[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
FISCAL YEAR 2008 RESEARCH AND
DEVELOPMENT BUDGET PROPOSAL
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND
ENVIRONMENT
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MARCH 7, 2007
__________
Serial No. 110-7
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science and Technology
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.science.house.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
33-610 WASHINGTON : 2008
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402�090001
______
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
HON. BART GORDON, Tennessee, Chairman
JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois RALPH M. HALL, Texas
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER JR.,
LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California Wisconsin
MARK UDALL, Colorado LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas
DAVID WU, Oregon DANA ROHRABACHER, California
BRIAN BAIRD, Washington KEN CALVERT, California
BRAD MILLER, North Carolina ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
NICK LAMPSON, Texas FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma
GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois
JERRY MCNERNEY, California W. TODD AKIN, Missouri
PAUL KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania JO BONNER, Alabama
DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon TOM FEENEY, Florida
STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas
MICHAEL M. HONDA, California BOB INGLIS, South Carolina
JIM MATHESON, Utah MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas
MIKE ROSS, Arkansas MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky PHIL GINGREY, Georgia
RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California
CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska
BARON P. HILL, Indiana VACANCY
HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona
CHARLES A. WILSON, Ohio
------
Subcommittee on Energy and Environment
HON. NICK LAMPSON, Texas, Chairman
JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois BOB INGLIS, South Carolina
LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois
GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona W. TODD AKIN, Missouri
JERRY MCNERNEY, California RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas
MARK UDALL, Colorado MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas
BRIAN BAIRD, Washington MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
PAUL KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania
BART GORDON, Tennessee RALPH M. HALL, Texas
JEAN FRUCI Democratic Staff Director
CHRIS KING Democratic Professional Staff Member
SHIMERE WILLIAMS Democratic Professional Staff Member
ELAINE PAULIONIS Democratic Professional Staff Member
STACEY STEEP Research Assistant
C O N T E N T S
March 7, 2007
Page
Witness List..................................................... 2
Hearing Charter.................................................. 3
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Nick Lampson, Chairman, Subcommittee
on Energy and Environment, Committee on Science and Technology,
U.S. House of Representatives.................................. 10
Written Statement............................................ 11
Statement by Representative Bob Inglis, Ranking Minority Member,
Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, Committee on Science
and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives.................. 12
Written Statement............................................ 13
Prepared Statement by Representative Jerry F. Costello, Member,
Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, Committee on Science
and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives.................. 14
Witnesses:
Dr. Raymond L. Orbach, Under Secretary for Science, U.S.
Department of Energy
Oral Statement............................................... 15
Written Statement............................................ 16
Biography.................................................... 33
Mr. Dennis R. Spurgeon, Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy,
U.S. Department of Energy
Oral Statement............................................... 34
Written Statement............................................ 36
Biography.................................................... 40
Mr. Alexander Karsner, Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency
and Renewable Energy, U.S. Department of Energy
Oral Statement............................................... 41
Written Statement............................................ 43
Biography.................................................... 51
Mr. Kevin M. Kolevar, Director, Office of Electricity Delivery
and Energy Reliability, U.S. Department of Energy
Oral Statement............................................... 51
Written Statement............................................ 53
Biography.................................................... 56
Mr. Thomas D. Shope, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Fossil Energy, U.S. Department of Energy
Oral Statement............................................... 56
Written Statement............................................ 58
Biography.................................................... 62
Discussion
The Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP)................... 62
Efficiency Standards Concerns.................................. 63
Bioenergy Research Centers..................................... 65
The Ultra-Deepwater and Unconventional Onshore Research and
Development Program.......................................... 66
The American Competitiveness Initiative........................ 69
Nuclear Power.................................................. 70
Energy Storage................................................. 71
Geothermal Energy Research..................................... 72
Ethanol Potential and Sustainability........................... 73
More on Nuclear Power.......................................... 73
Power Plant Siting............................................. 74
Energy Conservation............................................ 75
Electro-Magnetic Pulse (EMP) Preparedness...................... 75
Potential Coal Supply.......................................... 75
The International Linear Collider.............................. 76
More on the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP)........... 77
The Rare Isotope Beam.......................................... 78
Solar Energy................................................... 78
Appendix: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Dr. Raymond L. Orbach, Under Secretary for Science, U.S.
Department of Energy........................................... 82
Mr. Dennis R. Spurgeon, Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy,
U.S. Department of Energy...................................... 89
Mr. Alexander Karsner, Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency
and Renewable Energy, U.S. Department of Energy................ 95
Mr. Kevin M. Kolevar, Director, Office of Electricity Delivery
and Energy Reliability, U.S. Department of Energy.............. 104
Mr. Thomas D. Shope, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Fossil Energy, U.S. Department of Energy....................... 107
THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY FISCAL YEAR 2008 RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
BUDGET PROPOSAL
----------
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 7, 2007
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Energy and Environment,
Committee on Science and Technology,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:37 a.m., in
Room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Nick
Lampson [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
hearing charter
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
The Department of Energy
Fiscal Year 2008 Research and
Development Budget Proposal
wednesday, march 7, 2007
9:30 a.m.-11:30 a.m.
2318 rayburn house office building
Purpose
On Wednesday, March 7, 2007 the Energy and Environment Subcommittee
of the House Science and Technology Committee will hold a hearing on
the Department of Energy's (DOE) fiscal year 2008 Budget Request for
research and development programs.
Witnesses
Dr. Ray Orbach is the Under Secretary for Science at DOE, where he has
directed the Office of Science since 2002. Prior to joining the
Department, Dr. Orbach served as Chancellor of the University of
California at Riverside.
Mr. Dennis Spurgeon is the Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy at
DOE. Mr. Spurgeon was recently designated as the Acting Under Secretary
for Energy, taking the place of David Garman.
Mr. Alexander Karsner is the Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency
and Renewable Energy at DOE. Previously, Mr. Karsner served in the
private sector as an international infrastructure developer and
entrepreneur in a wide range of energy technology fields.
Mr. Kevin Kolevar is the Director of the Office of Electricity Delivery
and Energy Reliability at DOE. Prior to his appointment Mr. Kolevar
served as Chief of Staff to then-Deputy of Energy Kyle McSlarrow.
Mr. Thomas D. Shope is the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Fossil Energy. Mr. Shope is testifying in place of Assistant Secretary
Jeffrey Jarrett who recently announced his resignation.
The $7.2 billion request for DOE civilian energy R&D funding in
FY08 is divided among the five offices represented at this hearing. The
Office of Science (SC) funds basic research at universities and 10
national laboratories, and is the single largest federal supporter of
physical sciences research. The other four offices focus on applied
research and technology development in the fields of Energy Efficiency
and Renewable Energy, Fossil Energy, Nuclear Energy, and Electricity
Delivery. Appearing for the first time in the President's budget is the
Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee Program which would provide loan
guarantees for advanced technology projects that avoid, reduce, or
sequester air pollutants or anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse
gases, and have a reasonable prospect of repaying the principal and
interest on their debt obligations.
OFFICE OF SCIENCE (Witness--Dr. Ray Orbach)
As part of the President's American Competitiveness Initiative
(ACI), the FY 2008 budget request for the DOE Office of Science is $4.4
billion. This represents an increase of approximately $600 million, or
16 percent over the FY 2007 enacted level. However, this falls $189
million short of the funding levels authorized in Title IX of the
Energy Policy Act of 2005. It is important to note that the FY 2007
Joint Funding Resolution (H.J. Res. 20) appropriated $3.8 billion for
the Office of Science, roughly $200 million more than the 2006 enacted
amount, but far short of the $4.1 billion requested for 2007. The
resolution requires that DOE report back to the Congress within 30 days
on how the additional $200 million will be spent within the Office of
Science. Otherwise no direction is given as to increases or decreases
for specific programs, making program comparisons between years
difficult for the purposes of this analysis.
The FY 2008 request for Basic Energy Sciences (BES) is $1.5
billion, an increase of $388 million, or 35 percent above the FY06
enacted. As the largest program with within the Office of Science, BES
conducts research primarily in the areas of materials sciences and
engineering. In FY 2008 BES will support approximately 10,000
researchers in synchrotron light source and neutron scattering
facilities, as well as $279 million for the construction and operation
of five Nanoscale Science Research Centers.
The budget would provide $340 million for the Advanced Scientific
and Computing Research (ASCR), an increase of $112 million, or 49
percent over the FY06 appropriations. This includes funding to continue
upgrading the Leadership Class Facility (LCF) at Oak Ridge National Lab
to peta-scale operations, making it the world's largest civilian high
performance computing system.
Biological and Environmental Research (BER) would receive $532
million, a decrease of approximately $32 million from FY06 enacted
levels. This decrease reflects the omission of several congressionally
directed projects in the BER budget. In addition to the role of BER in
areas such as genomics and climate change research, the FY08 request
supports the startup of three bioenergy research centers to investigate
biological processes for developing and deploying large scale,
environmentally sound biotechnologies to produce ethanol from
cellulosic biomass (plant materials).
The FY08 funding request for High Energy Physics (HEP) is $ 782.2
million, which is $84 million or 12 percent more than the FY 2006
enacted level, but only a one percent increase over the FY 2007
request. This program funds fundamental research in elementary particle
physics and accelerator science and technology. Approximately $80
million is requested for R&D leading to the International Linear
Collider (ILC), a project which could cost over $7 billion and may be
sited in the U.S.
Fusion Energy Sciences (FES) receives $428 million, a substantial
increase of $147 million, or 52 percent above the FY 2006 enacted. Of
this amount, $160 million would be dedicated to support the U.S. role
in the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER).
Also of note, Nuclear Physics (NP) receives $471.3 million, an
increase of $113.5 million, or 31.7 percent, over the FY06 enacted
amount. The request for Science Laboratories Infrastructure is
approximately $80 million.
APPLIED ENERGY TECHNOLOGY PROGRAMS
While the total budget for energy R&D has risen in recent years it
is still a fraction of the robust levels seen when the Nation responded
to the energy crisis of the late 1970's. According to the U.S.
Government Accountability Office the Department of Energy's budget
authority for energy R&D fell 85 percent from 1978 to 2005 (inflation
adjusted). Within the applied programs funding varied greatly according
to Administration and Congressional priorities as the chart below
indicates.
Despite heavy investments in wind, solar and geothermal energy, the
large bulk of the Nation's renewable energy portfolio comes from
hydropower and still comprises only six percent of total electricity
generation. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) projects that
U.S. electricity generation will grow from 3,900 billion kilowatt hours
in 2005 to 5,500 billion kilowatt hours in 2030. Coal will make up most
of this growth and continue to provide the largest part of U.S.
electricity generation for the foreseeable future. It is expected that,
short of a very aggressive resurgence in nuclear capacity, new nuclear
plants will only serve to replace aging existing plants in terms of
overall electricity market share.
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) (Witness--Alexander
Karsner)
EERE is requesting $1.2 billion for FY08, a 6.3 percent increase
over the FY06 appropriated level. However, the request is significantly
less than the amount appropriated for FY07 in the joint funding
resolution passed on February 15, 2007, which increased appropriate
funds more than $300 million over the FY06 level to approximately $1.5
billion. As a result, the FY08 request actually represents a $237
million cut from the FY07 appropriated amount. As with the Office of
Science, it is not yet known how the Assistant Secretary for EERE will
allocate the additional $300 million. These allocations must be
determined no later than 30 days after the date of passage of the joint
funding resolution. Since these allocations are yet to be determined,
the rest of this analysis is based on a comparison of the FY08 request
and the FY06 appropriated amount.
Funding for priority programs continues to come at the expense of
other lower-profile programs where significant technological gains can
still be made. The FY08 request contains large cuts for Weatherization
Programs, the Industrial Technologies Program, and the Federal Energy
Management Program (FEMP), despite a Presidential call for increasing
efficiency in all three of these areas. The Vehicle Technologies
Program also suffers a slight decrease. The FY 2008 request also
proposes to eliminate two important renewable energy R&D programs--
Geothermal Technologies and Hydropower Technologies.
Biomass and Biorefinery Systems would receive $179 million, almost
a 100 percent increase over FY06 funding. This large increase is
intended to address the President's goal of making cellulosic ethanol
cost-competitive with corn-derived ethanol by 2012, and also enabling a
supply of 35 billion gallons of alternative fuels annually in
accordance with the Twenty in Ten initiative--a reduction of U.S.
gasoline usage by 20 percent in the next ten years--as outlined in the
2007 State of the Union address. While the general goal of increasing
the Nation's supply of alternative fuels is widely supported, there is
some concern, expressed both by parties within DOE and in the renewable
fuels community, that the level of commercial scale investment is too
much too soon, given that the science of unlocking cellulosic ethanol
is still uncertain. Some argue that some of that funding would be
better spent in the short-term investments to decrease our overall
energy demand, such as technologies to increase vehicle fuel
efficiency.
Solar energy would receive $148 million, an increase of 81 percent
over FY06 appropriations. This funding supports the President's Solar
America Initiative (SAI), which seeks to make electricity from
photovoltaic cells cost competitive by 2015. Wind energy is slated for
$40 million, essentially even with FY06 levels.
As in the 2007 budget request, the Administration would eliminate
R&D in Geothermal Power technologies. However, a comprehensive study
released in January by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology found
that the large amounts of heat stored in the Earth's crust could supply
a substantial portion of the United States' future electricity
requirements with minimal environmental impact and probably at
competitive prices. The primary obstacle to commercial development of
this resource was identified as lack of federal R&D support.
Hydropower R&D would also be eliminated, a category that includes
funding for ocean energy R&D (e.g., wave, tides, currents, etc.)
despite explicit authorization in EPACT 2005 for R&D in these
technologies. According to the Office of EERE, in the Pacific Northwest
alone, it is feasible that wave energy could produce 40-70 kilowatts
(kW) per meter (3.3 feet) of coastline, yet the President's budget
requests no funds for R&D into this vast, clean, and renewable
resource.
The Administration continues the inconsistent treatment of Energy
Efficiency programs. In addition to the Federal Energy Management
Program and the Weatherization program several cuts are made throughout
the budget. Despite mounting concerns about the role vehicles play in
the country's reliance on foreign oil the FY08 request for Vehicle
Technologies R&D would be reduced by $2.2 million over FY06, which
includes funding for technologies for plug-in hybrid vehicles,
lightweight vehicle materials, and engine technologies. The Industrial
Technologies program, which aims to reduce the energy intensity of the
U.S. economy by improving the energy efficiency of the Nation's
industrial sector, would decrease by $9.9 million, a decrease of almost
18 percent. However, Building Technologies would rise by $18.3 million
compared to the FY06 level, a 27 percent increase. While attempting to
pursue a balanced approach to developing clean energy technologies, the
EERE budget seems to exhibit a pattern of defunding valuable programs
to fund a few presidential priority projects, often with long-time
horizons and uncertain payoffs.
Office of Nuclear Energy (Witness--Dennis Spurgeon)
Nuclear Energy (NE) receives $568 million for research and
development, with a large portion of that dedicated to the Global
Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP). For the Nuclear office, this
represents an increase of $347 million (157 percent) above the FY 2006
Congressionally appropriated amount.
The Administration unveiled the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership
(GNEP) in 2006 as a plan to develop advanced, proliferation-resistant
nuclear fuel cycle technologies that would maximize the energy
extracted from nuclear fuels and minimize nuclear waste. GNEP has been
very controversial in Congress, with little support in the House where
only token funding has been approved. For instance, the Administration
requested approximately $250 million in FY 2007 for GNEP (through the
Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative--AFCI) but GNEP will likely only receive
roughly $80 million for FY 2007 under the joint funding resolution.
Nonetheless, the President's FY 2008 request for GNEP is $395 million.
Chief among the concerns about GNEP is the cost of implementing the
program (up to $40 billion) and then deploying a fleet of the required
technologies on a commercial scale (more than $200 billion), and
whether such a program warrants the costs. There are also issues with
premature selection of technologies before the completion of a full
system-wide analysis of what would be required. Many are concerned that
DOE has not adequately demonstrated an ability to carry out large scale
construction and operation of such a project without major cost and
schedule overruns.
Finally, the Nuclear Power 2010 program also would receive a
considerable boost with an FY08 request of $114 million, which is
almost double the FY06 appropriation. The increase is intended to
continue activities in new reactor designs and licensing applications
with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to support an industry decision
to build a new power plant by 2009.
Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability (Witness--Kevin
Kolevar)
The Office of Electricity is requesting $115 million for FY08, a 27
percent reduction from the FY06 appropriation. Of the total for this
office the Administration proposes $86 million for R&D, a $46.5
decrease from FY06 Appropriations. This continues a downward trend of
cutting R&D to improve the reliability, efficiency and security of the
Nations electrical grid system, improve access to the grid, and
decrease price volatility in electricity delivery.
Many of the EDER programs are being regrouped and consolidated
under a new account called Visualization and Controls. This includes
Transmission Reliability R&D, Energy Storage R&D, GridWise, and
GridWorks. This regrouping hides the fact that most of these programs
are being cut significantly.
Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee Program (LGP)
The FY 2008 budget proposes $8.4 million to fund the Office of Loan
Guarantees, which will administer the Innovative Technology Loan
Guarantee Program (LGP), a $1.4 million increase above the FY 2007
enacted amount. The program was established in the Energy Policy Act of
2005 to provide loan guarantees for renewable energy, energy
efficiency, clean coal, advanced nuclear, and other innovative energy
projects. The FY 2008 budget request assumes a loan volume of $9
billion for such projects. Of this, $4 billion is set aside for large
electric power generation projects such as advanced nuclear and coal
gasification with carbon sequestration. An additional $4 billion is set
aside to promote biofuels and clean transportation fuels, and $1
billion for new technologies in electricity transmission and renewable
power systems.
Fossil Energy R&D (Witness--Thomas Shope)
Fossil Energy R&D would receive $567 million in FY 2008, a decrease
of almost $14 million or 2.5 percent compared to FY 2007
appropriations. Funding increases would go exclusively to coal R&D,
including the Clean Coal Power Initiative which aims to develop
technologies that will increase efficiency of coal-fired power plants,
reduce mercury and NOX emissions, and prove carbon capture and
sequestration technologies. The FutureGen project, to demonstrate near-
zero atmospheric emissions electricity production, sees a substantial
increase to $108 million, 500 percent above the FY06 appropriated
amounts. However, Fuels and Power Systems, which includes R&D on
advanced coal technologies and carbon sequestration, actually decreases
to $184 million, 24 percent less than the FY06 appropriated amount.
While the carbon sequestration program received a small increase,
the request proposes conducting demos in only three or four sites
across the country as opposed to doing a large scale demonstration in
each of the seven regional sequestration partnerships. Many in the
industry believe that, while federal investments have increased in
recent years, funding for this program and the Clean Coal Power
Initiative may be woefully inadequate to address the scale of
challenges facing coal as it continues to provide approximately half of
the Nation's electricity. Potentially forthcoming greenhouse gas
regulations may adversely affect the coal industry and some other
sectors of the economy. Yet it is not clear that technologies are
available to cost effectively reduce carbon dioxide emissions from the
use of coal, and sequester carbon dioxide on the scales required for a
national greenhouse gas reduction program.
The FY 2008 budget once again proposes to eliminate all oil and gas
R&D, including $50 million in direct spending (mandated in the Energy
Policy Act of 2005) for unconventional onshore and ultra-deepwater
offshore natural gas exploration technologies that would go largely to
smaller independent oil and gas producers.
Chairman Lampson. This hearing will come to order. Good
morning to everyone.
I want to welcome you all to today's hearing, entitled
``The Department of Energy Fiscal Year 2008 Research and
Development Budget Proposal.''
We changed the timing of this meeting this morning because
of a presentation for the Joint Houses at 11:00, and we wanted
to make sure that we had adequate time for you to get your
presentations in, and hopefully, adequate number of questions.
I will proceed with my opening statement, and ask unanimous
consent that when the Ranking Member comes in, that we
interrupt what proceedings are going on, if it is appropriate,
to have his opening remarks. Seeing no objection, that will
stand.
I would like to extend a warm welcome to all five
witnesses. Thank you for being here today, and testifying
before the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment. The focus of
our inquiry today is the President's 2008 budget request for
research and development programs in the Department of Energy.
Now, I know I don't have to remind anyone in this room just
how high energy prices and costs for action to mitigate climate
change have propelled energy to the forefront of public debate
in the last few years. Our nation's energy challenges are
momentous and incredibly diverse, and I am pleased to see that
the President's budget request for fiscal year 2008 takes a
number of important steps, and even some grand leaps in pursuit
of technological solutions to these challenges.
However, one can't help but notice serious gaps in R&D
funding for certain programs. While resources are lavished on
some high profile research areas, other valuable programs are
left to languish. In a time of intense challenge, it is
important that we keep all possibilities on the table. For
instance, in the President's budget, hydrogen, solar, and
cellulosic ethanol are beneficiaries of major funding
increases. This is encouraging, but this encouraging trend is
offset by large cuts and flat funding of equally valuable
programs in areas such as geothermal, hydropower, ocean wave
power, advanced grid technologies, and even oil and gas
research.
Furthermore, the Administration continues its trend of
slashing funds for valuable energy efficiency programs, that
help states, low income consumers, industries, vehicle
manufacturers, and even the Federal Government use energy more
efficiently. Efficiency must be regarded as another valuable
source of energy. After all, the cheapest, cleanest, most
secure, and most domestic energy is the energy you never have
to produce at all. Enormous opportunities exist to increase the
efficiency, intelligence, and security of the Nation's
electricity grid without simply erecting more towers and
stringing more wire. However, the Nation has not deployed these
technologies widely yet, and research and development funding
in many of these related programs has been cut in this budget
request.
The Administration requests a very aggressive increase in
funding for nuclear energy, primarily to fund the Global
Nuclear Energy Partnership, GNEP. Carbon-free nuclear energy
may very well play a vital role in addressing our climate
crisis, and it is clear that issues of waste disposal have to
be resolved, but the Department must convince this Congress and
the public that the billions it will cost to implement the
program and deploy a fleet of these technologies is warranted,
and conduct full systems analysis for GNEP.
I am particularly disappointed to see that for the second
year in a row, the Administration insists on ignoring EPAct
2005 by failing to carry out vital research and development
into ultra-deepwater and unconventional drilling technologies.
This illustrates a fundamental misunderstanding both of what
the program is intended to do and the need to expand domestic
resources of fossil fuels.
I would like to acknowledge the special role of the Office
of Science within DOE. Although sometimes overlooked in the
greater energy debate, the Office of Science, as the leading
federal sponsor of research in the physical sciences, plays a
critical part in our nation's scientific and technological
competitiveness.
The Office of Science has a longstanding role as steward of
large, world-class scientific research facilities. However,
construction and operation of facilities has come at the
expense of funding for actual research at these facilities. I
am glad to see Dr. Orbach plans to put this back on track.
Furthermore, as the Department pursues plans for additional
large-scale scientific facilities, demonstrable measures should
be taken to assure due diligence in the areas of cost estimates
and design. This gives everyone a higher level of comfort when
multi-billion dollar research machines, such as the ILC, are
proposed to Congress.
The fiscal year 2008 request makes a commitment to the
Office of Science that is essential to maintaining our economic
competitiveness, drawing a new generation into the physical
sciences, and successfully meeting future challenges, whether
they be energy-related or otherwise.
In the end, it is encouraging that the President's Fiscal
Year 2008 budget request for DOE R&D programs takes a solid
step forward. However, it is important that that step forward
benefit all worthwhile programs, not just a few high-profile,
exciting ones.
Today's witnesses find themselves at the crossroads of
intense political pressures, and the technological cutting
edge, and probably spend much of their time trying to reconcile
the two, never an easy task. Again, we thank them all, and look
forward to hearing their testimony today.
And at this time, I will call on Ranking Member Mr. Inglis
for his opening statement.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Lampson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Chairman Nick Lampson
I would like to extend a warm welcome to all five witnesses. Thank
you for being here today and testifying before the Subcommittee on
Energy and Environment. The focus of our inquiry today is the
President's 2008 Budget Request for research and development programs
in the Department of Energy.
I know I don't have to remind anyone in this room just how much
high energy prices and calls for action to mitigate climate change have
propelled ``energy'' to the forefront of public debate in the last few
years.
Our nation's energy challenges are momentous and incredibly
diverse, and I am pleased to see that the President's budget request
for FY08 takes a number of important steps, and even some grand leaps,
in pursuit of technological solutions to these challenges.
However, one can't help but notice serious gaps in R&D funding for
certain programs. While resources are lavished on some high-profile
research areas, other valuable programs are left to languish. In a time
of intense challenge, it is important that we keep all possibilities on
the table.
For instance, in the President's budget, Hydrogen, Solar and
Cellulosic ethanol are beneficiaries of major funding increases. But
this encouraging trend is offset by large cuts and flat-funding of
equally valuable programs in areas such as geothermal, hydropower,
ocean wave power, advanced grid technologies, and even oil & gas
research.
Furthermore, the Administration continues its trend of slashing
funds for valuable energy efficiency programs that help states, low-
income consumers, industries, vehicle manufacturers and even the
Federal Government use energy more efficiently. Efficiency must be
regarded another valuable ``source'' of energy. After all, the
cheapest, cleanest, most secure, and most domestic energy is the energy
you never have to produce at all.
Enormous opportunities exist to increase the efficiency,
intelligence, and security of the Nation's electricity grid without
simply erecting more towers and stringing more wire. However, the
Nation has not deployed these technologies widely yet, and R&D funding
in many of the related programs has been cut in this budget request.
The Administration requests a very aggressive increase in funding
for nuclear energy, primarily to fund the Global Nuclear Energy
Partnership (GNEP). Carbon-free nuclear energy may very well play a
vital role in addressing our climate crisis, and it is clear that
issues of waste disposal have to be resolved. But the Department must
convince this Congress and the public that the billions it will cost to
implement the program and deploy a fleet of these technologies is
warranted, and conduct a full systems analysis for GNEP.
I am particularly disappointed to see that, for the second year in
a row, the Administration insists on ignoring EPAct 2005 by failing to
carry out vital research and development into Ultra-Deepwater and
Unconventional drilling technologies. This illustrates a fundamental
misunderstanding both of what the program is intended to do and the
need to expand domestic resources of fossil fuels.
