy portfolio. If confirmed, I would seek
to continue the partnership between the Office of Electricity Delivery
and Energy Reliability and the Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy to find ways to reduce barriers to renewable energy
integration. These barriers include lack of transmission, lack of use
of state of the art integration methods within the industry, wind
integration studies for system planning, and operational rules within
electricity balancing areas.
Question 4. How will you work with the Bureau of Reclamation and
other federal agencies to consider how we can use our hydroelectric
power sources to balance wind and solar sources for efficiency and
reliability?
Answer. If confirmed as Assistant Secretary, I would continue to
work to improve DOE's interagency relationships with respect to various
electricity projects. I already am working within the Department to
coordinate and to implement diverse energy efficiency technologies to
balance the variable technologies with base load, such as hydropower.
Question 5. What role do you see for distributed generation to
improve grid reliability and resistance to failure or attack?
Answer. I believe distributed generation has an important role for
improving grid reliability and resistance to failure or attack. By
having a portfolio of strategically placed distributed generation at
critical infrastructure facilities, such as hospitals, military bases,
communications centers, emergency shelters, and refining facilities,
the United States will reduce the impact of power outages whether
natural or malicious. Distributed generation will also be critical at
gasoline stations near evacuation routes to ensure the availability of
fuel during an evacuation. The Department is working on the study
required by Section 1817 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 regarding the
potential benefits of distributed generation. This report will address
reducing vulnerability to terrorism and improving infrastructure
resilience.
Question 6. Does DOE evaluate the risk of increased vulnerability
to our grid from large electric generating plants, in contrast to many
smaller sources of generation?
Answer. Yes, and both are important components of a reliable grid.
As Director of the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy
Reliability, I have supervised OE's work with electric sector companies
and States to identify and address vulnerabilities in certain, critical
generating facilities. The office also focuses on R&D to help improve
the competitiveness of distributed energy technologies. The presence of
backup power can help to improve the resiliency of the grid by
decreasing peak load requirements from large electric generating
plants.
I believe that distributed technologies are a part of a portfolio
of technologies (including large electric generating plants) that could
support improved resiliency of the grid. If confirmed as Assistant
Secretary, I would hope to continue DOE's work to encourage efforts to
improve these distributed technologies and facilitate their commercial
penetration so that they can play a larger role in the future.