I'd like to acknowledge the special role of the Office of Science
within DOE. Although sometimes overlooked in the in the greater energy
debate, the Office of Science, as the leading federal sponsor of
research in the physical sciences, plays a critical part in our
nation's scientific and technological competitiveness.
The Office of Science has a long-standing role as steward of large,
world-class scientific research facilities. However, construction and
operation of facilities has come at the expense of funding for actual
research at these facilities. I am glad to see that Dr. Orbach plans to
put this back on track.
Furthermore, as the Department pursues plans for additional large-
scale scientific facilities, demonstrable measures should be taken to
assure due diligence in the areas of cost estimates and design. This
gives everyone a higher level of comfort when multi-billion dollar
research machines, such as the I.L.C. are proposed to Congress.
The FY08 request makes a commitment to the Office of Science that
is essential to maintaining our economic competitiveness, drawing a new
generation into the physical sciences, and successfully meeting future
challenges, whether they be energy-related or otherwise.
In the end, it is encouraging that the President's FY08 budget
request for DOE R&D programs takes a solid step forward. However, it is
important that that step forward benefit all worthwhile programs, not
just a few, high-profile, exciting ones.
Today's witnesses find themselves at the crossroads of intense
political pressures, and the technological cutting edge, and probably
spend much of their time reconciling the two--never an easy job. Again,
we thank them and look forward to hearing their testimony today.
Mr. Inglis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I got released from the American Legion, and now I am here,
and thank you for holding this hearing, and thank the witnesses
for being here.
There is a difference, seems to me, between simple spending
and thoughtful investing, and that is what I hope we are here
to discuss today. Simple spending just doesn't--it is maybe
good, it creates an immediate impact, but investing creates
returns in the future. And so I am very grateful for the work
of the Department of Energy in--on these kind of investments.
It really could change the game for us.
So, as we discuss the R&D budget today, we are really
acting more as investors here, investors who are looking at
alternative fuel industries, for example, and seeing the
payoffs that they could produce for us, and we realize that we
have a great need to break free of an addiction to oil, and
some of the work that you all are doing could help make that
happen.
So, we are certainly not there yet. Obviously, more
commitment is needed, and we are going to need to spend good
money to accomplish the objectives that we have set out. I
think that many of us want to see the market make some of these
decisions about what fuels work and that sort of thing, and I
trust markets mostly. It is also true that some basic research
needs to be done, and the people that are going to do that are
in the Department of Energy and places like that, so we thank
you for your work.
I am particularly excited that the Chairman mentioned we
don't want to focus on just the high profile ones, but one
favorite one is the President's Hydrogen Initiative, because
what a triple play opportunity, to do three things all at once
that every American, I think, wants to do. One is improve the
national security of the United States by no longer being
dependent on the Middle East. Second, clean up the air, because
the emissions would be water. And third, create jobs as we do
that.
And of course, South Carolina probably isn't thought of as
a car producing state, but that is what we are now, and we have
got a wonderful company, BMW, that stands for Bubba Makes
Wheels, and so, Bubba is making a lot of wheels in South
Carolina, and we hope that the BMW H7 starts sweeping the
country, and if it does, who knows, maybe we will make some of
those in South Carolina.
But it is an example of what exciting things can happen
when people put money into research, and so, we are looking
forward to hearing your suggestions about how to do that.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Inglis follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Bob Inglis
Thank you Mr. Chairman, and I want to thank our witnesses from the
Department of Energy for appearing here today to discuss funding for
vital research and development projects.
As we discuss the proposed R&D budget today, I think we all realize
that we aren't accountants sitting around just talking numbers--we're
investors. The alternative fuel industry is a start-up business
opportunity that promises huge payoffs for our nation's security,
environment, and our economy. We have the ability and opportunity to
partner with this promising enterprise and lend federal resources to
help establish the alternative energy industry.
We haven't yet reached a place of energy security, nor have we
scratched the surface of what economic benefits will come from energy
advancements, but we don't have to look far to see great payoffs from
today's investments. For that reason, we must stay committed to
providing our scientists, national labs, and other R&D programs with
adequate funding to continue the progress already made, and ensure our
nation's energy security.
We should focus funding on a vast array of alternatives--hydrogen,
biofuels, wind, solar, and nuclear. If we are true investors, we will
use discretion as certain alternatives prove to be more valuable than
others. For now, there are many roads for our engineers, inventors, and
scientists to follow, and we should not close those roads. On that
note, I have specific concerns I will address regarding the future of
the President's Hydrogen Fuel Initiative. For example, what exactly
does the proposal mean when it says that the budget request ``completes
the President's commitment of $1.2 billion over five years for this
initiative?'' I hope that you agree with me that $1.2 billion is a good
start and certainly not the end of our efforts.
Thank you for the Department of Energy's past, present, and future
commitments to research and develop tomorrow's energy solutions.
Chairman Lampson. I thank the Ranking Member. If there are
other Members who wish to submit additional opening statements,
your statements will be added to the record.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Costello follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Jerry F. Costello
Good morning. I want to thank the witnesses for appearing before
our subcommittee to examine the Department of Energy's (DOE) fiscal
year 2008 (FY08) Budget request for Research and Development Programs.
I am privileged to represent the 12th Congressional District of
Illinois, a region rich in coal reserves and a proud mining tradition.
Coal plays a vital role as an energy source, and the industries
involved in the mining, transportation and utilization of coal provide
thousands of jobs for Illinoisans and economic stability to many
communities across the State. Further, the Clean Coal Research Center
at Southern Illinois University (SIUC), the State of Illinois and its
energy industries are committed to the development and application of
technologies for the environmentally sound use of Illinois coal. In
addition, they have several programs, such as the Illinois Coal
Competitiveness Program, the Illinois Coal Education Program, and the
Illinois Coal Research Center, to further this mission.
As a senior Member of the House Science and Technology Committee
and the Energy and Environment Subcommittee, I have been a strong
advocate for federal coal initiatives and programs. I am focused on
increasing the funding levels for Clean Coal Research and Development
(R&D) Programs for FY08 because coal is going to be the mainstay for
electricity generation well into the future. While federal investments
have increased slightly in recent years for Coal Research and
Development (R&D), I am concerned that overall funding for several coal
programs are woefully inadequate to address the scale of challenges
facing coal as it continues to provide approximately half of the
Nation's electricity.
I believe clean coal technology is part of the solution to
achieving U.S. energy independence, continued economic prosperity and
improved environmental stewardship. FutureGen, a 275-megawatt coal
fueled power plant, is an example of an important DOE clean coal R&D
and demonstration project designed to turn coal into both electricity
and hydrogen fuel with minimal air pollution. To address climate
change, FutureGen would also bury its heat-trapping carbon dioxide
emissions deep underground. No project of this magnitude is in
operation anywhere in the world at a commercial scale. That is why I am
concerned the President's proposed budget seeks to rescind $149 million
from the Clean Coal Technology account, acting against prior
congressional intent to defer and designate the un-obligated Clean Coal
Technology funds for FutureGen.
Another important coal program in the President's Coal Research
Initiative that complements FutureGen and seeks to drive down the cost
of clean coal technologies is the Clean Coal Power Initiative (CCPI).
CCPI is a cooperative, cost shared program between the government and
industry to rapidly demonstrate emerging technologies in coal-based
power generation to help accelerate their commercialization. While CCPI
received a slight increase in the President's proposed FY08 budget, the
funding level is not sufficient. If Congress passes legislation to
regulate carbon dioxide, advanced clean coal technologies must be
successfully demonstrated and commercialized. This is the goal of the
CCPI program and Congress and the Administration must work together to
increase its funding to achieve its stated purpose. Further, I believe
several large scale demonstrations of efficiency improvements and
carbon capture technologies that can be applied to the existing fleet
are critical to continued coal use if we are going to achieve
meaningful reductions of carbon dioxide emissions in this country.
Finally, the Administration's carbon sequestration program within
the DOE is developing a portfolio of technologies that hold great
potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The Regional Carbon
Sequestration Partnership, of which we have one for the Illinois Basin,
are providing the critical data that the U.S. needs to support carbon
dioxide sequestration as a strategy for addressing global climate
change. The DOE had put out a request for proposals for Phase III large
scale field testing of geological sequestration in December but then
canceled it when the President's FY08 budget came in with lesser funds
than needed to support these tests. This is not the time to limit the
amount of activities DOE should be undertaking in the coal program. The
budget for carbon reducing technologies must be realistic if Congress
is going to take a hard-fast look at regulating greenhouse gases in
this country. Therefore, it is essential that a robust budget to
develop clean coal technologies and reduce carbon dioxide must be
provided for FY08.
I look forward to hearing from our panel of witnesses.
Chairman Lampson. And at this time, I would like to
introduce our witnesses: Dr. Raymond Orbach, Under Secretary
for Science with the Office of Science; Mr. Alexander Karsner,
Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy;
Mr. Thomas Shope, Assistant Secretary for Fossil Energy; Mr.
Dennis Spurgeon, who is the Assistant Secretary for Nuclear
Energy; and finally, Mr. Kevin Kolevar, Director of the Office
of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability at the
Department of Energy.
As our witnesses should know, spoken testimony is limited
to five minutes each, and after which the Members of the
Committee will have five minutes to ask questions, and we will
start with Dr. Orbach.
STATEMENT OF DR. RAYMOND L. ORBACH, UNDER SECRETARY FOR
SCIENCE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Mr. Orbach. Thank you, Chairman Lampson. Mr. Chairman,
Congressman Inglis, Members of the Committee, I am grateful for
the opportunity this morning to discuss the President's Fiscal
Year 2008 budget request for the Office of Science. I want to
thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Inglis, for your kind remarks
about basic research and the Office of Science.
The DOE Office of Science is the primary agency in the
Federal Government for energy-related basic research. The
Office interfaces with the Department of Energy's Applied
Research programs, represented by my colleagues here this
morning, upon which our nation relies for both energy security
and national defense. Our goal is to underpin the applied
research programs with the finest basic science, and at the
same time, to energize our basic research with insights and
opportunities from advanced applied research.
Transformational basic science discoveries are essential to
the success of the Department's efforts in hydrogen, solar
power, and biofuels. We are one department, and we have been
working very hard together on strengthening the relationship
between the Department's basic and applied research programs.
Let me say a few words this morning about the critical role
that basic science plays in addressing our nation's energy
challenge. Two examples. The first is cellulosic ethanol. To
make this biofuel cost-effective, we must produce ethanol from
cellulose directly. The problem is that the lignins that
surround the cellulose in plants inhibit currently available
enzymes from breaking down the cellulose into sugars that can
be fermented into ethanol.
The Office of Science will be deploying three innovative
new bioenergy research centers, studying both microbes and
plants, developing new methods on processes actually found in
nature to create the breakthroughs that we need. For example,
our DOE Joint Genome Institute announced this week, in
conjunction with the U.S. Forest Service, that identification
of the metabolic pathways in a fungus found in the bowels of
insects that holds the secret to effective fermentation of the
sugar xylose, a key to making cellulosic ethanol cost-
effective.
Second, consider intermittent sources of energy, such as
wind and solar and tidal. The key to base load electrical
contributions from these renewable sources is electric energy
storage. In April of this year, we will bring together leading
scientists and people from industry for a major workshop to
chart a transformational path forward for electrical energy
storage. We shall be considering supercapacitors and other
innovative approaches based on the latest advances in materials
and nanotechnology, to change the way we think about electrical
storage. Solving this problem is an enabling key for renewable
energy to make major contributions to electric base load
generation.
These are examples of our mission in the Office of Science,
investment in basic research to generate transformational
scientific breakthroughs for our nation. Supporting
transformational research also means providing cutting edge
scientific facilities through our ten National Laboratories
that will allow scientists from universities and the private
sector to do the analysis that will give them advantages over
their colleagues in other countries, thereby contributing to
American competitiveness. It means educating, training, and
sustaining a world-class scientific workforce, thousands
strong, 25,500 supported by the Office of Science in our fiscal
year 2008 budget in laboratories and universities across our
nation for the sake of our country's future.
We are not doing this in a vacuum. Other nations are
increasing their investment in basic science, because they know
that those who dominate science will dominate the Twenty First
Century global economy. To remain competitive, we cannot afford
to fall behind other nations in R&D. To remain competitive, the
President's Fiscal Year 2008 budget request for the Office of
Science is $4.4 billion, an increase of seven percent over the
fiscal year 2007 request. It is an important milestone on the
path to doubling federal support for basic research in the
physical sciences over the next ten years, and an indispensable
investment in our nation's energy security and America's
continued competitiveness in the global economy.
Thank you, and I will be pleased to answer questions.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Orbach follows:]
Prepared Statement of Raymond L. Orbach
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank you for the
opportunity to testify today on the Office of Science's Fiscal Year
(FY) 2008 budget request. I appreciate your support for the Office of
Science and basic research in the physical sciences, Mr. Chairman, and
your understanding of the importance of this research to our nation's
energy security and economic competitiveness. I also want to thank the
Members of the Committee for their support. I believe this budget will
enable the Office of Science to deliver on its mission and enhance U.S.
competitiveness through our support of transformational science,
national scientific facilities, and the scientific workforce for the
Nation's future.
The Office of Science requests $4,397,876,000 for the FY 2008
Science appropriation, an increase of $600,582,000 over the FY 2007
appropriated level. The FY 2008 budget request for the Office of
Science represents the second year of the President's commitment to
double the federal investment in basic research in the physical
sciences by the year 2016 as part of the American Competitiveness
Initiative. It also represents a continued commitment to maintain U.S.
leadership in science and recognition of the valuable role research in
the physical sciences plays in technology innovation and global
competitiveness.
With the FY 2008 budget request the Office of Science will continue
to support transformational science--basic research for advanced
scientific breakthroughs that will revolutionize our approach to the
Nation's energy, environment, and national security challenges. The
Office of Science is the Nation's steward for fields such as high
energy physics, nuclear physics, heavy element chemistry, plasma
physics, magnetic fusion, and catalysis. It also supports unique
components of U.S. research in climate change and geophysics.
Researchers funded through the Office of Science are working on
some of the most pressing scientific challenges of our age including:
1) Harnessing the power of microbial communities and plants for energy
production from renewable sources, carbon sequestration, and
environmental remediation; 2) Expanding the frontiers of nanotechnology
to develop materials with unprecedented properties for widespread
potential scientific, energy, and industrial applications; 3) Pursuing
the breakthroughs in materials science, nanotechnology, biotechnology,
and other fields needed to make solar energy more cost-effective; 4)
Demonstrating the scientific and technological feasibility of creating
and controlling a sustained burning plasma to generate energy, as the
next step toward making fusion power a commercial reality; 5) Using
advanced computation, simulation, and modeling to understand and
predict the behavior of complex systems beyond the reach of some of our
most powerful experimental probes, with potentially transformational
impacts on a broad range of scientific and technological undertakings;
6) Understanding the origin of the universe and nature of dark matter
and dark energy; and 7) Resolving key uncertainties and expanding the
scientific foundation needed to understand, predict, and assess the
potential effects of atmospheric carbon dioxide on climate and the
environment.
U.S. leadership in many areas of science and technology depends in
part on the continued availability of the most advanced scientific
facilities for our researchers. The Office of Science builds and
operates national scientific facilities and instruments that make up
the world's most sophisticated suite of research capabilities. The
resources available for scientific research include advanced
synchrotron light sources, the new Spallation Neutron Source, state-of-
the-art Nanoscale Science Research Centers, supercomputers and high-
speed networks, climate and environmental monitoring capabilities,
particle accelerators and detectors for high energy and nuclear
physics, and genome sequencing facilities We are in the process of
developing new tools such as an X-ray free electron laser light source
that can image single large macromolecules and measure in real-time
changes in the chemical bond as chemical and biological reactions take
place, a next generation synchrotron light source for x-ray imaging and
capable of nanometer resolution, and detectors and instruments for
world-leading neutrino physics research. SC will also select and begin
funding in FY 2007 for three Bioenergy Research Centers to conduct
fundamental research on microbes and plants needed to produce
biologically-based fuel
Office of Science leadership in support of the physical sciences
and stewardship of large national research facilities is directly
linked to our historic role in training America's scientists and
engineers. In addition to funding a diverse portfolio of research at
more than 300 colleges and universities nationwide, we provide direct
support and access to research facilities for thousands of university
students and researchers. Facilities at the national laboratories
provide unique opportunities for researchers and their students from
across the country to pursue questions at the intersection of physics,
chemistry, biology, computing, and materials science. About half of the
annual 21,000 users of the Office of Science's scientific facilities
come from universities. The FY 2008 budget will support the research of
approximately 25,500 faculty, postdoctoral researchers, and graduate
students throughout the Nation, an increase of 3,600 from FY 2006, in
addition to supporting undergraduate research internships and
fellowships and research and training opportunities for K-14 science
educators at the national laboratories.
The approximate $600 million increase in FY 2008 from the FY 2007
appropriated level will bring manageable increases to the Office of
Science programs for long planned for activities. The FY 2008 request
will allow the Office of Science to increase support for high-priority
DOE mission-driven scientific research and new initiatives; maintain
optimum operations at our scientific user facilities; continuing major
facility construction projects; and enhance educational, research, and
training opportunities for the Nation's future scientific workforce.
The budget request will also support basic research that contributes to
Presidential initiatives such as the Hydrogen Fuel Initiative and the
Advanced Energy Initiative, the Climate Change Science and Technology
Programs, and the National Nanotechnology Initiative.
The following programs are supported in the FY 2008 budget request:
Basic Energy Sciences, Advanced Scientific Computing Research,
Biological and Environmental Research, Fusion Energy Sciences, High
Energy Physics, Nuclear Physics, Workforce Development for Teachers and
Scientists, Science Laboratories Infrastructure, Science Program
Direction, and Safeguards and Security.
OFFICE OF SCIENCE
FY 2008 SCIENCE PRIORITIES
The challenges we face today in energy and the environment are some
of the most vexing and complex in our history. Our success in meeting
these challenges will depend in large part on how well we maintain this
country's leadership in science and technology because it is through
scientific and technological innovation and a skilled workforce that
these challenges will be solved.
President George W. Bush made this point in his State of the Union
Message on January 23, 2007, when he stated,
``It's in our vital interest to diversify America's energy
supply--the way forward is through technology. . .. We must
continue changing the way America generates electric power, by
even greater use of clean coal technology, solar and wind
energy, and clean, safe nuclear power. We need to press on with
battery research for plug-in and hybrid vehicles, and expand
the use of clean diesel vehicles and biodiesel fuel. We must
continue investing in new methods of producing ethanol--using
everything from wood chips to grasses, to agricultural wastes.
. ..
``America is on the verge of technological breakthroughs that
will enable us to live our lives less dependent on oil. And
these technologies will help us to be better stewards of the
environment, and they will help us confront the serious
challenge of global climate change.''
In 2006, the President announced a commitment to double the budget
for basic research in the physical sciences at key agencies over ten
years to maintain U.S. leadership in science and ensure continued
global competitiveness. This commitment received bipartisan support in
both the House of Representatives and the Senate and the FY 2008 budget
request for the Office of Science represents the second year of this
effort. Through the FY 2008 budget, the Office of Science will build on
its record of results with sound investments to keep U.S. research and
development at the forefront of global science and prepare the
scientific workforce we will need in the 21st century to address our
nation's challenges.
Determining and balancing science and technology priorities across
the Office of Science programs is an ongoing process. Several factors
are considered in our prioritization, including scientific
opportunities identified by the broader scientific community through
Office of Science sponsored workshops; external review and
recommendations by scientific advisory committees; DOE mission needs;
and national and departmental priorities. In FY 2008, we will support
the priorities in scientific research, facility operations, and
construction and laboratory infrastructure established in the past few
years and outlined in the Office of Science Strategic Plan and Twenty-
year Facilities Outlook, in addition to national and departmental
priorities and new research opportunities identified in recent
workshops.
National initiatives in hydrogen fuel cell and advanced energy
technologies will be supported through our contributions to basic
research in hydrogen, fusion, solar energy-to-fuels, and production of
ethanol and other biofuels from cellulose. We will also continue strong
support for other Administration priorities such as nanotechnology,
advanced scientific computation, and climate change science and
technology.
The Office of Science will support three Bioenergy Research Centers
in FY 2008 as part of the broader Genomics: GTL program. These centers,
to be selected in FY 2007 and fully operational by the end of 2008,
will conduct comprehensive, multi-disciplinary research programs
focused on microbes and plants to drive scientific breakthroughs
necessary for the development of cost-effective biofuels and bioenergy
production. The broader GTL program will also continue to support
fundamental research and technology development needed to understand
the complex behavior of biological systems for the development of
innovative biotechnology solutions to energy production, environmental
mitigation, and carbon management.
The Office of Science designs, constructs, and operates facilities
and instruments that provide world-leading research tools and
capabilities for U.S. researchers and will continue to support next
generation tools for enabling transformational science. For example,
the Spallation Neutron Source (SNS), the world's forefront neutron
scattering facility, increases the number of neutrons available for
cutting-edge research by a factor of ten over any existing spallation
neutron source in the world. SNS was completed and began operations in
2006 and in FY 2008 full operations are supported and additional
experimental capabilities continue to be added.
When it comes on line, the Linac Coherent Light Source (LCLS) at
the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (SLAC) will produce X-rays 10
billion times more intense than any existing X-ray source in the world,
and will allow structural studies on individual nanoscale particles and
single biomolecules. Construction of LCLS continues in FY 2008.
A next generation synchrotron light source, the National
Synchrotron Light Source-II (NSLS-II), would deliver orders of
magnitude improvement in spatial resolution, providing the world's
finest capabilities for X-ray imaging and enabling the study of
material properties and functions, particularly at the nanoscale, at a
level of detail and precision never before possible. Its energy
resolution would explore dynamic properties of matter as no other light
source has ever accomplished. Support for continued R&D and project
engineering and design (PED) are provided in FY 2008.
All five of DOE's Nanoscale Science Research Centers (NSRCs) will
be operating in FY 2008. These facilities are the Nation's premier
nanoscience user centers, providing resources unmatched to the
scientific community for the synthesis, fabrication, and analysis of
nanoparticles and nanomaterials.
We will fully fund the programs for advanced scientific computing,
including: continued support for high-performance production computing
at the National Energy Research Scientific Computing Center (NERSC),
which will increase capacity to 100-150 teraflops in FY 2007; support
for advanced capabilities for modeling and simulation of scientific
problems in combustion, fusion, and complex chemical reactions at Oak
Ridge National Laboratory's Leadership Computing Facility, which should
deliver 250 teraflops computing capability by the end of FY 2008; and
support for the upgrade to 250-500 teraflop peak capacity of the IBM
Blue Gene P system at Argonne National Laboratory's Leadership
Computing Facility to extend architectural diversity in leadership
computing.
The Office of Science continues to be a partner in the interagency
Climate Change Science Program focusing on understanding the principal
uncertainties of the causes and effects of climate change, including
abrupt climate change, understanding the global carbon cycle,
developing predictive models for climate change over decades to
centuries, and supporting basic research for biological sequestration
of carbon. We also continue to support research in geosciences and
environmental remediation towards the development of scientific and
technological solutions to long-term environmental challenges.
The Office of Science will continue to actively lead and support
the U.S. contributions to ITER, the international project to build and
operate the first fusion science facility capable of producing a
sustained burning plasma to generate energy on a massive scale without
environmental insult.
The historic international fusion energy agreement to build ITER
with six other international partners was signed in November 2006.
We continue strong support for experimental and theoretical high
energy physics and the study of the elementary constituents of matter
and energy and interactions at the heart of physics. Full operations at
the Tevatron Collider at Fermilab and the B-factory at SLAC are
supported to maximize the scientific research and data derived from
these facilities. Full operation of the neutrino oscillation experiment
at Fermilab and start of fabrication of a next generation detector are
supported to provide a platform for a world-leading neutrino program in
the U.S. International Linear Collider (ILC) R&D and superconducting
radio frequency technology R&D are supported to enable the most
compelling scientific opportunities in high energy physics in the
coming decades.
Our research programs in nuclear physics continue to receive strong
support. Operations at the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) and
additional instrumentation projects for RHIC are supported for studies
of the properties of hot, dense nuclear matter, providing insight into
the early universe. We will also support operations at the Continuous
Electron Beam Accelerator Facility (CEBAF), the world's most powerful
``microscope'' for studying the quark structure of matter, and project
engineering and design and R&D for doubling the energy of the existing
beam at CEBAF to 12 gigaelectron volts (GeV). Support for R&D to
develop advanced rare isotope beam capabilities for the next generation
U.S. facility for nuclear structure and astrophysics is also provided.
The standard of living we enjoy and the security of our nation now
and in the future rests on the quality of science and technology
education we provide America's students from elementary through
graduate school and beyond. The FY 2008 budget will provide support for
over 25,500 Ph.D.s, graduate students, engineers, and technical
professionals, an increase of 3,600 over the number supported in FY
2006. The Office of Science will also support the development of
leaders in the science and mathematics education community through
participation of K-14 teachers in the DOE Academies Creating Teacher
Scientists program, formerly the Laboratory Science Teacher
Professional Development program. This immersion program at the
national laboratories is an opportunity for teachers to work with
laboratory scientists as mentors and to build content knowledge,
research skills, and lasting connections to the scientific community,
ultimately leading to more effective teaching that inspires students in
science and math. The year 2008 will also mark the 18th year of DOE's
National Science Bowl for high school students. National Science Bowl
events for high school and middle school students, which will involve
17,000 students across the Nation this year, provide prestigious
academic competitions that challenge and inspire the Nation's youth to
excel in math and science.
SCIENCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS
For more than 50 years, the Office of Science (SC) has balanced
basic research, innovative problem-solving, and support for world-
leading scientific capabilities, enabling historic contributions to
U.S. economic and scientific preeminence. American taxpayers have
received good value for their investment in basic research sponsored by
the Office of Science; this work has led to significant technological
innovations, new intellectual capital, improved quality of life, and
enhanced economic competitiveness. The following are some of the past
year's highlights:
Nobel Prize in Physics. The 2006 Nobel Prize in physics was awarded
to Dr. George Smoot (DOE Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and
University of California, Berkeley) and Dr. John Mather (NASA Goddard
Space Flight Center) for their discovery of ``the blackbody form and
anisotropy of the cosmic microwave background radiation,'' the pattern
of minuscule temperature variations in radiation which allowed
scientists to gain better understanding of the origins of galaxies and
stars. These two American scientists led the teams of researchers who
worked on the historic 1989 NASA COBE satellite. The results of their
work provided increased support for the ``Big Bang'' theory of the
universe and marked the inception of cosmology as a precise science. SC
supported Dr. Smoot's research during the period in which he worked on
the COBE experiment, and continues to support his research today. One
of the principal instruments used to make the discoveries was built at
SC-supported facilities at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and
DOE's National Energy Research Scientific Computing Center
supercomputers were used to analyze the massive amounts of data and
produce detailed visual maps.
Advancing Science and Technology for Bioenergy Solutions.
Harnessing the capabilities of microbes and plants holds great
potential for the development of innovative, cost-effective methods for
the production of biofuels and bioenergy. Sequencing of the poplar tree
genome was completed as part of a DOE national laboratory-led
international collaboration; the information encoded in the poplar
genome will provide researchers with an important resource for
developing trees that produce more biomass for conversion to biofuels
and trees that can sequester more carbon from the atmosphere. The DOE
Joint Genome Institute (JGI) marked a technical milestone this year
with the 100th microbe genome sequenced; Methanosarcina barkeri fusaro
is capable of living in diverse and extreme environments, produces
methane from digesting cellulose and other complex sugars, and provides
greater understanding of potential new methods for producing renewable
sources of energy. A chemical imaging method developed using a light-
producing cellulose synthesizing enzyme allowed researchers to observe
the enzyme as it deposited cellulose fibers in a cell, providing
greater understanding of the mechanism for cellulose formation.
Delivering Forefront Computational and Networking Capabilities for
Science. Several 2006 advances in computing, computational sciences,
and networking enabled greater opportunities for computational research
and effective management of data collected at DOE scientific user
facilities. NERSC began to increase its peak capacity by a factor of
100 and the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) Leadership Computing
Facility doubled its capability to 54 teraflops to provide additional
resources for computationally intensive, large-scale projects. The
Energy Sciences Network expanded in 2006 to include the Chicago and New
York-Long Island metropolitan area networks (MANs), bringing dual
connectivity at 20 gigabits per second and highly reliable, advanced
network services to accommodate next-generation scientific instruments
and supercomputers. Chemistry software using parallel-vector algorithms
developed by researchers at ORNL has enabled computations 40 times more
complex and 100 times faster than previous state-of-the-art codes. The
development of a multi-scale mathematical framework for simulating the
process of self-organization in biological systems has led to the
discovery of a previously unidentified cluster state, providing
possible applications to modeling microbial populations.
Advances in Basic Science for Energy Technologies. Current and
future national energy challenges may be partially addressed through
scientific and technological innovation. Some recent accomplishments in
basic science that may contribute to future energy solutions include
the following. Basic research on the molecular design and synthesis of
new polymer membranes has lead to the discovery of a new fuel cell
membrane that is longer lasting and three times more proton conductive
than the current gold standard for proton exchange membrane fuel cells.
Computational studies showing that in titanium-coated carbon nanotubes
a single titanium atom can adsorb four hydrogen molecules opens new
ways that the control of matter on the nanoscale can lead to the
creation of novel materials for hydrogen storage. Recent work
demonstrating that visible light can split carbon dioxide into carbon
monoxide and a free oxygen atom, the critical first reaction in
sunlight-driven transformation of carbon dioxide into methanol, makes
it feasible to consider harnessing sunlight to drive the photocatalytic
production of methanol from carbon dioxide. Demonstration of the effect
known as carrier multiplication in which a single photon creates
multiple charge carriers during the interaction of photons with a
nanocrystalline sample could lead to substantial increases in solar
cell conversion efficiency.
Maintaining World-leading Research Tools for U.S. Science. The
Office of Science continues to construct and maintain powerful tools
and research capabilities that will accelerate U.S. scientific
discovery and innovation. The following highlight a few recent
accomplishments. Construction and commissioning of the Spallation
Neutron Source (SNS), an accelerator-based neutron source that will
provide the most intense pulsed neutron beams in the world for
scientific research and industrial development, was completed and began
operations. Full operation of four of the five DOE Nanoscale Science
Research Centers began in 2006, providing resources unmatched anywhere
in the world for the synthesis, fabrication, and analysis of
nanoparticles and nanomaterials. A nanofocusing lens device at the
Advanced Photon Source at Argonne National Laboratory has set a world's
record for line size resolution produced with a hard x-ray beam and
enables such capabilities as three-dimensional visualization of
electronic circuit boards, mapping impurities in biological and
environmental samples, and analyzing samples inside high-pressure or
high-temperature cells. A new record for performance, a 77 percent
increase in peak luminosity in 2006 from the previous year, was
achieved at the Tevatron, the world's most powerful particle collider
for high energy physics research at Fermilab. Evidence of the rare
single top quark was observed at Fermilab in 2006, bringing researchers
a step closer to finding the Higgs boson. The Large Area Telescope
(LAT), a DOE and NASA partnership and the primary instrument on NASA's
GLAST mission, was completed in 2006 and will be placed in orbit in the
fall of 2007 to study the high energy gamma rays and other
astrophysical phenomena using particle physics detection techniques.
During the 2006 operation of the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider
(RHIC), polarized protons were accelerated to the highest energies ever
recorded--250 billion electron volts--for world-leading studies of the
internal quark-gluon structure of nucleons.
PROGRAM OBJECTIVES AND PERFORMANCE
The path from basic research to technology development and
industrial competitiveness is not always obvious. History has taught us
that seeking answers to fundamental questions can ultimately result in
a diverse array of practical applications as well as some remarkable
revolutionary advances. Working with the scientific community, the
Office of Science invests in the promising research and sets long-term
scientific goals with ambitious annual targets. The intent and impact
of our performance goals may not always be clear to those outside the
research community. Therefore the Office of Science has created a
website (www.sc.doe.gov/measures) to better communicate to the public
what we are measuring and why it is important.
Further, the Office of Science has revised the appraisal process it
uses each year to evaluate the scientific, management, and operational
performance of the contractors who manage and operate each of its 10
national laboratories. This new appraisal process went into effect for
the FY 2006 performance evaluation period and provides a common
structure and scoring system across all 10 Office of Science
laboratories. The performance-based approach focuses the evaluation of
the contractor's performance against eight Performance Goals (three
Science and Technology Goals and five Management and Operation Goals).
Each goal is composed of two or more weighted objectives. The new
process has also incorporated a standardized five-point (0-4.3) scoring
system, with corresponding grades for each Performance Goal, creating a
``Report Card'' for each laboratory.
The FY 2006 Office of Science laboratory report cards have been
posted on the SC website (http://www.science.doe.gov/
News-Information/News-Room/2007/
Appraisa-%20Process/index.htm).
SCIENCE PROGRAMS
BASIC ENERGY SCIENCES
FY 2007 Request--$1,421.0 Million; FY 2008 Request--$1,498.5 Million
Basic research supported by the Basic Energy Sciences (BES) program
touches virtually every aspect of energy resources, production,
conversion, efficiency, and waste mitigation. Research in materials
sciences and engineering leads to the development of materials that may
improve the efficiency, economy, environmental acceptability, and
safety of energy generation, conversion, transmission, and use.
Research in chemistry leads to the development of advances such as
efficient combustion systems with reduced emission of pollutants; new
solar photo-conversion processes; improved catalysts for the production
of fuels and chemicals; and better separations and analytical methods
for applications in energy processes, environmental remediation, and
waste management. Research in geosciences contributes to the solution
of problems in multiple DOE mission areas, including reactive fluid
flow studies to understand contaminant remediation and seismic imaging
for reservoir definition. Research in the molecular and biochemical
nature of photosynthesis aids the development of solar photo-energy
conversion and biomass conversion methods. BES asks researchers to
reach far beyond today's problems in order to provide the basis for
long-term solutions to what is one of society's greatest challenges--a
secure, abundant, and clean energy supply. In FY 2008, the Office of
Science will support expanded efforts in basic research related to
transformational energy technologies. Within BES, there are increases
to ongoing basic research for the hydrogen economy and effective solar
energy utilization. The FY 2008 budget request also supports increased
research in electric-energy storage, accelerator physics, and X-ray and
neutron detector research.
BES also provides the Nation's researchers with world-class
research facilities, including reactor- and accelerator-based neutron
sources, light sources (soon to include an X-ray free electron laser),
nanoscale science research centers, and electron beam micro-
characterization centers. These facilities provide outstanding
capabilities for imaging and characterizing materials of all kinds from
metals, alloys, and ceramics to fragile biological samples. The next
steps in the characterization and the ultimate control of materials
properties and chemical reactivity are to improve spatial resolution of
imaging techniques; to enable a wide variety of samples, sample sizes,
and sample environments to be used in imaging experiments; and to make
measurements on very short time scales, comparable to the time of a
chemical reaction or the formation of a chemical bond. With these
tools, we will be able to understand how the composition of materials
affects their properties, to watch proteins fold, to see chemical
reactions, and to understand and observe the nature of the chemical
bond. For FY 2008, BES scientific user facilities will be scheduled to
operate at an optimal number of hours.
Construction of the Spallation Neutron Source (SNS) was completed
in FY 2006 ahead of schedule, under budget, and meeting all technical
milestones. In FY 2008 fabrication and commissioning of SNS instruments
will continue, funded by BES and other sources including non-DOE
sources, and will continue to increase power towards full levels. Two
Major Items of Equipment are funded in FY 2008 that will allow the
fabrication of approximately nine to ten additional instruments for the
SNS, thus nearly completing the initial suite of 24 instruments that
can be accommodated in the high-power target station.
All five Nanoscale Science Research Centers will be fully
operational in FY 2008: the Center for Nanophase Materials Sciences at
Oak Ridge National Laboratory, the Molecular Foundry at Lawrence
Berkeley National Laboratory, the Center for Nanoscale Materials at
Argonne National Laboratory, the Center for Integrated Nanotechnologies
at Sandia National Laboratories and Los Alamos National Laboratory, and
the Center for Functional Nanomaterials at Brookhaven National
Laboratory. In FY 2008, funding for research at the nanoscale increases
for activities related to the hydrogen economy and solar energy
utilization.
The Linac Coherent Light Source (LCLS) at the Stanford Linear
Accelerator Center (SLAC) will continue construction at the planned
levels in FY 2008. Funding is also provided for primary support of the
operation of the SLAC linac. This marks the third year of the
transition of linac funding from the High Energy Physics program to the
Basic Energy Sciences program. The purpose of the LCLS Project is to
provide laser-like radiation in the X-ray region of the spectrum that
is 10 billion times greater in peak power and peak brightness than any
existing coherent X-ray light source and that has pulse lengths
measured in femtoseconds--the timescale of electronic and atomic
motions. The LCLS will be the first such facility in the world for
ground-breaking research in the physical and life sciences. Funding is
provided separately for design and fabrication of instruments for the
facility. Project Engineering and Design (PED) and construction for the
Photon Ultra-fast Laser Science and Engineering (PULSE) building
renovation begins in FY 2008. PULSE is a new center for ultra-fast
science at SLAC focusing on ultra-fast structural and electronic
dynamics in materials sciences, the generation of attosecond laser
pulses, single-molecule imaging, and understanding solar energy
conversion in molecular systems. Support continues for PED and R&D for
the National Synchrotron Light Source-II (NSLS-II), which would be a
new synchrotron light source, highly optimized to deliver ultra-high
brightness and flux and exceptional beam stability. This would enable
the study of material properties and functions with a spatial
resolution of one nanometer (nm), an energy resolution of 0.1
millielectron volt (meV), and the ultra-high sensitivity required to
perform spectroscopy on a single atom, achieving a level of detail and
precision never possible before. NSLS-II would open new regimes of
scientific discovery and investigation.
The Scientific Discovery through Advanced Computing (SciDAC)
program is a set of coordinated investments across all Office of
Science mission areas with the goal of using computer simulation to
achieve breakthrough scientific advances that are impossible using
theoretical or laboratory studies alone. The SciDAC program in BES
consists of two activities: (1) characterizing chemically reacting
flows as exemplified by combustion and (2) achieving scalability in the
first-principles calculation of molecular properties, including
chemical reaction rates.
ADVANCED SCIENTIFIC COMPUTING RESEARCH
FY 2007 Request--$318.7 Million; FY 2008 Request--$340.2 Million
The Advanced Scientific Computing Research (ASCR) program is
expanding the capability of world-class scientific research through
advances in mathematics, high performance computing and advanced
networks, and through the application of computers capable of many
trillions of operations per second (terascale to petascale computers).
Computer-based simulation can enable us to understand and predict the
behavior of complex systems that are beyond the reach of our most
powerful experimental probes or our most sophisticated theories.
Computational modeling has greatly advanced our understanding of
fundamental processes of nature, such as fluid flow and turbulence or
molecular structure and reactivity. Soon, through modeling and
simulation, we will be able to explore the interior of stars to
understand how the chemical elements were created and learn how protein
machines work inside living cells to enable the design of microbes that
address critical energy or waste cleanup needs. We could also design
novel catalysts and high-efficiency engines that expand our economy,
lower pollution, and reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
Computational science is increasingly important to making progress at
the frontiers of almost every scientific discipline and to our most
challenging feats of engineering. Leadership in scientific computing
has become a cornerstone of the Department's strategy to ensure the
security of the Nation and success in its science, energy,
environmental quality, and national security missions.
The demands of today's facilities, which generate millions of
gigabytes of data per year, now outstrip the capabilities of the
current Internet design and push the state-of-the-art in data storage
and utilization. But, the evolution of the telecommunications market,
including the availability of direct access to optical fiber at
attractive prices and the availability of flexible dense wave division
multiplexing (DWDM) products gives SC the possibility of exploiting
these technologies to provide scientific data where needed at speeds
commensurate with the new data volumes. To take advantage of this
opportunity, the Energy Science Network (ESnet) has entered into a
long-term partnership with Internet 2 to build the next generation
optical network infrastructure needed for U.S. science. To fully
realize the potential for science, however, significant research is
needed to integrate these capabilities, make them available to
scientists, and build the infrastructure which can provide cyber
security. ASCR is leading an interagency effort to develop a Federal
Plan for Advanced Networking R&D. This plan will provide a strategy for
addressing current and future networking needs of the Federal
Government in support of science and national security missions and
provide a process for developing a more detailed roadmap to guide
future multi-agency investments in advancing networking R&D.
ASCR supports core research in applied mathematics, computer
sciences, and distributed network environments. The applied mathematics
research activity produces fundamental mathematical methods to model
complex physical and biological systems. The computer science research
efforts enable scientists to perform scientific computations
efficiently on the highest performance computers available and to
store, manage, analyze, and visualize the massive amounts of data that
result. The networking research activity provides the techniques to
link the data producers with scientists who need access to the data.
Results from enabling research supported by ASCR are used by scientists
supported by other SC programs. This link to other DOE programs
provides a tangible assessment of the value of ASCR's core research
program for advancing scientific discovery and technology development
through simulations. In FY 2008 expanded efforts in applied mathematics
will support critical long-term mathematical research issues relevant
to petascale science, multi-scale mathematics, and optimized control
and risk analysis in complex systems. Expanded efforts in computer
science will enable scientific applications to take full advantage of
petascale computing systems at the Leadership Computing Facilities.
In addition to its research activities, ASCR plans, develops, and
operates supercomputer and network facilities that are available 24
hours a day, 365 days a year to researchers working on problems
relevant to DOE's scientific missions. Investments in the ESnet will
provide the DOE science community with capabilities not available
through commercial networks or the commercial Internet to manage
increased data flows from petascale computers and experimental
facilities. In FY 2008 ESnet will deliver a 10 gigabit per second
(gbps) core Internet service as well as a Science Data Network with 20
gbps on its northern route and 10 gbps on its southern route. Delivery
of the next generation of high performance resources at the National
Energy Research Scientific Computing Center (NERSC) is scheduled for FY
2007. This NERSC-5 system is expected to provide 100-150 teraflops of
peak computing capacity. The NERSC computational resources are
integrated by a common high performance file storage system that
enables users to use all machines easily. Therefore the new machine
will significantly reduce the current oversubscription at NERSC which
serves nearly 2,000 scientists annually.
In FY 2008, the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) Leadership
Computing Facility (LCF) will continue to provide world leading high
performance sustained capability to researchers through the Innovative
and Novel Computational Impact on Theory and Experiment (INCITE)
program. The acquisition of a 250 teraflop Cray Baker system by the end
of FY 2008 will enable further scientific advancements in areas such as
combustion simulation for clean coal research, simulation of fusion
devices that approach ITER scale, and quantum calculations of complex
chemical reactions. In addition, further diversity with the LCF
resources will be realized with an acquisition by Argonne National
Laboratory (ANL) of a high performance IBM Blue Gene/P with low-
electrical power requirements and a peak capability of up to 100
teraflops in 2007, and further expansion to 250-500 teraflops in FY
2008 will bring enhanced capability to accelerate scientific
understanding in areas such as molecular dynamics, catalysis, protein/
DNA complexes, and aging of material. With the ORNL and ANL LCF
facilities SC is developing a multiple set of computer architectures to
enable the most efficient solution of critical problems across the
spectrum of science, ranging from biology to physics and chemistry.
The Scientific Discovery through Advanced Computing (SciDAC)
program is a set of coordinated investments across all SC mission areas
with the goal of using computer simulation and advanced networking
technologies to achieve breakthrough scientific advances via that are
impossible using theoretical or laboratory studies alone. In FY 2006
ASCR recompeted its SciDAC portfolio, with the exception of activities
in partnership with the Fusion Energy Sciences program that were
initiated in FY 2005. The new portfolio, referred to as SciDAC-2,
enables new areas of science through Scientific Application
Partnerships; Centers for Enabling Technologies (CET) at universities
and national laboratories; and University-led SciDAC Institutes to
establish centers of excellence that complement the activities of the
CETs and provide training for the next generation of computational
scientists.
Advancing high performance computing and computation is a highly
coordinated interagency effort. ASCR has extensive partnerships with
other federal agencies and the National Nuclear Security Administration
(NNSA). Activities are coordinated with other federal efforts through
the Networking and Information Technology R&D (NITR&D) subcommittee of
the National Science and Technology Council Committee on Technology.
The subcommittee coordinates planning, budgeting, and assessment
activities of the multi-agency NITR&D enterprise. DOE has been an
active participant in these coordination groups and committees since
their inception. ASCR will continue to coordinate its activities
through these mechanisms and will lead the development of new
coordinating mechanisms as needs arise such as the ongoing development
of a Federal Plan for Advanced Networking R&D.
BIOLOGICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH
FY 2007 Request--$510.3 Million; FY 2008 Request--$531.9 Million
Biological and Environmental Research (BER) supports basic research
with broad impacts on our energy future, our environment, and our
health. By understanding complex biological systems, developing
computational tools to model and predict their behavior, and developing
methods to harness nature's capabilities, biotechnology solutions are
possible for DOE energy, environmental, and national security
challenges. An ability to predict long-range and regional climate
enables effective planning for future needs in energy, agriculture, and
land and water use. Understanding the global carbon cycle and the
associated role and capabilities of microbes and plants can lead to
solutions for reducing carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere.
Understanding the complex role of biology, geochemistry, and hydrology
beneath the Earth's surface will lead to improved decision-making and
solutions for contaminated DOE weapons sites. Understanding the
biological effects of low doses of radiation can lead to the
development of science-based health risk policy to better protect
workers and citizens. Both normal and abnormal physiological
processes--from normal human development to cancer to brain function--
can be understood and improved using radiotracers, advanced imaging
instruments, and novel biomedical devices.
The FY 2008 BER request continues expansion of the Genomics: GTL
program. This program employs a systems approach to biology at the
interface of the biological, physical, and computational sciences to
determine the diverse biochemical capabilities of microbes, microbial
communities, and plants, with the goal of tailoring and translating
those capabilities into solutions for DOE mission needs. In FY 2005 BER
engaged a committee of the National Research Council (NRC) of the
National Academies to review the design of the Genomics: GTL program
and its infrastructure plan. The NRC committee report, Review of the
Department of Energy's Genomics: GTL Program was released in FY 2006
and provided a strong endorsement of the GTL program, recommending that
the program's focus on systems biology for bioenergy, carbon
sequestration, and bioremediation be given a ``high priority'' by DOE
and the Nation. The report also recommended that the program's plan for
new research facilities be reshaped to produce earlier and more cost-
effective results by focusing not on particular technologies, but on
research underpinning particular applications such as bioenergy, carbon
sequestration, or environmental remediation.
In response, SC revised its original single-purpose user facilities
plan to instead develop and support vertically-integrated GTL Research
Centers to accelerate systems biology research. BER will support the
development of three Bioenergy Research Centers to be selected and
initiated in FY 2007, and fully operational by the end of 2008. All
three centers will conduct comprehensive, multidisciplinary research
programs focused on microbes and plants to drive scientific
breakthroughs necessary for the development of cost-effective biofuels
and bioenergy production. These centers will not only possess the
robust scientific capabilities needed to carry out their broad mission
mandates, but will also draw upon the broader GTL program for
technology development and foundational research. The vertically-
integrated GTL Research Centers will not require construction of
facilities. Moreover, the competition to establish and operate them is
open to universities, non-profit research organizations, the national
laboratories, and the private sector--an approach that is new for the
Department. The first three research centers will focus on bioenergy
research. The Department announced the solicitation for Bioenergy
Research Centers in August 2006, and proposals were due on February 1,
2007.
Development of a global biotechnology based energy infrastructure
requires a science base that will enable scientists to control or
redirect genetic regulation and redesign specific proteins, biochemical
pathways, and even entire plants or microbes. Renewable biofuels could
be produced using plants, microbes, or isolated enzymes. Understanding
the biological mechanisms involved in these energy producing processes
will allow scientists and technologists to design novel biofuel
production strategies involving both cellular and cell free systems
that might include defined mixed microbial communities or consolidated
biological processes. Within the Genomics: GTL program, BER supports
basic research aimed at developing the understanding needed to advance
biotechnology-based strategies for biofuel production, focusing on
renewable, carbon-neutral energy compounds like ethanol and hydrogen,
as well as understanding how the capabilities of microbes can be
applied to environmental remediation and carbon sequestration.
In 2003, the Administration launched the Climate Change Research
Initiative (CCRI) to focus research on areas where substantial progress
in understanding and predicting climate change, including its potential
causes and consequences, is possible over the next five years. In FY
2008, BER will contribute to the CCRI by focusing on (1) helping to
resolve the North American carbon sink question (i.e., the magnitude
and location of the North American carbon sink); (2) deployment and
operation of a mobile ARM facility to provide data on the effects of
clouds and aerosols on the atmospheric radiation budget in regions and
locations of opportunity where data are lacking or sparse; (3) using
advanced climate models to simulate potential effects of natural and
human-induced climate forcing on global and regional climate and the
potential effects on climate of alternative options for mitigating
increases in human forcing of climate, including abrupt climate change;
and (4) developing and evaluating assessment tools needed to study
costs and benefits of potential strategies for reducing net carbon
dioxide emissions.
In FY 2008, BER will continue to support research aimed at
advancing the science of climate and Earth system modeling by coupling
models of different components of the earth system related to climate
and by significantly increasing the spatial resolution of such models.
SciDAC-enabled activities will allow climate scientists to gain
unprecedented insights into interactions and feedbacks between, for
example, climate change and global cycling of carbon, the potential
effects of carbon dioxide and aerosol emissions from energy production
and their impact on the global climate system. BER will also add a
SciDAC component to GTL and Environmental Remediation research. GTL
SciDAC will initiate new research to develop mathematical and
computational tools needed for complex biological system modeling and
for analysis of complex data sets, such as mass spectrometry
metabolomic or proteomic profiling data. Environmental Remediation
SciDAC will provide an opportunity for subsurface and computational
scientists to develop and improve methods of simulating subsurface
reactive transport processes on ``discovery class'' computers.
Research emphasis within BER's Environmental Remediation Sciences
subprogram will focus on issues of subsurface cleanup such as defining
and understanding the processes that control contaminant fate and
transport in the environment and providing opportunities for use or
manipulation of natural processes to alter contaminant mobility. In FY
2008, BER will support the development of two additional field research
sites (for a total of three), providing opportunities to validate
laboratory findings under field conditions. The resulting knowledge and
technology will assist DOE's environmental clean-up and stewardship
missions. Funding for the William R. Wiley Environmental Molecular
Sciences Laboratory (EMSL) at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
(PNNL) will be increased in FY 2008 to maintain operations at full
capacity.
Also continuing in FY 2008 is BER support for fundamental research
in genomics, medical applications and measurement science, and the
health effects of low dose radiation in FY 2008. Resources are
developed and made widely available for determining protein structures
at DOE synchrotrons, and for DOE--relevant high-throughput genomic DNA
sequencing. Building on DOE capabilities in physics, chemistry,
engineering, biology and computation, BER supports fundamental imaging
research, maintains core infrastructure for imaging research and
develops new technologies to improve the diagnosis and treatment of
psycho-neurological diseases and cancer and to improve the function of
patients with neurological disabilities like blindness. Funding for
Ethical, Legal, and Societal Issues (ELSI) associated with activities
applicable to SC, increases to support research on the ecological and
environmental impacts of nanoparticles resulting from nanotechnology
applied to energy technologies.
HIGH ENERGY PHYSICS
FY 2007 Request--$775.1 Million; FY 2008 Request--$782.2 Million
The High Energy Physics (HEP) program provides over 90 percent of
the federal support for the Nation's high energy physics research. This
research advances our understanding of the basic constituents of
matter, deeper symmetries in the laws of nature at high energies, and
mysterious phenomena that are commonplace in the universe, such as dark
energy and dark matter. Research at these frontiers of science may
uncover new particles, forces, or undiscovered dimensions of space and
time; explain how matter came to have mass; and reveal the underlying
nature of the universe. HEP supports particle accelerators and very
sensitive detectors to study fundamental particle interactions at the
highest possible energies as well as non-accelerator studies of cosmic
particles using experiments conducted deep underground, on mountains,
or in space. These research facilities and basic research supported by
HEP advance our knowledge not only in high energy physics, but
increasingly in other fields was well, including particle astrophysics
and cosmology. Research advances in one field often have a strong
impact on research directions in another. Technology that was developed
in response to the pace-setting demands of high energy physics research
has also become indispensable to other fields of science and has found
wide applications in industry and medicine, often in ways that could
not have been predicted when the technology was first developed.
In FY 2008 HEP supports core experimental and theoretical research
to maintain strong participation in the Tevatron, Large Hadron Collider
(LHC) at CERN (the European Organization for Nuclear Research), and B-
factory physics program, and supports research activities associated
with development of potential new initiatives such as International
Linear Collider (ILC) R&D, neutrinos, dark energy, and dark matter. HEP
places a high priority on maximizing scientific data derived from the
three major HEP user facilities: the Tevatron Collider and Neutrinos at
the Main Injector (NuMI) beam line at Fermilab, and the B-factory at
SLAC. HEP will continue to lead the international scientific community
with these world-leading user facilities at Fermilab and SLAC in FY
2008, but these facilities will complete their scientific missions by
the end of the decade. Thus, the longer-term HEP program supported in
FY 2008 begins to develop new cutting-edge facilities in targeted areas
(such as neutrino physics) that will establish U.S. leadership in these
areas in the next decade, when the centerpiece of the world HEP program
will reside at CERN.
In FY 2008 HEP continues to support software and computing
resources for U.S. researchers participating in the LHC program at CERN
as well as pre-operations and maintenance of the U.S.-built systems
that are scientific components of the LHC detectors. R&D in support of
the proposed ILC is maintained in FY 2008 to support U.S. participation
in a comprehensive, coordinated international R&D program and to
provide a basis for U.S. industry to compete successfully for major
subsystem contracts, should the ILC be designed and then built. The
long-term goal of this effort is to provide robust cost and schedule
baselines to support design and construction decisions for an
international electron-positron linear collider. The ILC would provide
unprecedented power, clarity, and precision to unravel the mysteries of
the next energy frontier, which we will just begin to discover with the
LHC. In 2006 the ILC Reference Design Report was completed, and in FY
2007 further work toward the design, including some site-specific
studies and detector studies, will be performed. In FY 2008 further
work on both accelerator systems and detector studies will be
performed.
To provide a nearer-term future HEP program, and to preserve future
research options, R&D for accelerator and detector technologies,
particularly in the growing area of neutrino physics, will continue in
FY 2008. With Tevatron improvements completed, much of the accelerator
development effort at Fermilab in FY 2008 will focus on the neutrino
program to study the universe's most prolific particle. The Neutrinos
at the Main Injector (NuMI) beam allows studies of the fundamental
physics of neutrino masses and mixings using the proton source section
of the Tevatron complex. The NuMI beam has begun operations and will
eventually put much higher demands on that set of accelerators. A
program of enhanced maintenance, operational improvements, and
equipment upgrades is being developed to meet these higher demands,
while continuing to run the Tevatron. Fabrication of the NuMI Off-axis
Neutrino Appearance (NOnA) Detector, which was originally proposed as a
line item construction project in FY 2007 under the generic name of
Electron Neutrino Appearance (EnA) Detector, is funded in FY 2008 and
will utilize the NuMI beam. This project includes improvements to the
proton source to increase the intensity of the NuMI beam. Meanwhile,
fabrication will begin for the Reactor Neutrino Detector and two small
neutrino experiments, the Main Injector Experiment n-A (MINERnA) in the
MINOS near detector hall at Fermilab and the Tokai-to-Kamioka (T2K)
experiment using the Japanese J-PARC neutrino beam. R&D will continue
for a large double beta decay experiment to measure the mass of a
neutrino. These efforts are part of a coordinated neutrino program
developed from an American Physical Society study and a joint HEPAP/
Nuclear Sciences Advisory Committee (NSAC) subpanel review.
To exploit the unique opportunity to expand the boundaries of our
understanding of the matter-antimatter asymmetry in the universe, a
high priority is given to continued operations and infrastructure
support for the B-factory at SLAC. Final upgrades to the accelerator
and detector are scheduled for completion in FY 2007, and B-factory
operations will conclude in FY 2008. HEP support of SLAC operations
decreases in FY 2008 as the contribution from BES increases for SLAC
linac operations in preparation for the Linac Coherent Light Source
(LCLS).
As the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) accelerator nears its turn-on
date in 2007, U.S. activities related to fabrication of detector
components will be completed and new activities related to
commissioning and pre-operations of these detectors, along with
software and computing activities needed to analyze the data, will
ramp-up significantly. Support of an effective role for U.S. research
groups in LHC discoveries will continue to be a high priority of the
HEP program. R&D for possible future upgrades to the LHC accelerator
and detectors will also be pursued.
Enhanced support for R&D on ground- and space-based dark energy
experimental concepts, begun in FY 2007, will be continued in FY 2008.
These experiments should provide important new information about the
nature of dark energy, leading to a better understanding of the birth,
evolution, and ultimate fate of the universe. For example, the Super
Nova/Acceleration Probe (SNAP) will be a mission concept proposed for a
potential interagency-sponsored experiment with NASA, and possibly
international partners: the Joint Dark Energy Mission (JDEM). DOE and
NASA are jointly funding a National Academy of Sciences study to
determine which of the proposed NASA ``Beyond Einstein'' missions
should launch first, with technical design of the selected proposal to
begin at the end of this decade. JDEM is one of the candidate missions
in this study. In FY 2008, fabrication for the Dark Energy Survey
Project will begin.
The HEP program re-competed its SciDAC portfolio in FY 2006. Major
thrusts in theoretical physics, astrophysics, and particle physics grid
technology will be supported through the SciDAC program in FY 2008, as
well as proposals in accelerator modeling and design to be selected in
FY 2007. These projects will allow HEP to use computational science to
obtain significant new insights into challenging problems that have the
greatest impact in HEP mission areas.
NUCLEAR PHYSICS
FY 2007 Request--$454.1 Million; FY 2008 Request--$471.3 Million
The Nuclear Physics (NP) program is the major sponsor of
fundamental nuclear physics research in the Nation, providing about 90
percent of federal support. Scientific research supported by NP is
aimed at advancing knowledge and providing insights into the nature of
energy and matter and, in particular, at investigating the fundamental
forces which hold the nucleus together and determining the detailed
structure and behavior of the atomic nuclei. NP builds and supports
world-leading scientific facilities and state-of-the-art
instrumentation to carry out its basic research agenda--the study of
the evolution and structure of nuclear matter from the smallest
building blocks, quarks and gluons, to the stable elements in the
Universe created by stars, to unique isotopes created in the laboratory
that exist at the limits of stability and possess radically different
properties from known matter. NP also trains a workforce needed to
underpin the Department's missions for nuclear-related national
security, energy, and environmental quality.
Key aspects of NP research agenda include understanding how the
quarks and gluons combine to form the nucleons (proton and neutron),
what the properties and behavior of nuclear matter are under extreme
conditions of temperature and pressure, and what the properties and
reaction rates are for atomic nuclei up to their limits of stability.
Results and insight from these studies are relevant to understanding
how the universe evolved in its earliest moments, how the chemical
elements were formed, and how the properties of one of nature's basic
constituents, the neutrino, influences astrophysics phenomena such as
supernovae. Knowledge and techniques developed in pursuit of
fundamental nuclear physics research are also extensively utilized in
our society today. The understanding of nuclear spin enabled the
development of magnetic resonance imaging for medical use. Radioactive
isotopes produced by accelerators and reactors are used for medical
imaging, cancer therapy, and biochemical studies. Advances in cutting-
edge instrumentation developed for nuclear physics experiments have
relevance to technological needs in combating terrorism. The highly
trained scientific and technical personnel in fundamental nuclear
physics who are a product of the program are a valuable human resource
for many applied fields.
The FY 2008 budget request supports operations of the four National
User Facilities and research at universities and laboratories, and
makes investments in new capabilities to address compelling scientific
opportunities and to maintain U.S. competitiveness in global nuclear
physics efforts. In FY 2008 support continues for R&D on rare isotope
beam development, relevant to the next-generation facilities that will
provide capabilities for forefront nuclear structure and astrophysics
studies and for understanding the origin of the elements from iron to
uranium.
When the Universe was a millionth of a second old, nuclear matter
is believed to have existed in its most extreme energy density form
called the quark-gluon plasma. Experiments at the Relativistic Heavy
Ion Collider (RHIC) at Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL) are
searching to find and characterize this new state and others that may
have existed during the first moments of the Universe. These efforts
will continue in FY 2008. The NP program, together with the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), will continue construction
of a new Electron Beam Ion Source (EBIS) to provide RHIC with more
cost-effective, reliable, and versatile operations. Research and
development activities, including the development of an innovative
electron beam cooling system for RHIC, are expected to demonstrate the
feasibility of increasing the luminosity (or collision rate) of the
circulating beams by a factor of ten, which would increase the long-
term scientific productivity and international competitiveness of the
facility. Support for participation in the heavy ion program at the
Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN allows U.S. researchers the
opportunity to search for new states of matter under substantially
different initial conditions than those provided at RHIC. The interplay
of the different research programs at the LHC and the ongoing RHIC
program will allow a detailed tomography of the hot, dense matter as it
evolves from the ``perfect fluid'' (a fluid with zero viscosity)
discovered at RHIC.
Operations of the Continuous Electron Beam Accelerator Facility
(CEBAF) at Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility (TJNAF) in FY
2008 will continue to advance our knowledge of the internal structure
of protons and neutrons. By providing precision experimental
information concerning the quarks and gluons that form protons and
neutrons, the approximately 1,200 experimental researchers who use
CEBAF, together with researchers in nuclear theory, seek to provide a
quantitative description of nuclear matter in terms of the fundamental
theory of the strong interaction, Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD). In FY
2008, the accelerator will provide beams simultaneously to all three
experimental halls and funding is provided for engineering design
activities for the 12 GeV CEBAF Upgrade Project. This upgrade is one of
the highest priorities for NP and would allow for a test of a proposed
mechanism of ``quark confinement,'' one of the compelling, unanswered
puzzles of physics.
Efforts at the Argonne Tandem Linear Accelerator System (ATLAS) at
ANL and the Holifield Radioactive Ion Beam Facility (HRIBF) at ORNL
will be supported in FY 2008 to focus on investigating new regions of
nuclear structure, studying interactions in nuclear matter like those
occurring in neutron stars, and determining the reactions that created
the nuclei of the chemical elements inside stars and supernovae. The
GRETINA gamma-ray tracking array, which continues fabrication in FY
2008, will revolutionize gamma ray detection technology and offer
dramatically improved capabilities to study the structure of nuclei at
ATLAS, HRIBF, and elsewhere. The Fundamental Neutron Physics Beamline
(FNPB) under fabrication at the SNS will provide a world-class
capability to study the fundamental properties of the neutron, leading
to a refined characterization of the weak force. Support continues in
FY 2008 for the fabrication of a neutron Electric Dipole Moment
experiment, to be sited at the FNPB, in the search for new physics
beyond the Standard Model.
Funds are provided in FY 2008 to initiate U.S. participation in the
fabrication of an Italian-led neutrino-less double beta decay
experiment, the Cryogenic Underground Observatory for Rare Events
(CUORE). A successful search for neutrino-less beta decay will
determine if the neutrino is its own antiparticle and provide
information about the mass of the neutrino. Neutrinos are thought to
play a critical role in the explosions of supernovae and the evolution
of the cosmos. A successful search for neutrino-less beta decay will
determine if the neutrino is its own antiparticle and provide
information about the mass of the neutrino.
Following the re-competition of SciDAC projects in FY 2006, NP
currently supports efforts in nuclear astrophysics, grid computing,
Lattice Gauge (QCD) theory, and low energy nuclear structure and
nuclear reaction theory. NP is also supporting R&D in an international
effort to develop a larger, more sensitive neutrino-less beta decay
experiment.
FUSION ENERGY SCIENCES
FY 2007 Request--$319.0 Million; FY 2008 Request--$427.9 Million
The Fusion Energy Sciences (FES) program advances the theoretical
and experimental understanding of plasma and fusion science, including
a close collaboration with international partners in identifying and
exploring plasma and fusion physics issues through specialized
facilities. The FES program supports research in plasma science,
magnetically confined plasmas, advances in tokamak design, innovative
confinement options, non-neutral plasma physics and high energy density
laboratory plasmas (HEDLP), and cutting edge technologies. FES also
leads U.S. participation in ITER, an experiment to study and
demonstrate the sustained burning of fusion fuel. This international
collaboration will provide an unparalleled scientific research
opportunity with a goal of demonstrating the scientific and technical
feasibility of fusion power. Fusion is the energy source that powers
the sun and stars. Fusion power could play a key role in U.S. long-term
energy plans and independence because it offers the potential for
plentiful, safe, and environmentally benign energy. On November 21,
2006, the DOE signed the ITER agreement with its counterparts in China,
the European Union, India, Japan, the Republic of Korea and the Russian
Federation, formalizing this historic arrangement for international
scientific cooperation.
The U.S. Contributions to ITER project is being managed by the U.S.
ITER Project Office (USIPO), established as an Oak Ridge National
Laboratory (ORNL)/Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory (PPPL)
partnership. The FY 2008 request for the U.S. Contributions to ITER
project reflects a significant increase in procurement, fabrication
activities, and delivery of medium- and high-technology components,
assignment of U.S. personnel to the International ITER Organization
abroad, and the U.S. share of common costs at the ITER site in
Cadarache, France, including installation and testing. These costs are
part of the Total Estimated Cost (TEC) for the U.S. Contributions to
ITER project. There is a second category of costs, Other Project Costs
(OPC), which is for the supporting research and development activity
for our U.S. Contributions. Together the TEC and OPC make up the
overall Total Project Cost which is $1,122,000,000.
In support of ITER and U.S. Contributions to ITER, FES has placed
an increased emphasis on its national burning plasma program--a
critical underpinning to the fusion science in ITER. FES has enhanced
burning plasma research efforts across the U.S. domestic fusion
program, including: carrying out experiments on our national FES
facilities that are exploring new modes of improved or extended ITER
performance with diagnostics and plasma control that can also be
extrapolated to ITER; developing safe and environmentally attractive
technologies that could be used in future upgrades of ITER; exploring
fusion simulation efforts that examine the complex behavior of burning
plasmas in tokamaks; and integrating all that is learned into a
forward-looking approach to future fusion applications. The U.S.
Burning Plasma Organization has been established to coordinate these
efforts.
Section 972(c)(5)(C) of the Energy Policy Act (EPAct) of 2005,
required the Secretary of Energy to provide ``a report describing how
United States participation in the ITER will be funded without reducing
funding for other programs in the Office of Science (including other
fusion programs). . ..'' This report as well as all the other
requirements for FES in EPAct have been or are in the process of being
completed. The Department's FY 2008 budget provides for modest
increases for all programs within the Office of Science and supports
the ITER request of $160,000,000 from new funds in the FES budget
request.
FES supports the operation of a set of experimental facilities.
These facilities provide scientists with the means to test and extend
our theoretical understanding and computer models--leading ultimately
to improved predictive capabilities for fusion science. Research and
facility operations support for the three major facilities is
maintained in FY 2008. Experimental research on tokamaks is continued
with emphasis on physics issues of interest to the ITER project. The
DIII-D tokamak at General Atomics will operate for 15 weeks in FY 2008
to conduct research relevant to burning plasma issues and topics of
interest to the ITER project as well as maintain the broad scientific
scope of the program. The Alcator C-Mod at the Massachusetts Institute
of Technology will operate for 15 weeks and the National Spherical
Torus Experiment (NSTX) at the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory
(PPPL) will operate for 12 weeks. Fabrication of the major components
of the National Compact Stellarator Experiment (NCSX) at PPPL continues
and assembly of the entire device will be completed in FY 2009.
Funding for the FES SciDAC program continues in FY 2008 for the
development of tools that facilitate international fusion
collaborations and initiate development of an integrated software
environment that can accommodate the wide range of space and time
scales and the multiple phenomena that are encountered in simulations
of fusion systems. Within SciDAC, the Fusion Simulation Project is a
major initiative involving plasma physicists, applied mathematicians,
and computer scientists to create a comprehensive set of models of
fusion systems, combined with the algorithms required to implement the
models and the computational infrastructure to enable them to work
together.
FES will issue a joint solicitation in FY 2008, with the National
Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), focused on academic research in
high energy density laboratory plasmas, which supports the Department's
programmatic goals in inertial confinement fusion science.
WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT FOR TEACHERS AND SCIENTISTS
FY 2007 Request--$10.9 Million; FY 2008 Request--$11.0 Million
The Department of Energy has played a role in training America's
scientists and engineers for more than 50 years, making contributions
to U.S. economic and scientific preeminence. The Nation's current and
future energy and environmental challenges may be solved in part
through scientific and technological innovation and a highly skilled
scientific and technical workforce. The Workforce Development for
Teachers and Scientists (WDTS) program acts as a catalyst within the
DOE for the training of the next generation of scientists. WDTS
programs create a foundation for DOE's national laboratories to provide
a wide range of educational opportunities to more than 280,000
educators and students on an annual basis. WDTS's mission is to provide
a continuum of educational opportunities to the Nation's students and
teachers of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM).
WDTS supports experiential learning opportunities that compliment
curriculum taught in the classroom and (1) build links between the
national laboratories and the science education community by providing
funding, guidelines, and evaluation of mentored research experiences at
the national laboratories to K-12 teachers and college faculty to
enhance their content knowledge and research capabilities; (2) provide
mentor-intensive research experiences at the national laboratories for
undergraduate and graduate students to inspire commitments to the
technical disciplines and to pursue careers in science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics, thereby helping our national laboratories
and the Nation meet the demand for a well-trained scientific/technical
workforce; and (3) encourage and reward middle and high school students
across the Nation to share, demonstrate, and excel in math and the
sciences, and introduce these students to the national laboratories and
the opportunities available to them when they go to college.
In FY 2008, the DOE Academies Creating Teacher Scientists (DOE
ACTS) program, formerly the Laboratory Science Teacher Professional
Development (LSTPD) program, will support the participation of
approximately 300 teachers. All 17 of DOE's national laboratories will
participate in this program. Each national laboratory can elect to
implement either or both of the two types of teacher professional
development models in DOE ACTS: (1) Teachers as Investigators (TAI) is
geared towards novice teachers typically in the elementary to
intermediate grade levels; and (2) Teachers as Research Associates
(TARA) for teachers with a stronger background in science, mathematics,
and engineering.
The Science Undergraduate Laboratory Internship (SULI) program,
which provides mentor intensive research experiences for undergraduates
at the national laboratories, will support approximately 340 students
in FY 2008. The Albert Einstein Distinguished Educator Fellowships, the
College Institute of Science and Technology (CCI) program, the Pre-
Service Teacher activity for students preparing for teaching careers in
a STEM discipline, and the National and Middle School Science Bowls
will all continue in FY 2008.
SCIENCE LABORATORIES INFRASTRUCTURE
FY 2007 Request--$50.9 Million; FY 2008 Request--$79.0 Million
The mission of the Science Laboratories Infrastructure (SLI)
program is to enable the conduct of DOE research missions at the Office
of Science laboratories by funding line item construction projects and
the clean up for reuse or removal of excess facilities to maintain the
general purpose infrastructure. The program also supports Office of
Science landlord responsibilities for the 24,000 acre Oak Ridge
Reservation and provides Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) to local
communities around ANL, BNL, and ORNL.
In FY 2008, SLI will fund four construction subprojects: Seismic
Safety Upgrade of Buildings, Phase I, at the Lawrence Berkeley National
Laboratory (LBNL); Modernization of Building 4500N, Wing 4, Phase I, at
ORNL; Building Electrical Services Upgrade, Phase II, at ANL; and
Renovate Science Laboratory, Phase I, at BNL. Funding for FY 2008
includes $35,000,000 held in reserve pending resolution of issues
related to capability replacement and renovation at PNNL. If the issues
are resolved, DOE will initiate a reprogramming request to use these
funds to replace and/or upgrade mission-critical facilities currently
located in the Hanford Site 300 Area. The SLI program continues funding
for demolition of the Bevatron at LBNL in FY 2008, and funding is also
provided for the demolition of several small buildings and trailers at
ORNL.
SCIENCE PROGRAM DIRECTION
FY 2007 Request--$170.9 Million; FY 2008 Request--$184.9 Million
Science Program Direction (SCPD) enables a skilled, highly
motivated federal workforce to manage the Office of Science's basic and
applied research portfolio, programs, projects, and facilities in
support of new and improved energy, environmental, and health
technologies. SCPD consists of two subprograms: Program Direction and
Field Operations.
The Program Direction subprogram is the single funding source for
the Office of Science federal staff in headquarters responsible for
managing, directing, administering, and supporting the broad spectrum
of Office of Science disciplines. This subprogram includes planning and
analysis activities, providing the capabilities needed to plan,
evaluate, and communicate the scientific excellence, relevance, and
performance of the Office of Science basic research programs.
Additionally, Program Direction includes funding for the Office of
Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI) which collects, preserves,
and disseminates DOE research and development (R&D) information for use
by DOE, the scientific community, academia, U.S. industry, and the
public to expand the knowledge base of science and technology. The
Field Operations subprogram is the funding source for the federal
workforce in the Field responsible for management and administrative
functions performed within the Chicago and Oak Ridge Operations
Offices, and site offices supporting the Office of Science laboratories
and facilities.
In FY 2008, Program Direction funding increases by 8.2 percent from
the FY 2007 request. Most of the increase will support an additional 29
FTEs, to mange the increase in the SC research investment that is a key
component of the President's American Competitiveness Initiative; four
new FTEs to support NSLS-II, and ITER project office activities; and 35
FTEs--the staff of the New Brunswick Laboratory--transferring from the
Office of Security and Safety Performance Assurance. Twenty-four FTEs
are reduced across the SC complex in FY 2008 consistent with SC's
corporate workforce planning strategy. The SCPD FY 2008 increase also
supports a 2.2 percent pay raise; an increased cap for SES basic pay;
other pay related costs such as the government's contributions for
employee health insurance and Federal Employees' Retirement System
(FERS); escalation of non-pay categories, such as travel, training, and
contracts; and increased e-Gov assessments and other fixed operating
requirements across the Office of Science complex.
SAFEGUARDS AND SECURITY
FY 2007 Request--$71.0 Million; FY 2008 Request--$71.0 Million
The Safeguards and Security (S&S) program ensures appropriate
levels of protection against unauthorized access, theft, diversion,
loss of custody, or destruction of DOE assets and hostile acts that may
cause adverse impacts on fundamental science, national security, or the
health and safety of DOE and contractor employees, the public, or the
environment. The Office of Science's Integrated Safeguards and Security
Management strategy uses a tailored approach to safeguards and
security. As such, each site has a specific protection program that is
analyzed and defined in its individual Security Plan. This approach
allows each site to design varying degrees of protection commensurate
with the risks and consequences described in their site-specific threat
scenarios. The FY 2008 budget includes funding necessary to protect
people and property at the 2003 Design Basis Threat (DBT) level. In FY
2008, funding for the Cyber Security program element addresses the
promulgation of new National Institute of Standards and Technology
(NIST) requirements that are statutorily required by the Federal
Information Security Management Act (FISMA) to improve the Federal and
Office of Science laboratory cyber security posture.
CONCLUSION
I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for providing this opportunity
to discuss the Office of Science research programs and our
contributions to the Nation's scientific enterprise and U.S.
competitiveness. On behalf of DOE, I am pleased to present this FY 2008
budget request for the Office of Science.
This concludes my testimony. I would be pleased to answer any
questions you might have.
Biography for Raymond L. Orbach
Raymond Lee Orbach was sworn in by Secretary Samuel W. Bodman as
the Department of Energy's first Under Secretary for Science on June 1,
2006. President Bush nominated Dr. Orbach for the new position, created
by the Energy Policy Act of 2005, on December 13, 2005, and he was
unanimously confirmed by the U.S. Senate on May 26, 2006.
As Under Secretary for Science, Dr. Orbach serves as the
Secretary's advisor on science policy as well as on the scientific
aspects of all that DOE does, from basic research, to nuclear energy,
to the environmental clean-up of Cold War legacy sites, to defense
programs. Dr. Orbach is responsible for planning, coordinating and
overseeing the Energy Department's research and development programs
and its 17 national laboratories, as well as the department's
scientific and engineering education activities.
Secretary Bodman has tasked Dr. Orbach with the department's
implementation of the President's American Competitiveness Initiative,
will help drive continued U.S. economic growth. Dr. Orbach continues to
serve as the 14th Director of the Office of Science (SC) at the
Department of Energy (DOE), a position he has held since the Senate
confirmed him and he was sworn in in March 2002. In this capacity, Dr.
Orbach manages an organization that is the third largest federal
sponsor of basic research in the United States, the primary supporter
of the physical sciences in the U.S., and one of the premier science
organizations in the world.
The SC fiscal year 2006 budget of $3.6 billion funds programs in
high energy and nuclear physics, basic energy sciences, magnetic fusion
energy, biological and environmental research, and computational
science. SC, formerly the Office of Energy Research, also provides
management oversight of 10 DOE non-weapons laboratories, supports
researchers at more than 300 colleges and universities nationwide, and
builds and operates the world's finest suite of scientific facilities
and instruments used annually by more than 19,000 researchers world-
wide to extend the frontiers of science.
From 1992 to 2002, Dr. Orbach served as Chancellor of the
University of California (UC), Riverside. Under his leadership, UC-
Riverside doubled in size, achieved national and international
recognition in research, and led the University of California in
diversity and educational opportunity. In addition to his
administrative duties at UC-Riverside, sustained an active research
program; worked with postdoctoral, graduate, and undergraduate students
in his laboratory; and taught the freshman physics course each year. As
Distinguished Professor of Physics, Dr. Orbach set the highest
standards for academic excellence.
Dr. Orbach began his academic career as a postdoctoral fellow at
Oxford University in 1960 and became an Assistant Professor of applied
physics at Harvard University in 1961. He joined the faculty of the
University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) two years later as an
Associate Professor, and became a Full Professor in 1966. From 1982 to
1992, he served as the Provost of the College of Letters and Science at
UCLA.
Dr. Orbach's research in theoretical and experimental physics has
resulted in the publication of more than 240 scientific articles. He
has received numerous honors as a scholar including two Alfred P. Sloan
Foundation Fellowships, a National Science Foundation Senior
Postdoctoral Fellowship at Oxford University, a John Simon Guggenheim
Memorial Foundation Fellowship at Tel Aviv University, the Joliot Curie
Professorship at the Ecole Superieure de Physique et Chimie
Industrielle de la Ville de Paris, the Lorentz Professorship at the
University of Leiden in the Netherlands, the 1991-1992 Andrew Lawson
Memorial Lecturer at UC-Riverside, the 2004 Arnold O. Beckman Lecturer
in Science and Innovation at the University of Illinois at Urbana-
Champaign, and the Outstanding Alumni Award from the California
Institute of Technology in 2005.
Dr. Orbach is a fellow of the American Physical Society and the
American Association for the Advancement of Science. Dr. Orbach has
also held numerous visiting professorships at universities around the
world. These include the Catholic University of Leuven in Belgium, Tel
Aviv University, and the Imperial College of Science and Technology in
London. He also serves as a member of 20 scientific, professional, and
civic boards.
Dr. Orbach received his Bachelor of Science degree in Physics from
the California Institute of Technology in 1956. He received his Ph.D.
degree in Physics from the University of California, Berkeley, in 1960
and was elected to Phi Beta Kappa.
Dr. Orbach was born in Los Angeles, California. He is married to
Eva S. Orbach. They have three children and seven grandchildren and
three step-grandchildren.
Chairman Lampson. Thank you, Dr. Orbach. Mr. Spurgeon.
STATEMENT OF MR. DENNIS R. SPURGEON, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR
NUCLEAR ENERGY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Mr. Spurgeon. Thank you, Chairman Lampson, Ranking Member
Inglis, Chairman Gordon, and Members of the Subcommittee. It is
a pleasure to be here to discuss the fiscal year 2008 budget
request for the Department of Energy's Office of Nuclear
Energy.
The Office of Nuclear Energy has made a great deal of
progress in the last several years in advancing our nation's
energy security and independence, in support of the
Department's strategic plan. It is my near-term highest
priority to enable industry to deploy a new generation of
nuclear power plants. We have also made steps forward in
developing advanced nuclear reactor and fuel cycle technologies
while maintaining a critical national nuclear infrastructure.
Today, 103 nuclear reactors generate roughly 20 percent of
America's electricity. U.S. electricity demand is anticipated
to grow by 50 percent over the next 25 years, the equivalent of
45 to 50 one-thousand megawatt nuclear reactors must be built
just to maintain that 20 percent share. The U.S. is at a
critical juncture in the future of nuclear power in the United
States. Unlike many of our international research partners, our
nuclear industry has not been heavily supported financially or
politically over the past 30 years. Today, the need for
increased electric generating capacity is clear, and hopefully
undisputed. Fortunately, we do have a growth option that allows
us to have a diversified electric generation portfolio that
includes a significant carbon emissions free component, and
that is nuclear power.
To support near-term domestic expansion of the nuclear
industry, the fiscal year 2008 budget requests $114 million for
the Nuclear Power 2010 program to support continued cost-share
efforts with industry to reduce the barriers to deployment of
new nuclear power plants in the United States. We anticipate
the NRC will soon vote--actually, I think it is tomorrow--on
approval of the early site permit for the Exelon Generation
Company's Clinton site in central Illinois, which represents a
major accomplishment in the Energy Department's efforts to
address the barriers and stimulate deployment of new nuclear
power plants in the United States.
With nuclear power as the only proven base load producer of
electricity that does not emit greenhouse gases, it is vital
that our current fleet of reactors be expanded in order to meet
our needs for carbon-free, dependable, and economic electric
power.
Any serious effort toward expanding global use of nuclear
energy will inevitably require us to address the spent fuel and
proliferation challenges that accompany such an expansion. To
meet these challenges, President Bush initiated the Global
Nuclear Energy Partnership, or GNEP, a comprehensive approach
to enable an expansion of nuclear power in the United States
and around the world, to promote nonproliferation goals, and to
help resolve the nuclear waste issues.
Domestically, GNEP provides a solution to the ever-growing
issue of spent nuclear fuel. In conjunction with Yucca
Mountain, GNEP provides a solution which outlines a closed fuel
cycle, where energy is harvested from the spent fuel before the
end product is disposed of in a permanent repository. The spent
fuel will be recycled in a manner that will be more
proliferation-resistant than current processes used around the
world. A closed fuel cycle will also alleviate some of the
burden placed on Yucca Mountain, and will possibly eliminate
the need for a second geologic repository throughout the
remainder of this century. We reiterate, though, that no fuel
cycle scenario will eliminate the need for a permanent geologic
repository such as Yucca Mountain.
Internationally, GNEP promises to address the growing
global energy demand in an environmentally friendly way. A
global regime of countries able to provide a complete portfolio
of nuclear fuel services, including Russia, France, and
possibly Japan, China, and Britain, will provide these services
to countries wanting to use nuclear power to meet their
domestic growth and electricity demand without the cost and
risk associated with nuclear fuel cycle infrastructure. By
providing these services to other countries, we hope to
dissuade future states from developing domestic enrichment
capabilities like we are encountering with Iran today.
The fact is the U.S. is not currently positioned to be an
active member of this global regime. We have limited enrichment
capabilities and no back-end fuel cycle capabilities. Creating
capabilities needed to provide--to participate in the global
expansion of nuclear power will take 15 to 20 years, meaning
that in order to become an active participant of the global
nuclear expansion, we need to begin now. Taking those steps
necessary enables us to better assure that the imminent
expansion will be safe, beneficial, and will not promote the
proliferation of nuclear weapons. If we fail to act, we will
have little to say in the process.
The Department requests $405 million in fiscal year 2008 to
begin work on developing a detailed roadmap for implementing
all aspects of the GNEP vision.
Mr. Chairman, we appreciate the support that we have
received from the Committee as we seek to address the
challenges surrounding the global expansion of nuclear power.
We remain confident and optimistic about the role of nuclear
energy in providing a solution to our nation's energy stability
and independence.
I would be pleased to answer your questions. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Spurgeon follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dennis R. Spurgeon
Chairman Lampson, Ranking Member Inglis, and Members of the
Committee, it is a pleasure to be here to discuss the Fiscal Year (FY)
2008 budget request for The Department of Energy's (DOE) Office of
Nuclear Energy.
The Department of Energy's strategic plan portrays a long-term
vision of a zero-emission future, free from the reliance on imported
energy. A portfolio of nuclear programs is provided for in this plan
for near-term, medium-term, and long-term sustained advances in nuclear
technology.
The Office of Nuclear Energy has made a great deal of progress in
the last several years in advancing our nation's energy security and
independence in support of the Department's strategic plan. The
Department remains committed to enabling industry to deploy a new
generation of nuclear power plants. We have also made steps forward in
developing advanced nuclear reactor and fuel cycle technologies while
maintaining a critical national nuclear infrastructure.
Today, 103 nuclear reactors generate roughly 20 percent of
America's electricity. U.S. electricity demand is anticipated to grow
50 percent over the next 25 years--the equivalent of 45 to 50 one-
thousand megawatt nuclear reactors must be built to maintain that 20
percent share. With nuclear power as the only proven base load producer
of electricity that does not emit greenhouse gases, it is vital that
our current fleet of reactors be expanded in order to meet our needs
for carbon-free, dependable and economic electric power.
Any serious effort to stabilize greenhouse gases in the atmosphere,
while providing the increasing amounts of energy needed for economic
development and growth, requires the expanded use of nuclear energy.
This will inevitably require us to address the spent fuel and
proliferation challenges that confront the expanded, global use of
nuclear energy. To meet these challenges, the Department initiated the
Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP), a comprehensive approach to
enable an expansion of nuclear power in the U.S. and around the world,
promote non-proliferation goals, and help minimize the amount of
nuclear waste disposal.
GNEP is a perfect example of where global cooperation is required
to address a changing global energy landscape. The United States has a
unique opportunity to influence global energy policy, and more
specifically global nuclear energy policy. However, for the U.S. to
have influence abroad, we must have an established domestic policy
supportive of a significant role for nuclear power in our energy
future, an aggressive nuclear research and development program, and a
viable nuclear technology infrastructure. Through the GNEP program, we
are pursuing in parallel the development of the policies, technologies,
and facilities necessary for the U.S. to be a global leader in the
nuclear energy enterprise and to ensure our energy security and
national security objectives.
The Department's FY 2008 budget request proposes an $874.6 million
investment in nuclear research, development and infrastructure for the
Nation's future. This budget request supports the President's
priorities to enhance the Nation's energy security while enabling
significant improvements in environmental quality. Our request supports
development of new nuclear generation technologies and advanced energy
products that provide significant improvements in sustainability,
economics, safety and reliability, and proliferation and terrorism
resistance.
While we have made great progress in all program areas, much
remains to be done. Our FY 2008 request moves us in the right direction
and I will now provide you a full report of our activities and explain
the President's request for nuclear energy in detail.
NUCLEAR POWER 2010
To support near-term domestic expansion of nuclear energy, the FY
2008 budget requests $114 million for the Nuclear Power 2010 program to
support continued cost-shared efforts with industry to reduce the
barriers to the deployment of new nuclear power plants in the U.S. The
technology focus of the Nuclear Power 2010 program is on Generation
III+ advanced, light water reactor designs, which offer advancements in
safety and economics over the Generation III designs certified in the
1990s by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). To reduce the
regulatory uncertainties and enable the deployment of new Generation
III+ nuclear power plants in the U.S., it is essential to demonstrate
the untested federal regulatory processes for the siting, construction,
and operation of new nuclear plants. In addition, design finalization
of two standard plant designs and NRC certification of these Generation
III+ advanced reactor concepts are needed to reduce the high initial
capital costs of the first new plants so that these new technologies
can be competitive in the deregulated electricity market and deployable
within the next decade.
The FY 2008 budget request continues the licensing demonstration
activities started in previous years. Activities include completion of
the last Early Site Permit demonstration projects and continuation of
the New Nuclear Plant Licensing Demonstration projects that will
exercise the untested licensing process to build and operate new
nuclear plants and complete and obtain certification of two advanced
Generation III+ advanced reactor designs. Engineering activities in
support of the submission of two combined Construction and Operating
License (COL) applications to the NRC will continue. In addition, two
reactor vendors will continue first-of-a-kind design activities for two
standard nuclear plants.
We anticipate the NRC will soon vote on approval of the Early Site
Permit for the Exelon Generation Company's Clinton site in central
Illinois, which culminates a four-year, cost-shared project between DOE
and the Chicago-based Exelon Corporation. NRC approval of the Clinton
Early Site Permit would represent a major accomplishment in the Energy
Department's effort to address the barriers and stimulate deployment of
new nuclear power plants in the United States.
The project teams, Dominion Energy and NuStart Energy Development
LLC, involved in the licensing demonstration projects represent power
generating companies and reactor vendors that operate more than two-
thirds of all the U.S. nuclear power plants in operation today. As a
result of the Nuclear Power 2010 program and Energy Policy Act of 2005
financial incentives (e.g., standby support), fourteen power companies
have announced their intentions to apply for combined construction and
operating licenses. Several have specifically stated that they are
building on work being done in the Nuclear Power 2010 program as the
basis for their applications.
The U.S. is at a critical juncture in the future of nuclear power
in the United States. Unlike many of our international research
partners, our nuclear industry has not been heavily supported
financially and politically over the past thirty years. Today the need
for increased electrical generating capacity is clear and hopefully
undisputed. We have only one growth option that allows us to have a
diversified electrical generation portfolio that includes a significant
carbon emissions-free component, and that is nuclear power. To realize
this option, we are asking private companies to build plants whose
collective cost will likely exceed their net worth. This represents an
enormous financial risk, the same risk that caused many U.S. companies
to go into bankruptcy in the past.
If one accepts the fact that we need more electrical generation
capacity, and if one desires to have a component of that new capacity
that is carbon free, and one recognizes the financial considerations
associated with such a large private investment in technologies that we
have not supported in thirty years, then the importance of this program
to our future energy security is self-evident. These companies will be
building new generating capacity in the very near future, but the
question they must first answer is whether this generation will come
from clean, safe, nuclear technologies or not.
If widely deployed in the U.S., these new technologies will create
significant business opportunities and will support the rapid growth of
heavy equipment fabrication, high technology and commercial
construction industries in this country. Moreover, these American
technologies and industrial capabilities will be highly competitive
internationally and would support our leadership role in the global
expansion of safe, clean nuclear power.
ADVANCED FUEL CYCLE INITIATIVE
One of the most important and challenging issues affecting future
expansion of nuclear energy in the U.S. and worldwide is dealing
effectively with spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste. For the
medium-term, the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative (AFCI) will develop
fuel cycle technologies that will support the economic and sustained
production of nuclear energy while minimizing waste in a proliferation-
resistant manner. To support the development of these technologies, the
FY 2008 Budget request includes $395.0 million for AFCI.
AFCI's near-term goals are to develop and demonstrate advanced,
proliferation-resistant fuel cycle technologies for treatment of
commercial light water reactor spent fuel, to develop an integrated
spent fuel recycling plan, and to provide information and support on
efforts to minimize the amount of material that needs disposal in a
geologic repository. AFCI conducts research and development of spent
fuel treatment and recycling technologies to support an expanding role
for nuclear power in the U.S. and to promote world-wide expansion of
nuclear energy in a proliferation-resistant manner as envisioned for
the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP). AFCI is the U.S.
technology component of the GNEP.
Specifically, in FY 2008, the Department intends to complete
industry-led conceptual design studies for the nuclear fuel recycling
center and the advanced recycling reactor Demonstration Analysis.
Additionally, DOE will continue start-to-finish demonstrations of
recycling technologies, which are expected to produce separated
transuranics for use in transmutation fuel development, as well as
conduct systems analysis and advanced computing and simulation
activities focused on a variety of deployment system alternatives and
supporting technology development. As part of GNEP Technology
Development, the Department also intends to evaluate small,
proliferation-resistant reactors for potential U.S. manufacture and
export to reactor user nations.
GNEP seeks to bring about a significant, wide-scale use of nuclear
energy, and to take actions now that will allow that vision to be
achieved while decreasing the risk of nuclear weapons proliferation and
effectively addressing the challenges of nuclear waste disposal. GNEP
will advance the nonproliferation and national security interests of
the United States by reinforcing its nonproliferation policies and
limiting the spread of enrichment and reprocessing technologies, and
will eventually eliminate excess civilian plutonium stocks that have
accumulated. The AFCI budget request supports the Department's goal of
realizing the GNEP vision. AFCI activities in FY 2007 and FY 2008 are
focused on developing a detailed roadmap for implementing all aspects
of the GNEP vision and informing a Secretarial decision in June 2008 on
the path forward for GNEP.
Long-term goals for AFCI/GNEP will develop and demonstrate an
advanced, proliferation-resistant closed nuclear fuel cycle system
involving spent fuel partitioning and recycling of actinides and other
long-lived radioactive elements for destruction through transmutation
in fast reactors that could result in a significant increase in the
effective capacity of the planned Yucca Mountain repository. This
increase would come principally from the destruction of actinides that
generate the heat that limits repository capacity that the Yucca
Mountain repository would have. This capacity increase would ensure
enough capacity to accommodate all the spent fuel generated in the
United States this century from any reasonably conceivable deployment
scenario for nuclear energy. Yet, under any fuel cycle scenario a
geologic repository is necessary. Therefore, GNEP and Yucca Mountain
are proceeding on parallel tracks.
GENERATION IV NUCLEAR ENERGY SYSTEMS INITIATIVE
The FY 2008 budget request includes $36.1 million to continue
development of next-generation nuclear energy systems within the
Generation IV program. For the long-term, the Generation IV program
will develop new nuclear energy systems that can compete with advanced
fossil and renewable technologies, enabling power providers to select
from a diverse group of options that are economical, reliable, safe,
secure, and environmentally acceptable. In particular, the Next
Generation Nuclear Plant (NGNP) reactor concept will be capable of
providing high-temperature process heat for various industrial
applications, including the production of hydrogen in support of the
President's Advanced Energy Initiative.
The NGNP, with an investment of $30 million within the Generation
IV Nuclear Energy Systems Initiative, will utilize a Generation IV Very
High Temperature Reactor configured for production of high temperature
process heat for the generation of hydrogen, electricity, and other
industrial commodities. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT)
authorized the Department to create a two-phased NGNP Project at the
Idaho National Laboratory (INL). The Department is presently engaged in
Phase 1 of the EPACT defined scope of work which includes: developing a
licensing strategy, selecting and validating the appropriate hydrogen
production technology, conducting enabling research and development for
the reactor system, determining whether it is appropriate to combine
electricity generation and hydrogen production in a single prototype
nuclear reactor and plant, and establishing key design parameters.
Phase I will continue until 2011, at which time the Department will
evaluate the need for continuing into the design and construction
activities called for in Phase II.
The FY 2008 budget request maintains critical R&D that will help
achieve the desired goals of sustainability, economics, and
proliferation resistance. Further investigation of technical and
economical challenges and risks is needed before a decision can be made
to proceed with a demonstration of a next-generation reactor.
NUCLEAR HYDROGEN INITIATIVE
Hydrogen offers significant promise as a future energy technology,
particularly for the transportation sector. The use of hydrogen in
transportation will reduce U.S. dependence on foreign sources of
petroleum, enhancing our energy security. The FY 2008 budget request
for the Office of Nuclear Energy includes $22.6 million to continue to
develop enabling technologies, demonstrate nuclear-based hydrogen
production technologies, and study potential hydrogen production
strategies to support the President's vision for a future hydrogen
economy.
Currently, the only economical, large-scale method of hydrogen
production involves the conversion of methane into hydrogen through a
steam reforming process. This process produces ten kilograms of
greenhouse gases for every kilogram of hydrogen, defeating a primary
advantage of using hydrogen--its environmental benefits. Another
existing method, electrolysis, converts water into hydrogen using
electricity. Electrolysis is typically used for small production
quantities and is inherently less efficient because electricity must
first be produced to run the equipment used to convert the water into
hydrogen. Additionally, the environmental benefits of electrolysis are
negated unless a non-emitting technology, such as nuclear or renewable
energy, is used to produce the electricity. The Nuclear Hydrogen
Initiative is developing processes that operate across a range of
temperatures for the various advanced reactors being researched by the
Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems Initiative. These processes,
coupled with advanced nuclear reactors, have the potential for high-
efficiency, large-scale production of hydrogen.
The objective of this program is to demonstrate the technologies at
increasingly larger scales ultimately culminating in an industrial
scale that would be technically and economically suited for commercial
deployment. FY 2005 and FY 2006 activities were focused on the
validation of individual processes and components; FY 2007 and FY 2008
are focused on the design, construction and operation of integrated
laboratory scale experiments. In FY 2008, the Department will complete
construction of integrated laboratory-scale system experiments and
begin testing to enable the 2011 selection of the technology that could
be demonstrated in a pilot scale hydrogen production experiment.
RADIOLOGICAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT
The Office of Nuclear Energy's FY 2008 budget request also includes
$53.0 million to maintain critical research and production facilities
for medical isotopes and radioisotope power systems at the Idaho
National Laboratory, the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, the Los Alamos
National Laboratory, the Sandia National Laboratory, and the Brookhaven
National Laboratory. This request also includes funding for University
Research Reactors.
These funds assure that the infrastructure for the facilities meet
essential safety and environmental requirements and are maintained at
operable user-ready levels. Programmatic activities, including
production and research, are funded either by other DOE programs, by
the private sector, or by other federal agency users.
The Department seeks $14.9 million to maintain one-of-a-kind
facilities at the Idaho, Oak Ridge, Brookhaven, and Los Alamos National
Laboratories for isotope production and processing. These isotopes are
used to help improve the accuracy, effectiveness, and continuation of
medical diagnoses and therapy, enhance homeland security, improve the
efficiency of industrial processes, and provide precise measurement and
investigative tools for materials, biomedical, environmental,
archaeological, and other research. Actual operations, production,
research or other activities are funded either by other DOE programs,
by the private sector, or by other federal agency users.
The Department also maintains unique facilities and capabilities at
the Idaho, Oak Ridge, and Los Alamos National Laboratories that enable
the Department to provide the radioisotope power systems for space
exploration and national security applications. The FY 2008 budget
requests $35.1 million to maintain the basic facilities and associated
personnel whereas mission specific development or hardware fabrication
costs are provided by the user agencies. This arrangement is essential
in order to preserve the basic capability regardless of periodic
fluctuations in the demand of the end product users.
Finally, the Department requests $2.9 million in FY 2008 to provide
research reactor fuel to universities and dispose of spent fuel from
university reactors. Currently, there are 27 operating university
research reactors at 27 institutions in the U.S. Many of these
facilities have permanent fuel cores and therefore do not require
regular fuel shipments. However, DOE supplies approximately a dozen
universities with fresh fuel and shipments of spent fuel as needed.
IDAHO FACILITIES MANAGEMENT
The Department is working to transform Idaho National Laboratory
into one of the world's foremost nuclear research laboratories. As
such, the FY 2008 budget request seeks $104.7 million for the Idaho
Facilities Management Program to maintain and enhance the laboratory's
nuclear energy research infrastructure.
The Idaho Facilities Management Program operates and maintains
three main engineering and research campuses and the Central Facilities
Area at the Idaho National Laboratory. The three main engineering and
research campuses are: (1) the Reactor Technology Complex which houses
the world-renown Advanced Test Reactor, (2) the Materials and Fuels
Complex, and (3) the Science and Technology Campus. As the Idaho
National Laboratory landlord, the Office of Nuclear Energy also
operates and maintains the Central Facilities Area at Idaho National
Laboratory, providing site-wide support services and from which various
site infrastructure systems and facilities, such as electrical utility
distribution, intra-laboratory communications systems, and roads are
managed and maintained. Also included within the Central Facilities
Area is the Radiological and Environmental Sciences Laboratory operated
by the Office of Nuclear Energy.
IDAHO SITE-WIDE SAFEGUARDS & SECURITIES
The mission of the Idaho Site-wide Safeguards and Security program
is to protect the assets and infrastructure of the Idaho National
Laboratory from theft, diversion, sabotage, espionage, unauthorized
access, compromise, and other hostile acts that may cause unacceptable
adverse impacts on national security; program continuity; or the health
and safety of employees, the public, or the environment.
The FY 2008 Budget Request includes $72.9 million to provide
protection of nuclear materials, classified matter, Government
property, and other vital assets from unauthorized access, theft ,
diversion, sabotage, espionage, and other hostile acts that may cause
risks to national security, the health and safety of DOE and contractor
employees, the public or the environment.
UNIVERSITY REACTOR INFRASTRUCTURE AND EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE
While the University Educational Assistance program has concluded,
funding will continue to be provided to the Nation's nuclear science
and engineering universities through our applied research and
development programs by means of our Nuclear Energy Research Initiative
(NERI). NERI funds are competitively awarded to support research
objectives of the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative, the Generation IV
Energy Systems Initiative and the Nuclear Hydrogen Initiative. By
increasing the opportunities for university participation in our
research programs, the Department seeks to establish an improved
education and research network among universities, laboratories,
industry and government. Approximately $62 million in funding for
universities is included in the research programs for FY 2008, a 21
percent increase over the FY 2007 request.
CONCLUSION
This concludes my prepared statement. Your leadership and guidance
has been essential to the progress the program has achieved thus far
and your support is needed as we engage the task ahead of investing in
our energy security.
I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
Biography for Dennis R. Spurgeon
Dennis Spurgeon was sworn in on April 3, 2006, as the first
Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy (NE) at the Department of Energy
in more than a decade. In this capacity, Mr. Spurgeon is the senior
nuclear technology official in the U.S. Government.
Mr. Spurgeon is responsible for the Department's nuclear energy
enterprise, including nuclear technology research and development,
management of the Department's nuclear technology infrastructure, and
support to nuclear education in the United States. NE's nuclear
technology infrastructure is comprised of hot cells, test reactors,
accelerators and other highly specialized facilities that support
nuclear research and development, materials testing, and production of
isotopes for medicine and radioisotope power systems for space and
national security users. He is responsible for execution of a $536
million annual federal budget (FY 2006).
Mr. Spurgeon leads the recently-announced Global Nuclear Energy
Partnership, a comprehensive strategy aimed at accelerating the
demonstration of a more proliferation resistant closed fuel cycle and
bringing the benefits of nuclear energy to the world in a safer and
more secure manner, reducing the possibility that nuclear energy could
be used for non-peaceful purposes. GNEP is part of the President's
Advanced Energy Initiative.
Most recently, Assistant Secretary Spurgeon served as Executive
Vice President and Chief Operating Office for USEC, Inc. an
international supplier of enriched uranium for nuclear plants. Prior to
that, he served as Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and principal
owner of Swiftships, an international leader in shipbuilding for
commercial and military markets.
Assistant Secretary Spurgeon held posts in the Ford administration,
including an assignment as Assistant Director for Fuel Cycle in the
U.S. Energy Research and Development Administration. He was a member of
the White House task force that developed President Ford's nuclear
policy. Earlier in his career, as a U.S. Naval officer, he served as
technical assistant to Commissioner Tommy Thompson and later to Dr.
Glenn Seaborg, Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission and predecessor
agency of the department.
He also held executive positions at the former United Nuclear
Corporation, where as Chief Operating Officer he managed the
manufacturing of reactor cores for the Navy and operation of the
Department's former N-reactor, located at the Hanford Reservation. He
previously worked for the General Atomic Company, where he assisted in
the development of nuclear reactor plants for electric power
generation. He served in the U.S. Navy, achieving the rank of Captain.
Mr. Spurgeon graduated with distinction from the U.S. Naval
Academy. He holds a Masters of Science in nuclear engineering and the
degree of Nuclear Engineer from the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology.
Chairman Lampson. Thank you very much, Mr. Spurgeon. Mr.
Karsner, you are recognized for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF MR. ALEXANDER KARSNER, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR
ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
ENERGY
Mr. Karsner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, Ranking
Member Inglis, and Members of the Committee, thank you for the
opportunity to testify on the President's fiscal year 2008
budget request for the Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy.
The request includes $1.24 billion for EERE, approximately
$60 million more than the fiscal year 2007 request to Congress.
To be clear, my testimony today on the fiscal year 2008 budget
request is presented in comparison to the Administration's
fiscal year 2007 request, not the final amounts that were
eventually appropriated in the 2007 Continuing Resolution. The
Department of Energy is in the process of preparing an
operating plan for submittal to Congress, as required. EERE
received an increase in funding under the CR, as you know, and
I am grateful to Congress for its strong commitment to energy
efficiency and renewable energy programs.
The budget request addresses pressing energy security,
economic, and environmental challenges facing our country
today. Accelerating the development of renewable energy and
energy efficiency technologies will maximize rational
utilization of our resources and clean energy production. Much
of EERE's funding is integral to the President's Advanced
Energy Initiative. The AEI, launched in 2006, aims to confront
our addiction to oil, reducing our dependence on foreign
sources of energy, and commercializing emission-free sources of
power generation. The technology investment is meant to change
the way we power our homes, offices, and vehicles.
In his 2007 State of the Union address, the President
raised the bar further by challenging our country to reduce
gasoline consumption by 20 percent within the decade, and
advocated the ``Twenty in Ten'' plan. The budget request
increases funding for programs to help the Nation achieve the
Twenty in Ten goal, including for example, biomass and biofuels
R&D, and expanding the availability of alternative
transportation fuels.
We must work to not only accelerate R&D for new energy
technologies, but speed the adoption of the technologies into
commercial products that can become more widely available into
the marketplace at a reasonable cost to all Americans. EERE is
taking aggressive steps to catalyze the rapid commercialization
and deployment of critical energy advances through innovative
partnerships with lenders and investment groups, with our state
partners, and with industrial leaders. EERE's overall budget
request reflects the funding needed to meet these goals.
The fiscal year 2008 request for Biomass and Biorefinery
Systems R&D is $179.3 million, an increase of approximately $30
million. Biomass is the most viable renewable option for
producing liquid transportation fuels in the near-term, holding
great potential to help reduce our dependence on imported oil.
EERE will continue to support cost-share efforts with industry
to develop and demonstrate technologies to enable cellulosic
biorefineries. The proposed increase will also support cost-
share projects with industry for enzyme development to produce
low cost sugars from biomass, and for improved organism
development, or ethanologens, for converting those sugars into
ethanol.
For the Vehicle Technologies Program, the Department is
requesting $176.1 million to advance development of
increasingly energy-efficient and environmentally friendly
flexible platform technologies for our cars and trucks. The
program focuses on technologies that use significantly less
oil, and enable the auto industry to comply with reformed and
modernized CAFE standards. Battery technologies have made
significant progress towards our program goals, having reduced
the cost of next generation hybrid vehicle batteries in each of
the past three years from almost $1,200 per vehicle at the
beginning of fiscal year 2004 to $750 per vehicle at the end of
fiscal year 2006. We expect to bring that down the cost curve
further in the next fiscal year to $625 per vehicle, and to
increase our emphasis on batteries specifically optimized for
plug-in hybrids. EERE seeks to have battery technology ready no
later than 2014 that will enable auto manufacturers to widely
and economically produce competitive plug-in hybrid vehicles
having a 40 mile all electric range.
Hydrogen is also an important element of the Nation's
strategy for energy security and environmental stewardship. The
President's $309 million budget request for DOE and the
Hydrogen Fuel Initiative fulfills his commitment of $1.2
billion over five years. The portion that is under my purview
is $213 million, which reflects a $17.2 million increase over
the Fiscal 2007 budget request.
The proposed increase will accelerate and expand the
efforts to research and develop hydrogen storage systems and
improve performance, and fuel cell materials and components to
reduce their cost and improve their durability. Over the past
four years, our research has reduced the high volume costs of
automotive fuel cells from $275 per kilowatt in 2002 to $107
per kilowatt in 2006, a major step towards the ultimate cost
target of $30 per kilowatt for commercial production.
For solar energy, the budget request is $148.3 million, a
level that is nearly twice that which was enacted in fiscal
year 2006. To lower costs more rapidly and improve performance,
the Department's photovoltaic R&D, for example, focuses on
those technology pathways that have the greatest potential to
reach cost competitiveness and grid parity by or before 2015.
And we are emphasizing efficiency with our Building
Technologies Program, which targets a long-term goal of cost-
neutral net zero energy buildings, houses that produce as much
energy as they use on an annual basis by 2020. And in the near-
term, our R&D has helped industry to produce a white Light
Emitting Diode, or LED, lamps which set a world record for LED
brightness and efficacy in the use of a power chip.
Our Wind Program focuses on reducing wind power costs and
removing barriers to resource utilization to enable maximum
market penetration of wind energy technology across the U.S.,
so that domestic emission-free clean energy may one day
contribute up to 20 percent of our national generation
portfolio.
Our Industrial Technologies Program leverages its
innovative technology transfer practices and highly successful
partnerships with energy-intensive industries, as well as
supporting development of next generation technologies to
revolutionize U.S. industrial processes, including those for
nanomanufacturing, that ultimately enhance our competitiveness,
and deliver dramatic energy and environmental benefits.
My written statement, of course, includes greater detail on
these and our other programs, but this concludes my opening
remarks, and I would be happy to answer any questions the
Committee may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Karsner follows:]
Prepared Statement of Alexander Karsner
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank you for this
opportunity to testify on the President's Fiscal Year (FY) 2008 budget
request for the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
(EERE).
The President's FY 2008 budget request includes $1.24 billion for
EERE, approximately $60 million (five percent) more than the FY 2007
request to Congress. To be clear, my testimony today on the FY 2008
budget request is presented in comparison to the Administration's FY
2007 request--not the final amounts appropriated in the 2007 Continuing
Resolution (CR). In accordance with the terms of the 2007 CR, the
Department of Energy (DOE) is in the process of preparing an operating
plan for submittal to Congress. EERE received an increase in funding
under the CR, and I am grateful to Congress for its strong commitment
to energy efficiency and renewable energy programs.
The FY 2008 budget request addresses pressing energy and
environmental challenges facing our country today by accelerating the
development of both renewable energy technologies to increase the
amount of clean energy produced in the United States and advanced
energy efficient technologies, standards, and practices that use less
energy. Much of EERE's funding is an integral part of the President's
Advanced Energy Initiative (AEI), launched in 2006 to confront our
addiction to oil, lessen dependence on foreign resources, and reduce
emissions by developing clean sources of electricity generation.
Together, new technologies can help change the way we power our homes,
businesses, and automobiles.
In his 2007 State of the Union address, the President raised the
bar by seeking legislative action for our country to reduce gasoline
consumption by 20 percent in the next 10 years, the ``20 in 10'' plan.
The FY 2008 budget request increases funding for programs that may help
the Nation achieve the ``20 in 10'' goal, including, for example,
biomass/biofuels R&D that may help to expand the availability of
alternative transportation fuels.
EERE's applied science R&D contributes to the foundation for
transforming the Nation's energy options and energy use. For example,
one of this year's R&D 100 awards went to the Department's Idaho
National Laboratory for its work with Xtreme Xylanase, an enzyme
produced by bacteria found in the hot, acidic waters of Yellowstone
National Park. Work on Xtreme Xylanase was funded in part by EERE's
Biomass Program. The metabolic versatility of this enzyme (it breaks
down cellulose and hemicellulose over a broad range of temperatures and
acidic pH conditions) could help make cellulosic ethanol more
efficiently and economically. In the field of solar energy, a new
world-record 40 percent efficient concentrating photovoltaic solar cell
was developed as a result of collaboration between DOE, the National
Renewable Energy Laboratory, and Spectrolab. For general lighting
applications with solid-state lighting, Cree, Inc., with DOE R&D
funding, has released the new XLamp 7090 power white light-emitting
diode (LED), setting a world record for LED brightness and efficacy (at
85 lumens/Watt) in a power chip.
It is essential, however, that, we work not only to accelerate R&D
for new energy technologies, but address the accelerated adoption of
technologies into commercial products that are widely available at
reasonable cost to all Americans. Thus, in addition to its historical
role of leading federal applied science on emerging technologies, EERE
is taking aggressive steps to catalyze the rapid commercialization and
deployment of critical energy advances through innovative partnerships
and collaboration with lenders and investment groups, the States, and
industry leaders. We seek to help enable and accelerate market
transformation toward the use of more efficient and cleaner
technologies.
EERE's overall budget request reflects the funding needed to meet
our goals. The following EERE programs target and support sectors of
energy use and supply that will help lead our nation to a secure energy
future:
BIOMASS AND BIOREFINERY SYSTEMS R&D
The FY 2008 budget request for Biomass and Biorefinery Systems R&D
is $179.3 million, an increase of $29.6 million, almost 20 percent
above the FY 2007 request. This proposed funding increase reflects the
essential role of the Biofuels Initiative in increasing America's
energy security. Biomass is the most viable renewable option for
producing liquid transportation fuels in the near-term, with the
potential to help reduce our dependence on imported oil.
The focus of the program is to make cellulosic ethanol cost-
competitive by 2012. EERE will continue in FY 2008 to support its cost-
share efforts with industry to develop and demonstrate technologies to
enable cellulosic biorefineries for the production of transportation
fuels and co-products. The FY 2008 funding increase also supports the
validation of advancing biomass conversion technologies and feedstocks
in biorefineries at approximately 10 percent of commercial scale. This
effort enables industry to resolve remaining technical and process
integration uncertainties for the ``next generation'' of biorefinery
process technologies being examined at a significant, but less-costly
scale.
Ultimately, 10 percent scale demonstrations have the potential to
reduce the overall cost and risk to industry along with improving the
likelihood of obtaining financing for commercial-scale facilities.
The FY 2008 funding increase will also support EERE cost-shared
projects with industry for enzyme development for producing low cost
sugars from biomass and for improved organism development or
``ethanologen'' for converting those sugars to ethanol. These two
industry cost-share projects address major barriers to meeting the 2012
cost goal. Overall knowledge gained from Section 932 projects, 10
percent validation scale projects, enzyme development, and ethanologen
R&D, combined with other key R&D activities, should accelerate
industry's ability to produce cost-competitive cellulosic ethanol.
To address biomass resource availability and feedstock
infrastructure to reduce the cost and improve the storage of delivered
biomass in different geographical areas of the U.S., EERE will continue
to support the Regional Feedstock Partnership work with the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA) and land grant colleges. These
partnerships will help identify the regional biomass supply, growth,
and biorefinery development opportunities.
In order to capture and coordinate federal-wide activities
supporting the President's goal, the Biomass Program is developing a
National Biofuels Action Plan commissioned through the Biomass Research
and Development Initiative. The Biomass Program will also establish the
framework for an ethanol reverse auction in accordance with Section 942
of EPACT 2005. The auction will award incentives on a per gallon basis
of cellulosic biofuels produced.
VEHICLE TECHNOLOGIES PROGRAM
In FY 2008, the Department is requesting $176.1 million for the
Vehicle Technologies Program to advance development of increasingly
more energy-efficient and environmentally friendly, flexible platform
technologies for cars and trucks that will use significantly less oil
and enable the auto industry to comply with reformed CAFE standards.
This request is $10.1 million higher than the FY 2007 request, and will
advance the state-of-the-art for energy storage batteries, power
electronics and motors, and the hybrid drive systems and testing needed
to accelerate manufacturing viability and delivery of plug-in hybrid
electric vehicles.
Activities in the Vehicle Technologies Program contribute to two
cooperative government/industry activities: the FreedomCAR and Fuel
Partnership (where CAR stands for Cooperative Automotive Research) and
the 21st Century Truck Partnership. The FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership
is a collaborative effort among the U.S. Council for Automotive
Research (USCAR--representing the three domestic automobile
manufacturers), five energy suppliers, and DOE for cooperative, pre-
competitive research on advanced automotive technologies having
significant potential to reduce oil consumption. The 21st Century Truck
Partnership focuses on commercial vehicles. The partnership involves
key members of the commercial vehicle industry, (truck equipment
manufacturers and engine manufacturers) along with three other federal
agencies. The R&D centers on improving advanced combustion engine
systems and fuels and on reducing vehicle parasitic losses, meaning
frictional and aerodynamic losses, extra loads like air conditioning,
and other vehicle inefficiencies that increase fuel consumption.
Vehicle Technologies Program activities that support the goals of
the FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership focus on high-efficiency and
flexible platform vehicle technologies such as advanced combustion
engines and their enabling fuels, hybrid vehicle systems (including
plug-in hybrids), high-power and high-energy batteries, light-weight
materials, and power electronics. These technologies could lead to
substantial oil savings if adopted by industry participants and
included in their manufacturing plans.
The FreedomCAR goals include reducing the volume production cost of
a high-power 25kW battery for use in hybrid passenger vehicles from
$3,000 in 1998 to $500 by 2010. In 2006 we projected through the
modeling of research data that lithium ion battery cost could be
reduced to $750 per 25 kW battery system when produced in mass
quantities. This year's request increases the emphasis on plug-in
hybrid vehicle component technologies. Cited by the President as a key
part of the strategy for reducing America's dependence on oil, these
technologies offer the potential to make significant additional
improvements in petroleum reduction beyond that achievable with
standard hybrid configurations.
Combustion engine efficiency has made good progress over the past
three years (2004-2006), with our R&D increasing the efficiency of
light-duty passenger vehicle diesel engines from 35 to 41 percent. This
means that if manufacturers were to produce these more efficient
engines, a car that previously got the CAFE average of 27 miles per
gallon on gasoline could potentially get 37 miles per gallon with an
advanced, clean diesel. In FY 2008, we expect to reach 43 percent
efficiency for passenger vehicle diesel engines, approaching the 2010
goal of 45 percent. These advanced combustion engines have the
potential to achieve the efficiency goals for cars and trucks while
maintaining cost and durability with near-zero emissions. Battery
technologies have also made significant progress toward program goals,
having reduced the cost of next-generation hybrid vehicle batteries in
each of the past three years, from almost $1,200 per vehicle at the
beginning of FY 2004 to $750 at the end of FY 2006. In FY 2008, we
expect to bring that down to $625 per vehicle, and to increase our
emphasis on batteries specifically optimized for plug-in hybrid
vehicles to have battery technology ready by 2014 that will enable
automobile manufacturers to economically produce competitive plug-in
hybrid vehicles having a 40 mile all-electric range.
R&D programs will also continue to accelerate materials research
directed at light, strong vehicle structures to enable the production
of lighter vehicles that could result in higher efficiency fleets, and
to develop thermoelectric materials for efficient energy recovery from
heat. Other activities will focus on expanding efforts to promote the
adoption and use of petroleum-reducing fuels, technologies, and
practices, principally by working with industry partners, fuel
providers, Clean Cities coalitions and their stakeholders, and end-
users on activities ranging from using more alternative fuel vehicles
and renewable fuel blends to driving smarter, minimizing wasteful idle
time, and purchasing vehicles that get better fuel economy.
Accordingly, the Vehicle Technologies Deployment budget request
(including Clean Cities) will increase by over 100 percent relative to
the FY 2007 request.
HYDROGEN TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM
Hydrogen is an important element of our nation's long-term strategy
for energy security and environmental stewardship. It could enhance our
energy security by providing a transportation fuel that may be produced
from a variety of domestic resources; and it should serve our
environmental interests by allowing vehicles to operate using fuel
cells, without generating any tailpipe emissions. The Department's
research is focused on pathways that produce and deliver hydrogen from
diverse origins including emission-free nuclear, and renewable
resources.
The President's $309 million FY 2008 budget request for DOE for the
Hydrogen Fuel Initiative fulfills his commitment of $1.2 billion over
five years. The portion of this under our purview in EERE is $213
million, which reflects a $17.2 million increase over the FY 2007
budget request. The proposed increase will accelerate and expand
efforts to research and develop hydrogen-storage systems to improve
performance, and fuel cell materials and components to reduce their
cost, and improve durability. It will also support accelerating cost
reduction of renewable hydrogen production technologies as well as
critical delivery technologies.
Much progress has been made since the announcement of the Hydrogen
Fuel Initiative in 2003. The research has reduced the high-volume cost
of automotive fuel cells from $275 per kilowatt in 2002 to $107 per
kilowatt in 2006--a major step towards the ultimate cost target of $30
per kilowatt. In FY 2008, we will continue projects on fuel cell
catalysts and membranes, and cold-weather start-up and operation. In
addition to reducing cost and improving performance, this work will
help us achieve our 2010 durability target of 5,000 hours, which should
enable a vehicle lifetime of 150,000 miles.
We have also achieved our 2006 hydrogen cost goal of $3 per
gasoline-gallon-equivalent for hydrogen produced by distributed
reforming of natural gas, a potentially economical early market
pathway. Our research will sharpen its focus to meet the same objective
through renewable pathways--including reforming of bio-derived liquids
and electrolysis. We are also working with the Department's Offices of
Nuclear Energy, Fossil Energy, and Science to develop nuclear-based
hydrogen production, hydrogen from coal--exclusively with carbon
sequestration--and longer-term biological and photoelectrochemical
hydrogen production pathways.
Our diverse hydrogen-storage portfolio is also showing promising
results, with innovative materials being developed in areas such as
metal hydrides, chemical hydrides, and carbon-based materials. Research
conducted at our ``Centers of Excellence,'' and by independent
projects, has continued to increase material storage capacity.
Substantial breakthroughs are required to reach our goal of providing
consumers with enough storage for a 300-mile driving range, without
compromising a vehicle's interior space.
Developing hydrogen technologies that can be manufactured
domestically will also improve our economic competitiveness. Our
manufacturing R&D effort addresses the need for high-volume fabrication
processes for fuel cells and many other components, which are all
currently built one-at-a-time. This is essential to lowering the cost
of these technologies, and to developing a domestic supplier base.
In addition to these R&D activities, we are addressing other
challenges significant to realizing the benefits of hydrogen fuel
cells. Our Technology Validation Program has brought together teams of
automobile manufacturers and energy companies to operate and evaluate
fuel cell vehicles and hydrogen stations under real-world conditions.
To date, the program has placed 69 fuel cell vehicles on the road,
served by 10 hydrogen fueling stations.
Furthermore, we are working to ensure safe practices, and--through
support of existing codes and standards development organizations--we
are laying the groundwork for developing technically sound codes and
standards, which are essential to implementing hydrogen technologies.
Finally, our education activities focus on overcoming the knowledge
barriers inherent in the introduction of new technology. Last month, we
released a multimedia web-based course that introduces hydrogen to
first responders. In the coming year, we will continue to expand the
availability of training and conduct outreach to raise awareness of the
technology.
The effects of the Department's broad-based efforts in the Hydrogen
Program are being seen nationwide, and progress has been substantial.
Investments are not only occurring at the federal level, but also at
state and local levels. These diverse investments increase our
probability of success in overcoming existing technological barriers,
which will allow industry to make fuel cell vehicles that customers
will want to buy, and encourage investment in a hydrogen refueling
infrastructure that is profitable.
SOLAR ENERGY PROGRAM
The Solar Energy Program sponsors research, development, and
deployment of solar energy technologies and systems that can help our
Nation meet electricity needs and reduce the stress on our electricity
infrastructure. Through the Solar America Initiative (SAI), the Solar
Program aims to accelerate the market competitiveness of solar
electricity as industry-led teams compete to deliver solar systems that
are less expensive, more efficient, and highly reliable. The Solar
Program supports three technology areas: photovoltaics (PV),
concentrating solar power (CSP), and solar heating and lighting. The FY
2008 budget request for Solar Energy is $148.3 million, a level that is
nearly twice the enacted FY 2006 level.
To lower costs more rapidly and improve performance, the
Department's PV R&D, budgeted in FY 2008 at $137.3 million, focuses on
those technology pathways that have the greatest potential to reach
cost-competitiveness and grid parity by or before 2015. Industry-led
partnerships with universities, state groups and National Laboratories,
known as ``Technology Pathway Partnerships,'' will continue in FY 2008
to address the issues of cost, performance, and reliability associated
with each pathway. Work on PV modules, the heart of PV systems, will be
conducted, as well as other ``balance-of-system'' components.
To catalyze market transformation, DOE will promote the expansion
of the solar marketplace by seizing opportunities for growth and by
lowering barriers to entry. The Department will provide technical
outreach to States and utilities, continue pressing work on codes and
standards issues, and solicit new applications for its Solar America
Cities activity. These market transformation activities help pave the
way for technologies developed by our industry partnerships to enter
the marketplace.
We will emphasize the importance of interconnection standard
procedures and net metering regulations that are designed to
accommodate solar and other clean distributed energy systems. A
precondition for large-scale solar market penetration in America is to
have the proper means for homeowners and businesses to connect solar
systems to the grid, as well as to be paid for excess electricity they
feed back into the grid. We are working with our colleagues in the
Department's Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability to
develop ``best practice'' recommendations for States to use as they
undertake consideration of interconnection procedures and net metering
regulations and make implementation decisions pursuant to Sections 1251
and 1254 of EPACT 2005. FY 2008 funding will also be used to offer
technical outreach to States and utilities to enhance solar
connectivity issues.
Work will continue on the multi-year solicitations launched in FY
2007 that promote adoption of market-ready solar technologies and a new
effort will support benchmarking, modeling, and analysis for the
systems driven approach, and market, value and policy analysis needed
to support the SAI. EERE's PV activities are increasingly coordinated
and when possible convergent with solar energy activities in the
Building Technologies and the Federal Energy Management programs, and
the research activities of the DOE Office of Science.
The FY 2008 budget request for CSP--systems that utilize heat
generated by concentrating and absorbing the sun's energy to drive a
heat engine/generator to produce electric power--is $9.0 million. The
development of advanced thermal energy storage technologies will be
expanded, along with continued support to develop next generation
parabolic trough concentrators, solar engines, and receivers. For
distributed applications, research will focus on improving the
reliability of dish systems through the operation and testing of
multiple units. Technical assistance will be provided to industry in
its development of a 1.0 MW dish system in California that is expected
to be the precursor of several much larger plants. Technical support
will also be provided to the Western Governors' Association and several
southwestern utilities to assist their CSP deployment activities.
The Solar Heating and Lighting program, a $2.0 million request,
will focus on R&D to reduce the cost of solar heating in freezing
climates. The program will also support collaboration with EERE's
Building Technologies programs to integrate photovoltaic systems, solar
water heating, and solar space heating into home design and structure.
Such deployment efforts will help to seize market expansion
opportunities.
BUILDING TECHNOLOGIES PROGRAM
Energy use by residential and commercial buildings accounts for
over one-third of the Nation's total energy consumption, including two-
thirds of the electricity generated in the United States. Addressing
that significant sector of energy consumption, the $86.5 million
requested this year for the Building Technologies Program represents a
$9.1 million increase of 12 percent over the FY 2007 request. The
funding supports a portfolio of activities that includes solid state
lighting, improved energy efficiency of other building components and
equipment and their effective integration using whole-building-system
design technique, the development of codes and standards for buildings
and appliances, and education and market introduction programs,
including ENERGY STAR and EnergySmart Schools.
Funding for Residential Buildings Integration aims to enable
residential buildings to use up to 70 percent less energy, and to
integrate renewable energy systems into highly efficient buildings to
achieve the long-term goal in 2020 of net Zero Energy Buildings--houses
that produce as much energy as they use on an annual basis. During FY
2008, research for production-ready new residential buildings that are
40 percent more efficient will continue for four climate zones.
The $19.3 million request for solid state lighting will advance
development of the organic and inorganic LEDs that has the potential to
double the efficiency of fluorescent lighting technology. The FY 2008
requested funding will be used to develop general illumination
technologies with the goal of achieving energy efficiencies of up to 93
lumens per Watt with improved visual comfort and quality of light and
focus on applied research that enables the industrial base to
manufacture LEDs.
The FY 2008 request reflects the Department's commitment to clear
the backlog of equipment standards and test procedures that had
accumulated in the prior 12 years and meet the statutory schedule for
rule-makings for new products covered by EPACT 2005. The Department
will continue to implement productivity enhancements that will allow
multiple rule-making activities to proceed simultaneously, while
maintaining the rigorous technical and economic analysis required by
statute.
Funds for the Building Technologies Program will also support
development of highly insulating and dynamic window technologies and
integrated attic-roof systems needed to achieve long-term zero energy
building goals. Efforts to accelerate the adoption of efficient
building technologies by consumers and businesses include expanded
ENERGY STAR specifications and labels for more products, promotion of
advanced building efficiency codes, and public-private partnerships to
advance efficient schools, hospitals, commercial lighting, and home
building.
FEDERAL ENERGY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
The Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP) assists federal
agencies, including DOE, in increasing their use of energy efficiency
and renewable energy technologies through alternative financing
contract support and technical assistance, and coordinates federal
reporting and evaluation of agency progress each year. As the single
largest energy consumer in the U.S., the Federal Government must set an
example and lead the Nation toward becoming a cleaner, more efficient
consumer by using existing energy efficiency and renewable energy
technologies and techniques. On January 24, 2007, President Bush signed
a new Executive Order to strengthen the environmental, energy, and
transportation management of federal agencies which includes a
requirement for agencies to reduce their energy intensity by three
percent each year until 2015, compared with a 2003 baseline.
The FY 2008 request for FEMP is $16.8 million, a slight decrease of
$0.1 million from the FY 2007 request. We are requesting $7.9 million
for FEMP alternative financing programs that help agencies access
private sector financing to fund energy improvements without the use of
current appropriations. We expect to achieve not less than $160 million
in private sector investment through Super ESPCs, Energy Savings
Performance Contracts, and Utility Energy Service Contracts (UESCs),
which will result in about 15 trillion Btus in energy saved over the
life cycle of the projects. Furthermore, we are requesting $6.5 million
for Technical Guidance and Assistance to help federal energy managers
identify, design, and implement new construction and facility
improvement projects that incorporate energy efficiency and renewable
energy. FEMP will assist federal agencies in meeting the increased
energy efficiency goals, established by the new Executive Order, by
orienting its Technical Guidance and Assistance, Training, and Outreach
activities towards attracting private-sector financing for investment
into energy efficiency at federal facilities. In addition to the focus
on facility energy consumption, FEMP also tracks alternative fuel use
in federal vehicle fleets.
In FY 2008, the Departmental Energy Management Program (DEMP) is
being discontinued. FEMP will still provide policy guidance and
technical assistance to the Department, but DOE has determined that the
management of energy efficiency and renewable investments at its
facilities can be more effectively conducted by those facilities. While
not reported separately, DOE national labs and other facilities spend
significant funding (direct and indirect) on energy efficiency
improvements, while also using ESPCs and UESCs where appropriate.
WIND ENERGY PROGRAM
The Wind Program focuses on reducing wind power costs and removing
barriers to resource utilization of wind energy technology in the
United States. The program's FY 2008 request is $40.1 million.
As a result of thirty years of R&D, wind turbines can now provide
cost-effective, reliable clean energy in high wind speed areas. While
we will continue to do R&D to improve wind energy technologies in low
wind speed areas, we are also focusing on near-term actions to remove
existing barriers to increasing the use of wind energy, building on the
current robust market for wind energy in the U.S. These efforts could
help to set the path for the wind industry to accelerate its
penetration of delivered emission-free energy, significantly expanding
beyond the roughly one percent of installed electrical generating
capacity today.
The program is expanding application and deployment-related
activities. The $12.9 million requested for Systems Integration and
Technology Acceptance will help wind technologies entering the market
to overcome key obstacles such as grid integration, siting, permitting,
and environmental barriers. In addition, there will be increased
support to address issues of pre-competitive turbine reliability and
performance via efforts of National Laboratories and Cooperative
Research and Development Agreements or ``CRADAs'' with industry. The
Wind Program will also establish a federal interagency siting group to
minimize regulatory delays on wind projects.
The Wind Program is funding a broader effort on distributed wind
technologies and applications to advance the full scope of diverse
opportunities for wind energy on the distribution side of the electric
power system.
A U.S. wind industry-wide roadmapping analysis, being supported by
the DOE wind program, is underway to determine the technical
feasibility for wind energy to generate 20 percent of our nation's
electricity. To achieve this vision it would require grid
modernization, expansion, and integration, and removal of other
deployment barriers. Success would enable delivery of more than 300
gigawatts of new, clean, affordable, and domestic production capacity
to our urban load centers and be a substantial contributor to economic
growth, manufacturing, and rural prosperity. EERE will work with DOE's
Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability on several
studies aimed at expanding electricity transmission between remote wind
resources and urban areas.
WEATHERIZATION AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL PROGRAM
In FY 2008, we are requesting $204.9 million for Weatherization and
Intergovernmental Activities, a $20.1 million decrease from the FY 2007
request. The reduction is primarily related to the decrease in the
amounts requested for the Weatherization Assistance Program, which will
enable greater investments in advanced R&D within the EERE portfolio to
address national priorities: reducing dependence on foreign oil,
accelerating the development of clean, emission-free electricity supply
options, and developing highly efficient new technologies, products,
and practices for our homes and buildings.
The requested $144 million for the Weatherization Assistance
Program will fund energy efficiency audits and upgrades for at least
54,599 low-income homes. DOE works directly with States and certain
Native American Tribes that contract with local governmental or non-
profit agencies to deliver weatherization services to homes in need of
energy assistance.
The $45.5 million requested for the State Energy Program provides
financial and technical assistance to State governments, enabling them
to target their high priority energy needs and expand clean energy
choices for their citizens and businesses. This request includes $10.5
million for a competitive solicitation that will seek regional and
state partnerships to replicate smart energy policies and programs
among States. The regional context is outlined in EPACT and aligns with
our electricity transmission infrastructure.
Clean electricity generation is targeted by the Renewable Energy
Production Initiative, which provides financial incentive payment to
public and Tribal utilities and not-for-profit electric cooperatives
for renewable generation systems that use solar, wind, geothermal, or
biomass technologies. The Tribal Energy Program aims to facilitate the
installation of 100 MW of renewable energy generation by Native
American tribes by 2010.
The Asia Pacific Partnership (APP) for Clean Development and
Climate requests funding at the $7.5 million level. This international
partnership is an important and innovative accord to accelerate the
development and deployment of clean energy technologies among the six
member countries: Australia, China, India, Japan, South Korea, and the
United States. Representing about half of the world's economy,
population, energy use, and emissions, the six countries have agreed to
work together and with private sector partners to set and meet goals
for energy security, national air pollution reduction, and global
warming, employing policies and practices that promote sustainable
economic growth and poverty reduction, while addressing the serious
challenge of climate change.
INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGIES PROGRAM
Industry consumes more energy than the residential, commercial, and
transportation end-use sectors, and it is also the Nation's second
largest emitter of CO2. Advancements in industrial energy-
efficient technology could improve U.S. competitiveness, and contribute
to our national effort to reduce oil imports, alleviate natural gas
price pressure, and preempt the need for new power plants and
consequent emissions.
The FY 2008 budget request for Industrial Technologies is $46.0
million, a $0.4 million increase over the FY 2007 request. The program
will leverage its innovative technology transfer practices and
partnerships with energy-intensive industries, while shifting toward
more crosscutting and higher-impact R&D activities that will bring
innovative energy solutions to a much broader group of industrial
companies, at a more accelerated pace.
The Industrial Technologies Program (ITP) has a track record for
moving innovative technologies from R&D through commercialization and
onto the floors of industrial plants. In 2006 alone, eight technologies
funded by ITP received prestigious R&D 100 awards. New technologies
emerging from ITP's R&D program are being adopted to help solve some of
industry's toughest energy and competitiveness challenges. In many
cases, this is occurring through the industrial energy assessments that
ITP is conducting at 250 of the Nation's largest energy-consuming
manufacturing plants as part of Secretary Bodman's ``Easy Ways to Save
Energy'' initiative. We estimate that ITP-sponsored technologies and
deployment activities have contributed to industrial energy savings of
over $3.1 billion in one year (2004).
The $7.2 million requested for the new activity, Energy-Intensive
Process R&D, will support R&D in four crosscutting areas to better
deliver technology solutions for the industrial processes that consume
the most energy. These four areas are Energy Conversion Systems,
Industrial Reaction and Separation, High-Temperature Processing, and
Fabrication and Infrastructure. One example of a technology that cuts
across the industrial sector to deliver savings is ITP's ultra-high
efficiency, ultra-low emissions, industrial steam generation ``Super
Boiler.'' Since steam is used in every major sector, the potential
benefits are tremendous. The Super Boiler is 10 to 20 percent more
efficient than current technology and can reduce NOX emissions to below
five parts per million, which represents an approximately 90 percent
reduction in emissions from a conventional boiler.
The $4.9 million request for the new Inter-Agency Manufacturing R&D
activity working with the National Science and Technology Council will
support the development or adaptation of next-generation technologies
that can revolutionize U.S. industrial processes and deliver dramatic
energy and environmental benefits. These next-generation technologies,
such as entirely new processing routes and supply chains, can have
broad application across industry, yet they typically require the type
of high-risk, high-return R&D that one industry cannot usually
undertake. Our initial research focus will include development of
techniques and processes needed for nanomanufacturing. We aim to help
transform industrial processes by enabling the mass production and
application of nano-scale materials, structures, devices, and systems
that provide unprecedented energy, cost, and productivity benefits in
manufacturing.
Deployment efforts such as ``Best Practices'' activities and
Industrial Assessment Centers will continue to deliver the results of
energy-efficiency R&D and energy-saving practices to industrial plants
nationwide. A vehicle for educational outreach, the university-based
Industrial Assessment Centers train engineers and scientists in the
energy field, providing opportunities for students to conduct energy
assessments at no cost to small and medium-sized manufacturing plants
in the U.S.
FACILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE
The FY 2008 budget request of $7.0 million for Facilities and
Infrastructure, an increase of $1.0 million from the FY 2007 request,
supports the operations and maintenance of the National Renewable
Energy Laboratory (NREL) in Golden, CO. NREL is a single-purpose
National Laboratory dedicated to R&D for energy efficiency, renewable
energy, and related technologies that provides EERE, as well as DOE's
Office of Science and the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy
Reliability, with R&D, expert advice, and programmatic counsel.
PROGRAM DIRECTION AND PROGRAM SUPPORT
The Program Direction budget supports the management and technical
direction and oversight needed to implement EERE programs at both
headquarters and the Project Management Center. Areas funded by this
request include: federal salaries, information systems and technology
equipment, office space, travel, and support service contractors. The
FY 2008 budget request for Program Direction totals $105.0 million, a
$14.0 million increase over the FY 2007 request. This increase reflects
EERE's updated staffing needs, which more closely align critical skills
to mission requirements and adds staff to support technical program
staffing shortfalls and implementation of the AEI and EPACT 2005
priorities.
The Program Support budget request provides resources for
crosscutting performance evaluation, analysis, and planning for EERE
programs and for technical advancement and outreach activities. The
information developed by the Program Support components provides
decision-makers at every level the information they need to make
choices related to energy alternatives that can help the Department
achieve its goals. The FY 2008 budget request for Program Support
activities totals $13.3 million, representing a $2.4 million increase
from the FY 2007 budget request. The increase reflects the expansion of
EERE's market transformation and commercialization analysis and
expanded efforts in the Technology Advancement and Outreach Office.
CONCLUSION
Accelerating research, development, and deployment of America's
abundant clean sources of energy and making more efficient use of all
energy consumed is central to EERE's mission, and to a secure and
competitive economic future that enhances our environmental well-being
for our nation and our world. We believe the Administration's FY 2008
budget request for energy efficiency and renewable energy programs
strategically positions the stepping stones that will continuously
catalyze and accelerate new energy sources, technologies, and practices
into the marketplace, and hasten the transformation of how our homes,
businesses, and vehicles use energy.
This concludes my prepared statement, and I am happy to answer any
questions the Committee Members may have.
Biography for Alexander Karsner
Alexander ``Andy'' Karsner was unanimously confirmed by the Senate
as Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
(EERE) on March 16, 2006 and sworn-in by Secretary of Energy Samuel W.
Bodman on March 23, 2006.
Assistant Secretary Karsner manages the Department of Energy's
(DOE) $1.17 billion EERE office, which promotes the development and
marketplace integration of renewable and environmentally sound energy
technologies, as well as the preservation and efficient use of our
nation's valuable resources. Assistant Secretary Karsner also helps
lead DOE's efforts to carry out the Advanced Energy Initiative (AEI),
announced by President Bush in his 2006 State of the Union address,
which aims to accelerate breakthroughs in the way we power our cars,
homes, and businesses.
Previously, Assistant Secretary Karsner served in the private
sector on a wide range of technologies including heavy fuel oil,
distillates, natural gas, coal, wood waste/biomass, wind energy and
distributed generation based upon renewable technologies. He has been
responsible for and taken part in large-scale power projects in North
America, Asia, the Middle East, North Africa, including unprecedented
projects structuring in the Philippines and Pakistan.
In 2002, Assistant Secretary Karsner led his company, Enercorp, to
win a global competition to develop the world's largest private wind
farm outside the United States at that time. He has worked with Tondu
Energy Systems of Texas, Wartsila Power Development of Finland, and
prominent multinational energy firms and developers including ABB of
Sweden, RES of the UK, Tacke of Germany (now known as GE Wind), and
Vestas of Denmark.
Assistant Secretary Karsner also worked on behalf of the
International Protocol for Hydrogen Economy, participating in meetings
and ministerials to advance the President's agenda for a new energy
economy. He was played an integral role in arranging DOE's U.S.-Morocco
bilateral protocols for clean energy policy. Mr. Karsner is currently
co-leading the Department's support for the Asia Pacific Pact to
address global emissions with market based mechanisms.
Assistant Secretary Karsner graduated with honors from Rice
University, and received an MA from Hong Kong University. Mr. Karsner
resides with his wife and family in Alexandria, Virginia.
Chairman Lampson. Thank you, Mr. Karsner. Mr. Kolevar.
STATEMENT OF MR. KEVIN M. KOLEVAR, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF
ELECTRICITY DELIVERY AND ENERGY RELIABILITY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
ENERGY
Mr. Kolevar. Thank you Chairman Lampson and Members of the
Committee. Thank you for the opportunity today to testify on
the President's fiscal year 2008 budget request for the Office
of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability.
The mission of the Office of Electricity Delivery and
Energy Reliability (OE) is to lead national efforts to
modernize the electricity delivery system, enhance the security
and reliability of America's energy infrastructure, and
facilitate recovery from disruptions to energy supply. These
functions are vital to the Department of Energy's strategic
goal of protecting our national and economic security by
promoting a diverse supply and delivery of reliable,
affordable, and environmentally responsible energy.
The President's budget includes $114.9 million for OE in
fiscal year 2008, which represents an eight percent decrease
from the fiscal year 2007 request. This includes $86 million
for Research and Development activities, $11.6 million for
Operations and Analysis activities, and $17.4 million for
program direction.
I will primarily address the activities of OE's Research
and Development program today. Our request of $86 million for
fiscal year 2008 will fund the following four main activities:
high temperature superconductivity, visualization and controls;
energy storage and power electronics; and renewable and
distributed systems integration. The development of these
advanced electricity technologies will influence the future of
all aspects of the electric transmission and distribution
system.
The first activity I would like to highlight is one to
which the DOE has made a long-term commitment. This is the
science and development of high temperature superconductivity.
Superconducting cables transmit electricity through conductors
at temperatures approaching absolute zero, thus preventing
resistance to electrical voltage, which allows large amounts of
electricity to be transmitted over long distances with little
line loss. Superconductivity, therefore, holds the promise of
alleviating capacity concerns while moving power reliably and
efficiently.
Another critical piece of a resilient and reliable modern
grid is enhancing the security of our control systems. Our
visualization and control activity focuses on improving our
ability to measure and address the vulnerability of control
systems. The research in this area will allow us to detect
cyberintrusion, implement protective measures and response
strategies, and sustain cybersecurity improvements over time.
Our energy storage and power electronics activity is a mid-
term research endeavor to significantly reduce transmission
system congestion, manage peak loads, make renewable
electricity sources more dispatchable, and increase the
reliability of the overall electric grid. This may be achieved
through large-scale megawatt level electricity storage systems,
or multiple, smaller, distributed storage systems. Using our
understanding from previous energy storage demonstration
activities, we are researching and developing new, advanced,
higher energy density materials and storage devices for utility
scale application. The program also focuses on research in
power electronics to improve material and device properties
that are needed for transmission level applications.
Finally, in fiscal year 2007, the renewable and distributed
systems integration activity completed the transition away from
generation technology activities, and will now focus on grid
integration of distributed and renewable systems in fiscal year
2008. This is a logical step in advancing clean energy
resources to address future energy challenges.
Mr. Chairman, as you know, OE also carries out mission-
critical work within the Operations and Analysis Subprogram.
These relate principally to the implementation of EPAct
requirements in energy sector facility security and recovery.
In his 2007 State of the Union Address, President Bush
emphasized the importance of continuing to change the way
America generates electric power, and highlighted the
significant progress we have already made in integrating clean
coal technology, solar and wind energy, and clean, safe,
nuclear energy into the electric transmission system.
Technologies such as power electronics, high temperature
superconductivity, and energy storage hold not only the promise
of lower costs and greater efficiency, but also directly
enhance the viability of clean energy resources by addressing
issues such as intermittency, controllability, and
environmental impact.
We cannot simply rely on innovative policies and
infrastructure investment. We must also invest federal dollars
in the research, development, and deployment of new
technologies in order to improve grid performance and ensure
our energy security, economic competitiveness, and
environmental well-being.
This concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman. I look forward
to taking questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kolevar follows:]
Prepared Statement of Kevin M. Kolevar
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank you for this
opportunity to testify on the President's Fiscal Year (FY) 2008 budget
request for the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability.
The mission of the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy
Reliability (OE) is to lead national efforts to modernize the
electricity delivery system, enhance the security and reliability of
America's energy infrastructure, and facilitate recovery from
disruptions to energy supply. These functions are vital to the
Department of Energy's (DOE) strategic goal of protecting our national
and economic security by promoting a diverse supply and delivery of
reliable, affordable, and environmentally responsible energy.
The President's FY 2008 budget includes $114.9 million for OE in FY
2008, which is an eight percent decrease from the FY 2007 request. This
includes $86.0 million for Research and Development activities, $11.6
million for Operations and Analysis activities, and $17.4 million for
Program Direction. As DOE is currently preparing a spending plan in
accordance with the terms of the 2007 Continuing Resolution, my
testimony on the FY 2008 budget request reflects a comparison to the
Administration's FY 2007 request.
When Thomas Edison opened the Pearl Street Station in lower
Manhattan on September 4, 1884, he could hardly have foreseen of the
role electricity would play in the development of American society.
Although the demand for electric lighting and power initially drove the
station's construction, electricity ultimately stimulated and enabled
technological innovations that reshaped America. Today, the
availability and access to electricity is something that most Americans
take for granted. Most people cannot describe what it is or where it
comes from. Yet, it is vital to nearly every aspect of our lives from
powering our electronics and heating our homes to supporting
transportation, finance, food and water systems, and national security.
The Energy Information Administration has estimated that by the
year 2030, U.S. electricity sales are expected to increase by 43
percent from their 2005 level. Although this is a positive indicator of
a growing economy, it is also a significant amount of new demand on an
electricity infrastructure that is already stressed and aging. With
this in mind, OE's FY 2008 budget request reflects a commitment to
implement the directives of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT),
support research of breakthrough technologies, and coordinate federal
response to temporary disruptions in energy supply to ensure a reliable
and secure electricity infrastructure for every American in the coming
decades.
Meeting our future electricity needs will not be solved by focusing
only on expanding our generation portfolio or on energy conservation.
Perhaps the greatest challenge today, as it was in Edison's time, is
building the elaborate network of wires and other facilities needed to
deliver energy to consumers reliably and safely.
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
The FY 2008 budget request of $86.0 million for the Research and
Development (R&D) program within OE funds four activities: High
Temperature Superconductivity; Visualization and Controls; Energy
Storage and Power Electronics; and Renewable and Distributed Systems
Integration.
Over the past eighteen years, DOE has invested more than $500
million in the science and development of high temperature
superconductivity. Superconductivity holds the promise of addressing
capacity concerns by maximizing use of available ``footprint'' and
limited space, while moving power efficiently and reliably. It also
supports advanced substation and interconnection designs that allow
larger amounts of power to be routed between substations, feeders, and
networks using less space and improving the security and reliability of
the electric system.
Today, the High Temperature Superconductivity activity continues to
support second generation wire development as well as research on
dielectrics, cryogenics, and cable systems. This activity is being
refocused to address a near-term critical need within the electric
system to not only increase current carrying capacity, but also to
relieve overburdened cables elsewhere in the local grid. The
superconductivity industry in the United States is now at the critical
stage of moving from small business development to becoming a part of
our manufacturing base.
Enhanced security for control systems is critical to the
development of a reliable and resilient modern grid. The Visualization
and Controls Research & Development activity focuses on improving our
ability to measure and address the vulnerabilities of controls systems,
detect cyber intrusion, implement protective measures and response
strategies, and sustain cyber security improvements over time. The FY
2008 request reflects an increase of $7.75 million related to support
this effort.
This activity is also developing the next generation system control
and data acquisition (SCADA) system that features GPS-synchronized grid
monitoring, secure data communications, custom visualization and
operator cueing, and advanced control algorithms. Advanced
visualization and control systems will allow operators to detect
disturbances and take corrective action before problems cascade into
widespread outages. The need to improve electric power control systems
security is well-recognized by both the private and public sectors.
The Energy Storage and Power Electronics activity proposes an
increase of $3.80 million in FY 2008 to: 1) leverage understanding
gained from previous Energy Storage demonstration activities to
research and develop new advanced higher energy density materials and
storage devices for utility scale application; and 2) focus on enhanced
research in Power Electronics to improve material and device properties
needed for transmission-level applications.
Large scale, megawatt-level electricity storage systems, or
multiple, smaller distributed storage systems, could significantly
reduce transmission system congestion, manage peak loads, make
renewable electricity sources more dispatchable, and increase the
reliability of the overall electric grid.
The Renewable and Distributed Systems Integration Research &
Development activity completed the transition away from generation
technology activities in FY 2007 and will focus on grid integration of
distributed and renewable systems in FY 2008, which is a logical step
in advancing clean energy resources to address future challenges.
PERMITTING, SITING, AND ANALYSIS
In FY 2008, the Department is requesting $5.7 million for the
Permitting, Siting, and Analysis (PSA) Office within the Operations and
Analysis subprogram, which implements mandatory requirements set by
EPACT to modernize the electric grid and enhance reliability of the
energy infrastructure by contributing to the development and
implementation of electricity policy at the federal and State level.
The Permitting Siting and Analysis Office is also tasked with analyzing
transmission congestion, proposing energy corridors for the Secretary's
consideration, and coordinating federal agency review of applications
to site transmission facilities on federal lands.
The Department published its National Electric Transmission
Congestion Study on August 8, 2006, in compliance with Section 1221(a)
of EPACT, which requires DOE to prepare a study of electric
transmission congestion every three years. The study named more than
fifteen areas of the Nation with existing or potential transmission
congestion problems. The study identifies Southern California and the
East Coast from New York City to Washington, D.C., as ``Critical
Congestion Areas,'' because transmission congestion in these densely
populated and economically vital areas is especially significant.
During the development of the study, which relied on extensive
consultation with States and other stakeholders, the Department
provided numerous opportunities for discussion and comment by States,
regional planning organizations, industry, and the general public. OE
intends to supplement the tri-annual Congestion Studies study by
publishing annual progress reports on transmission improvements in the
congested areas.
Section 1221(a) also requires the Secretary to issue a report based
on the August 8 Congestion Study. In this report, if consumers in any
geographic area are being adversely affected by electric energy
transmission capacity constraints or congestion, the Secretary may, at
his discretion, designate such an area as a National Interest Electric
Transmission Corridor (National Corridor).
Because of the broad public interest in the implementation of
Section 1221(a), the Department invited and received over 400 public
comments on the designation of National Corridors. The Department
continues to evaluate these comments, and has not yet determined
whether, and if so, where, it would be appropriate to propose
designation of National Corridors. Prior to issuing a report that
designates any National Corridor, the Department will first issue a
draft designation to allow affected States, regional entities, and the
general public additional opportunities for review and comment.
Another major effort involves the implementation of Section 368 of
EPACT, which requires the designation of energy right-of-way corridors
on federal lands in the eleven contiguous Western States. An
interagency team, with DOE as the lead agency, conducted public scoping
meetings concerning the designation of corridors in each of the eleven
contiguous Western States. The agencies plan to publish a draft
Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for the designation of the
energy corridors in late spring of 2007 and will solicit public
comments.
In August 2006, DOE and eight other federal agencies signed a
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that clarifies the respective roles
and responsibilities of federal agencies, State and tribal governments,
and transmission project applicants with respect to making decisions on
transmission siting authorizations. DOE is preparing to implement its
responsibilities under the new section 216(h) of the Federal Power Act
to coordinate with these eight other federal agencies to prepare
initial calendars, with milestones and deadlines for the federal
authorizations and related reviews required for the siting of
transmission facilities. DOE will maintain a public website that will
contain a complete record of federal authorizations and related
environmental reviews and will work closely with the lead Federal NEPA
agency to encourage complete and expedited federal reviews. DOE is
currently considering the procedures it will use in carrying out this
program.
INFRASTRUCTURE SECURITY AND ENERGY RESTORATION
The President has designated the Department of Energy as the Lead
Sector Specific Agency responsible for facilitating the protection of
the Nation's critical energy infrastructure. The Infrastructure
Security and Energy Restoration (ISER) activity of the Operations and
Analysis subprogram is responsible for coordinating and carrying out
the Department's obligations to support the Department of Homeland
Security in this important national initiative. The FY 2008 request is
for $5.9 million in funding for Infrastructure Security and Energy
Restoration within the Operations and Analysis subprogram.
The Infrastructure Security and Energy Restoration activity
fulfills DOE's responsibilities as defined in Homeland Security
Presidential Directives 7 and 8 for critical infrastructure
identification, prioritization, and protection and for national
preparedness. In times of declared emergencies, this Office also
coordinates federal efforts under the National Response Plan to assist
State and local governments and the private sector in the restoration
of electrical power and other energy-related activities.
In the event of a large-scale electrical power outage caused by
natural disasters such as hurricanes, ice storms, or earthquakes, DOE
personnel will deploy to the affected region to assist in recovery
efforts. During the 2005 hurricane season, DOE was specifically
deployed to respond to five hurricanes: Dennis, Katrina, Ophelia, Rita
and Wilma. In such instances, DOE coordinates all federal efforts to
assist local authorities and utilities in dealing with both measures to
restore power and to resolve other issues related to fuel supply.
The Infrastructure Security and Energy Restoration Office also
fosters greater awareness of the regional scope of energy inter-
dependencies by working with States to develop energy assurance plans
that address the potential cascading effects of energy supply problems.
Exercises are conducted with States and federal partners to help
sharpen this focus. Finally, staff work with States and DHS in
emergency situations to help resolve issues brought on by temporary
energy supply disruptions, such as the winter 2007 propane shortage in
Maine.
CONCLUSION
In his 2007 State of the Union address, President Bush emphasized
the importance of continuing to change the way America generates
electric power and highlighted significant progress in integrating
clean coal technology, solar and wind energy, and clean, safe nuclear
energy into the electric transmission system.
Technologies such as power electronics, high temperature
superconductivity, and energy storage hold the promise of lower costs
and greater efficiency, and also directly enhance the viability of
clean energy resources by addressing issues such as intermittency,
controllability, and environmental impact.
Federal investment in the research, development, and deployment of
new technology combined with innovative policies and infrastructure
investment, is essential to improving grid performance and ensuring our
energy security, economic competitiveness, and environmental well-
being.
This concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to
answering any questions you and your colleagues may have.
Biography for Kevin M. Kolevar
In February 2005, Kevin Kolevar was named Director of the Office of
Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability at the United States
Department of Energy. As Director, Mr. Kolevar leads the development
and implementation of national policy pertaining to electric grid
reliability; management of research, development, and demonstration
activities for ``next generation'' electric grid infrastructure
technologies; and leads federal efforts to help ensure and secure the
reliable flow of energy.
Mr. Kolevar is the Department lead for implementation of the
Electricity Title of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. His
responsibilities have included analysis of electricity congestion, the
possible designation of National Interest Electric Transmission
Corridors, the coordination of energy corridors across federal lands,
and workforce issues related to the electricity utility industry.
On behalf of the Secretary of Energy, Mr. Kolevar coordinated
energy response efforts with the energy industry and other federal
agencies after Hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma ravaged the Gulf
Coast. His office also collected, analyzed, and disseminated vital
information to all involved in the response and restoration efforts and
served an essential coordinating role for the energy sector.
Before assuming his current position, Kolevar served as Chief of
Staff to Deputy Secretary of Energy Kyle McSlarrow from January, 2003
to January, 2005. In this position, he supported and advised the
Secretary and Deputy Secretary on policy, regulatory, and legislative
matters as well as Departmental program management. In addition to
serving as chief of staff to the Deputy Secretary, Kolevar worked as a
senior policy advisor to the Secretary of Energy on security and
technology issues.
His accomplishments while serving at the Department of Energy
included chairing the Department of Energy National Security Working
Group and serving as an advisor to the U.S.-Canada Task Force
investigating the 2003 blackout. Before joining the Department of
Energy, Kolevar spent over ten years serving as U.S. Senate staff in
the offices of Senators Spencer Abraham (R-Mich.) and Connie Mack (R-
Fla.). He is a graduate of the University of Michigan.
Chairman Lampson. Thank you, Mr. Kolevar. Mr. Shope, five
minutes.
STATEMENT OF MR. THOMAS D. SHOPE, PRINCIPAL DEPUTY ASSISTANT
SECRETARY FOR FOSSIL ENERGY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Mr. Shope. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, Members
of the Committee, it is my honor to appear before you today to
present the Office of Fossil Energy's proposed budget for
fiscal year 2008.
Fossil Energy's $863 million budget request for fiscal year
2008 will allow the Office to support the President's top
initiatives for energy security, clean air, climate change, and
coal research, as well as DOE's strategic goal of protecting
our national and economic security by promoting a diverse
supply and delivery of reliable, affordable, and
environmentally sound energy.
Let me begin the presentation of our budget with coal, our
most abundant and lowest cost domestic fossil fuel. Coal today
accounts for nearly one quarter of all of the energy and more
than half of the electricity produced in the United States.
Because coal is so important to our energy future, our proposed
budget of $448 million for the President's Coal Research
Initiative, related fuel cell R&D, and program direction
accounts--it accounts for more than half of our total budget.
Our overarching goal is to conduct research and development
that will improve the competitiveness of domestic coal in
future energy markets, allowing the Nation to tap the full
potential of its abundant fossil energy resources in an
environmentally sound and affordable manner.
This year's request completes, three years ahead of
schedule, the President's commitment to invest $2 billion on
clean coal research over ten years. Our Coal Research
Initiative is broken down into the following components. We are
requesting $73 million for the Clean Coal Power Initiative, a
cooperative, cost-shared program between the government and
industry to demonstrate emergent technologies in coal-based
power generation, so as to help accelerate commercialization.
Work on promising technologies selected in two prior
solicitations will continue in fiscal year 2008, and we plan to
announce a third solicitation during the year.
The first of a kind, high priority FutureGen project will
establish the capability and feasibility of co-producing
electricity and hydrogen from coal with near-zero atmospheric
emissions, including carbon dioxide. FutureGen's proposed
budget of $108 million for fiscal year 2008 will be used to
support detailed plant design and procurement and other
preliminary work.
Technology development supporting FutureGen is embodied in
our Fuels and Power Systems program. The program's proposed
budget for fiscal year 2008, of $245.6 million, will fund
research and development for carbon capture and sequestration,
membrane technologies for oxygen and hydrogen separation,
advanced combustion turbines, fuel cells, coal-to-hydrogen
conversion, and gasifier-related technologies.
The high priority Carbon Sequestration Program, with a
proposed budget for fiscal year 2008 of $79 million, is
developing a portfolio of technologies with great potential to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The goal is to achieve
substantial market penetration after 2012. In the long-term,
the program is expected to contribute significantly to the
President's goal of developing technologies to substantially
reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
In addition, the network of seven regional carbon
sequestration partnerships and the International Carbon
Sequestration Leadership Forum, established by DOE in 2003,
will continue their important work, including vital, diverse,
geologic CO2 storage tests.
Research and development carried out by the Coal-to-
Hydrogen Fuels program, funded at a proposed $10 million, will
make the future transition to a hydrogen-based economy possible
by reducing the costs and increasing the efficiency of hydrogen
production from coal.
We have requested $62 million for fiscal year 2008 to
continue the important work of the Solid State Energy
Conversion Alliance, the goal of which is to develop the
technology for low-cost scalable and fuel-flexible fuel cell
systems.
Consistent with the 2006 and 2007 budget requests, the
Petroleum Oil Technology and Natural Gas Technologies Research
and Development programs are proposed to be terminated in
fiscal year 2008. However, the Office of Fossil Energy will
continue to carry out important responsibilities in the oil and
natural gas sector, such as management of the Ultra-Deepwater
and Unconventional Resources Research Program mandated by the
Energy Policy Act of 2005.
In addition, Fossil Energy will continue to authorize
natural gas imports and exports, collect and report data on
natural gas trades, operate the Rocky Mountain Oilfield Testing
Center, and oversee the Loan Guarantee Program for the Alaska
Natural Gas Pipeline.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, this
completes my prepared statement on our research and development
activities, and I would be happy to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Shope follows:]
Prepared Statement of Thomas D. Shope
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, it's a pleasure for me to
appear before you today to present the Office of Fossil Energy's (FE)
proposed Budget for Fiscal Year 2008
Fossil Energy's $863 million budget request for Fiscal Year 2008,
one of the largest FE requests made by this Administration, will allow
the Office to achieve two fundamental objectives: first, to support the
President's top priorities for energy security, clean air, climate
change and coal research; and second, to support the Department of
Energy's strategic goal of protecting our national and economic
security by promoting a diverse supply and delivery of reliable,
affordable, and environmentally-sound energy.
More specifically, the proposed budget emphasizes early initiation
of an expansion of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve; rapid development
of technologies to manage and dramatically reduce atmospheric emissions
of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide from fossil fuel use in power
generation and other industrial activity; and design and other
preparatory work on the FutureGen project to combine in one plant the
production of electric power and hydrogen fuel from coal with near-zero
atmospheric emissions.
THE PRESIDENT'S COAL RESEARCH INITIATIVE
I will begin the detailed presentation of our proposed budget with
coal, our most abundant and lowest cost domestic fossil fuel. Coal
today accounts for nearly one-quarter of all the energy--and about half
the electricity--consumed in the United States. Because coal is so
important to our energy future, our proposed budget of $448 million for
the President's Coal Research Initiative, related fuel cell R&D and R&D
by federal employees within program direction accounts for more than
half our total budget.
I should mention here that our FY 2008 Budget focuses our research
and development on activities that support the President's Advanced
Energy Initiative and key provisions of the Energy Policy Act of 2005.
These activities will be conducted largely through cost sharing and
industry collaboration. As a result of the evaluations under the
Research and Development Investment Criteria, and the Program
Assessment Rating Tool, activities throughout the program emphasize
research and development for technologies that will be used in the
FutureGen project.
The goal of the overall coal program, which includes the
President's Coal Research Initiative, is to conduct research and
development that will improve the competitiveness of domestic coal in
future energy markets. The Administration strongly supports coal as an
important component of our energy portfolio. This year's budget request
completes the President's commitment to invest $2 billion on clean coal
research over 10 years, three years ahead of schedule. Our coal budget
request is broken down into the following components.
CLEAN COAL POWER INITIATIVE
We are requesting $73 million in Fiscal Year 2008 for the Clean
Coal Power Initiative (CCPI), a cooperative, cost-shared program
between the Government and industry to demonstrate emerging
technologies in coal-based power generation so as to help accelerate
commercialization. CCPI allows the Nation's power generators, equipment
manufacturers and coal producers to help identify the most critical
barriers to coal use in the power sector. Technologies to eliminate the
barriers are then selected with the goal of accelerating development
and deployment of applications that will economically meet
environmental standards while increasing plant efficiency and
reliability. Work on promising technologies selected in two prior
solicitations will continue in Fiscal Year 2008, and we plan to
announce a third solicitation during the year, which will focus on
advanced technology systems that capture carbon dioxide for
sequestration and beneficial reuse.
Some activities of the Clean Coal Power Initiative will help drive
down the costs of Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) systems
and other technologies for near-zero atmospheric emission plants that
are essential to the FutureGen concept.
FUTUREGEN
FutureGen is a high-priority project that will establish the
capability and feasibility of co-producing electricity and hydrogen
from coal with near-zero atmospheric emissions including carbon
dioxide. FutureGen is a public/private partnership designed to
integrate technologies that ultimately will lead to new classes of
plants that feature fuel flexibility, multi-product output, electrical
efficiencies of over 60 percent, and near-zero atmospheric emissions.
FutureGen's goals include electricity at costs no more than 10 percent
above power from comparable plants that are incapable of carbon
sequestration. The capture and permanent storage of atmospheric carbon
emissions is a key feature of the FutureGen concept, as is the
capability to use coal, biomass, or petroleum coke. The project should
help retain the strategic value of coal--the Nation's most abundant and
lowest cost domestic energy resource. FutureGen's proposed budget of
$108 million for Fiscal Year 2008 will be used to support detailed
plant design and procurement, as well as ongoing permitting,
preliminary design and site characterization work.
To help fund both the CCPI and FutureGen projects in Fiscal Year
2008, our proposed Budget redirects $58 million in unexpended sums and
$257 million in deferred appropriations from the original Clean Coal
Technology program. Specifically, the Budget proposes to transfer $108
million of the $257 million deferral to the FutureGen project, and
cancel the remaining $149 million from the deferral. Of the unobligated
balances carried forward at the start of FY 2008, $58 million is
transferred to the Clean Coal Power Initiative (CCPI).
FUELS AND POWER SYSTEMS
Technology development supporting FutureGen is embodied in the core
research and development activity of the Fuels and Power Systems
program. The Fuels and Power Systems program's proposed budget for
Fiscal Year 2008 is $245.6 million. Of this total amount, $183.6
million will fund research and development for carbon capture and
sequestration, membrane technologies for oxygen and hydrogen
separation, advanced combustion turbines, coal-to-hydrogen conversion,
and gasifier-related technologies. The remaining balance of $62 million
will support Fuel Cells.
The program breaks down as follows:
ADVANCED INTEGRATED GASIFICATION COMBINED CYCLE
With proposed funding of $50 million for Fiscal Year 2008, the
Advanced Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle program will continue
to concentrate efforts on gas stream purification to meet quality
requirements for use with fuel cells and conversion processes, on
impurity tolerant hydrogen separation, on elevating process efficiency,
and on reducing the costs and energy requirements for oxygen production
through development of advanced technologies such as air separation
membranes.
ADVANCED TURBINES
A funding request of $22 million will allow the Advanced Turbines
program to continue its concentration on the creation of a turbine-
technology base that will permit the design of near-zero atmospheric
emission IGCC plants and a class of FutureGen-descended plants with
carbon capture and sequestration. This research emphasizes technology
for high-efficiency hydrogen and syngas turbines and builds on prior
successes in the Natural Gas-based Advanced Turbine Systems Program.
ADVANCED RESEARCH
The Advanced Research program bridges basic and applied research to
help reduce the costs of advanced coal and power systems while
improving efficiency and environmental performance. The proposed $22.5
million budget for Advanced Research will fund projects aimed at a
greater understanding of the physical, chemical, biological and thermo-
dynamic barriers that currently limit the use of coal and other fossil
fuels.
CARBON SEQUESTRATION
The Carbon Sequestration program, with a proposed budget for Fiscal
Year 2008 of $79 million, is developing a portfolio of technologies
with great potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This high-
priority program's primary concentration is on dramatically lowering
the cost and energy requirements of pre-and post-combustion carbon
dioxide capture. The goal is to have a technology portfolio by 2012 for
safe, cost-effective and long-term carbon mitigation, management and
storage, which will lead to substantial market penetration after 2012.
In the long-term, the program is expected to contribute significantly
to the President's goal of developing technologies to substantially
reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
The Carbon Sequestration program's activities in Fiscal Year 2008
will concentrate on research and development projects for carbon
dioxide (CO2) capture and storage, as well as measurement,
monitoring and verification technologies and processes.
In coordination with the current partnerships, the program will
determine the ``highest potential'' opportunities for the initial
expedited round of large scale sequestration tests in saline, coal,
and/or oil and gas bearing formations. This work will begin with a
physical characterization of the surface and subsurface, reservoir
modeling, and NEPA review.
The Partnerships will also move on to the next phase of the Weyburn
project, where CO2 is being injected into a producing oil
field. Weyburn's success would deliver both decreased carbon emissions
and increased domestic oil production.
Finally, DOE formed the international Carbon Sequestration
Leadership Forum (CSLF) in 2003 to work with foreign partners on joint
carbon sequestration projects, and to collect and share information.
That work will in continue in FY 2008.
Several members of the CSLF have also signed on to the FutureGen
project, and others have signaled strong interest in joining. FUELS
Research and development carried out by the Coal-to-Hydrogen Fuels
program, funded at a proposed $10 million, will make the future
transition to a hydrogen-based economy possible by reducing the costs
and increasing the efficiency of hydrogen production from coal. This
program is an important component of both the President's Hydrogen Fuel
Initiative and the FutureGen project.
FUEL CELLS
Within Fuel Cells, we have requested $62 million for Fiscal Year
2008 to continue the important work of the Solid State Energy
Conversion Alliance, the goal of which is to develop the technology for
low-cost, scalable and fuel flexible fuel cell systems that can operate
in central, coal-based power systems as well as in other electric
utility (both central and distributed), industrial, and commercial/
residential applications.
RESEARCH BY FEDERAL STAFF
In addition to the funding levels reflected for Fuels and Power
Systems, there is $20 million provided within the Program Direction
account that directly supports the President's Coal Research
Initiative, plus $1 million for fuel cells. This funding supports
federal staff directly associated with conducting the research
activities of specific Fuels and Power Systems subprograms.
PETROLUEM AND NATURAL GAS TECHNOLOGIES
Consistent with the FY 2006 and FY 2007 Budget Requests, the
Petroleum--Oil Technology and Natural Gas Technologies research and
development programs will be terminated in FY 2008.
The Oil and Gas group will manage the Ultra-Deepwater and
Unconventional Resources Research Program mandated by the Energy Policy
Act of 2005. However, I should point out that the 2008 Budget proposes
to repeal this legislation, consistent with the FY 2007 Budget Request.
In addition, FE will continue to authorize natural gas imports and
exports, collect and report data on natural gas trade, and operate the
Rocky Mountain Oil Field Testing Center.
FE will also oversee the loan guarantee program for the Alaska
Natural Gas Pipeline.
STRATEGIC PETROLEUM RESERVE
The Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) exists to ensure America's
readiness to respond to severe energy supply disruptions. The Reserve
reached its highest inventory level--700 million barrels of oil--in
2005 the Energy Policy Act of 2005 directs DOE to fill the SPR to its
authorized one billion barrel capacity, as expeditiously as
practicable. Additionally, in the 2008 Budget, the President proposed
expanding the Reserve's capacity to 1.5 billion barrels.
Our budget request of $332 million for Fiscal Year 2008--almost
double last year's request--will fund the Reserve's continued readiness
through a comprehensive program of systems maintenance, exercises, and
tests, as well as beginning expansion to one billion barrels at
existing and new sites and NEPA work to expand to 1.5 billion barrels.
DOE will begin immediately to fill the reserve to its current capacity
of 727 million barrels through purchases of oil with available balances
as well as through placement of the Department of the Interior's
royalty in-kind oil into the SPR.
NORTHEAST HOME HEATING OIL RESERVE
The Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve was established in July 2000
when the President directed the Department of Energy to establish a
reserve capable of assuring home heating oil supplies for the Northeast
states during times of very low inventories and significant threats to
immediate supply. The Reserve contains two million barrels of heating
oil stored at commercial terminals in the Northeast and is in good
condition. The current five-year storage contracts expire in September
2007. A request for bids was issued in February 2007. The proposed FY
2008 budget requests $5.3 million for continued operations.
NAVAL PETROLEUM AND OIL SHALE RESERVE
The Fiscal Year 2008 budget request of $17.3 million for the Naval
Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserve (NPOSR) will allow it to continue
environmental remediation activities and determine the equity
finalization of Naval Petroleum Reserve 1 (NPR-1); operate NPR-3 until
its economic limit is reached, and while operating NPR-3, maintain the
Rocky Mountain Oil Field Test Center.
Because the NPOSR no longer served the national defense purpose
envisioned in the early 1900s, the National Defense Authorization Act
for FY 1996 required the sale of the Government's interest in Naval
Petroleum Reserve 1 (NPR-1). To comply with this requirement, the Elk
Hills field in California was sold to Occidental Petroleum Corporation
in 1998. Subsequently, the Department transferred two of the Naval Oil
Shale Reserves (NOSR-1 and NOSR-3), both in Colorado, to the Department
of the Interior's (DOI) Bureau of Land Management. In January 2000, the
Department returned the NOSR-2 site to the Northern Ute Indian Tribe.
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 transferred administrative jurisdiction
and environmental remediation of Naval Petroleum Reserve 2 (NPR-2) in
California to the Department of the Interior. DOE retains the Naval
Petroleum Reserve 3 (NPR-3) in Wyoming (Teapot Dome field).
ELK HILLS SCHOOL LANDS FUND
The National Defense Authorization Act for FY 1996 authorized the
settlement of longstanding ``school lands'' claims to certain lands by
the State of California known as the Elk Hills Reserve. The settlement
agreement between DOE and California, dated October 11, 1996, provides
for payment, subject to appropriation, of nine percent of the net sales
proceeds generated from the divestment of the Government's interest in
the Elk Hills Reserve. Under the terms of the Act, a contingency fund
containing nine percent of the net proceeds of the sale was established
in the U.S. Treasury and was reserved for payment to California.
To date, DOE has paid $300 million to the State of California. The
first installment payment of the settlement agreement was appropriated
in FY 1999. While no appropriation was provided in FY 2000, the Act
provided an advance appropriation of $36 million that became available
in FY 2001 (second installment). The next four installments of $36
million were paid at the beginning of FY 2002, FY 2003, FY 2004, and FY
2005 respectively. A seventh payment of $84 million was made in FY
2006.
The Fiscal Year 2008 budget proposes no funding for the Elk Hills
School Lands Fund. The timing and levels of any future budget requests
are dependent on the schedule and results of the equity finalization
process.
FOSSIL ENERGY'S BUDGET MEETS THE NATION'S CRITICAL ENERGY NEEDS
In conclusion, I'd like to emphasize that the Office of Fossil
Energy's programs are designed to promote the cost-effective
development of energy systems and practices that will provide current
and future generations with energy that is clean, efficient, reasonably
priced, and reliable. Our focus is on supporting the President's top
priorities for energy security, clean air, climate change, and coal
research. By reevaluating, refining and refocusing our programs and
funding the most cost-effective and beneficial projects, the Fiscal
Year 2008 budget submission meets the Nation's critical needs for
energy, environmental and national security.
Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Committee, this completes my
prepared statement. I would be happy to answer any questions you may
have at this time.
Biography for Thomas D. Shope
Thomas D. Shope is Chief of Staff for the U.S. Department of
Energy, Office of Fossil Energy. The Office of Fossil Energy is charged
with conducting technology research, development and demonstration
programs that will ensure that the United States can continue to rely
on clean, affordable energy from our traditional fuel resources.
Specific responsibilities within Mr. Shope's purview include the
management of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve; oil and natural gas
research and policy; and the President's $2 billion Coal Research
Initiative, which includes the $950 million FutureGen Program, to
create a prototype zero-emissions coal fired power plant. In his
position, Mr. Shope serves as the principal advisor to Assistant
Secretary Jeffrey D. Jarrett.
In July of 2002, Shope began his tour of duty in Washington, DC,
serving as the Chief of Staff for the U.S. Department of the Interior,
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement. Shope served as
OSM's liaison to Secretary Gale Norton and her senior staff within the
Department of the Interior. Mr. Shope guided and directed the
operations of the OSM in fulfilling its role of regulating active coal
mining operations as well reclaiming old abandoned mine lands. Mr.
Shope played a key role in the efforts to reform and reauthorize the
Abandoned Mine Land program and in OSM's significant enhancement of its
technology transfer activities to State and tribal regulatory
authorities and other stakeholders.
A native of Munhall, Pennsylvania, Shope received his B.S. degree
in Economics at West Virginia University in Morgantown, WV. He then
earned his J.D. degree from Duquesne University School of Law in
Pittsburgh. After working with the Allegheny County District Attorney's
Office and the Pittsburgh law firm of Friedman & Friedman, Shope joined
the Department of the Interior in February of 1991 as an Attorney
Advisor in the Solicitor's Office. During his tenure with the
Solicitor's Office, Shope's practice centered on various mining and
environmental issues. Mr. Shope was extensively involved in the
Department's Trusteeship in Natural Resource Damage Assessment and
Restoration matters, where he served as the case attorney on various
prominent projects including the Nation's largest Superfund related
project, the Tri-State Mining District of Missouri, Kansas and
Oklahoma. Throughout his career, Shope has been recognized for his
ability to maintain and promote sensitive relations with Congress,
State and tribal governments, industry and environmental groups.
Discussion
Chairman Lampson. Thank you, Mr. Shope.
At this point, we will open our first round of questions,
and I am going to recognize myself for five minutes, but I will
yield to the Chairman of the Science Committee, Mr. Gordon.
The Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP)
Chairman Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is a very
good panel, and this is very informative.
Dr. Orbach, you are the only member of the panel I have had
a chance to work with, and I want to say that I am impressed
with your enthusiasm and knowledge of the job, and I look
forward to working with you.
Mr. Spurgeon, I have talked with a variety of folks inside
and outside the nuclear industry, and by and large, I get the
feeling--well, I don't get the feeling, they have said very
specifically that they are not happy with the GNEP program,
that they feel like you set--well, I won't say you, but that
there have been moving targets set, that there really hasn't
been adequate basic research done before the potential to make
multi-billion dollar type investments, which might mean that we
won't maximize those investments, and don't feel like there is
enough emphasis being put on Yucca and storage.
Do you feel that any of that is valid?
Mr. Spurgeon. Well, obviously, the emphasis on Yucca, there
is nothing in this program that does anything to take away from
the emphasis on Yucca Mountain. Yucca Mountain is critical to
any regime that we look at for nuclear energy going forward, as
the ultimate repository for nuclear--spent nuclear fuel.
But what we are doing with GNEP is creating a waste form,
and removing the long-lived transuranic elements that create
the long-term issue of fuel.
Chairman Gordon. So, you think you have done adequate basic
research now?
Mr. Spurgeon. Sir, what--we have more research to do, but
understand, we have been reprocessing fuel throughout the world
for, you know, for 30, 40 years. There are active reprocessing
plants, recycle facilities in existence in all of the other
fuel cycle nations, so the technology is something that has
been commercialized. What we are doing is taking it to the next
level, taking it to the next level of efficiency, and taking it
to the next level of proliferation resistance. In that, we are
still doing research, and that is a big part of what the budget
request is all about.
Chairman Gordon. Good. I don't mean to be discourteous.
Five minutes doesn't last very long, and I am going to be
submitting questions to you and to the other panel members, so
that we can better understand what you are doing, and better do
our job, and I hope that you will all be prompt in getting us
responses.
Efficiency Standards Concerns
Mr. Karsner, in your prepared statement, you acknowledge
that the backlog of equipment efficiency standards and the test
procedures that has developed over the last 12 years, with a
little explanation for why and how this backlog has started,
and why it has continued. Over the last 12 years, how many
efficiency standards have been promulgated?
Mr. Karsner. I can return to you the precise number for the
record. I think it is under ten over the last 12 years.
Chairman Gordon. What about one?
Mr. Karsner. Okay.
Chairman Gordon. Does that sound about right? The Central
Air Conditioning and Heat Pumps, maybe one out of sixteen.
Mr. Karsner. My impression was that there were more than a
single standard that had been promulgated, but I----
Chairman Gordon. Do you have staff or anyone here that
could help you with that?
Mr. Karsner. We don't have the number for the last 12
years.
Chairman Gordon. Okay.
Mr. Karsner. We will have to report back for the record.
[The information follows:]
Chairman Gordon. Okay. It is my understanding it is one.
So, how many more does that leave you to have to promulgate?
Mr. Karsner. We have submitted a schedule to Congress to
promulgate up to 17 over the next five years, and that should
deal with both the backlog and the Energy Policy Act
requirements.
Chairman Gordon. Now, in that aren't you already well
overdue?
Mr. Karsner. There was recently a GAO report published that
said we were overdue on every one of the standards for the 34
that had been prescribed for the last 30 years. So the
Department has acknowledged that particular problem, submitted
a schedule to deal with that backlog, and since that schedule
was sent to Congress last year, we have been 100 percent on
time for every deadline that we have submitted.
Chairman Gordon. Mr. Karsner, I am sure you already know
this. You know, even without being sworn in, it is a felony to
mislead or not tell the truth to a Congressional committee, so
let me just ask you, have you felt any pressure, in the short
time you have been there, not to move forward and promulgate
these rules in an expeditious way?
Mr. Karsner. I have felt the opposite pressure. It is a top
line priority of Secretary Bodman, and it is a top line
priority of my Office, and we will continue that pressure to
meet those deadlines and----
Chairman Gordon. Has OMB slowed you down any on this?
Mr. Karsner. There is a procedure to go through
concurrence. The process is very time-intensive, and therefore,
we have recently submitted legislation to the Hill so that we
could shrink and collapse the critical path, particularly where
we can cultivate consensus.
Chairman Gordon. So, you are being told full speed ahead,
do it as quickly as you can. Is that correct?
Mr. Karsner. And we are being given the highest priority
attention that the--that this program can have by both the
Secretary and the Office of General Counsel.
Chairman Gordon. Yet in 12 years, you have only promulgated
one rule, you are behind by statute in all the others.
Mr. Karsner. Yes.
Chairman Gordon. And I think the Energy Policy Act directed
the Department to meet statutory timelines, you are behind in
those, too, aren't you?
Mr. Karsner. With all due respect, sir, it is obvious the
Department is behind, not just 12 years, 30 years. So something
systemic is problematic through multiple generations and
Administrations, and we are seeking to fix that.
Chairman Gordon. Well, we hope you can. It is important for
the country, and I will also be submitting some questions for
you.
How is my time? No, no, no. I don't want to----
Chairman Lampson. Go ahead and finish, and we will start
the clock over when I start mine.
Chairman Gordon. No, that is okay. If I am over my five
minutes, then I will----
Chairman Lampson. You are not. Please go ahead.
Bioenergy Research Centers
Chairman Gordon. Okay. Dr. Orbach, I am interested in the
Bioenergy Research Centers, which I think are important, and I
am glad you have moved forward with, but it is sort of a new
area for you. It is going from research to actual
implementation there.
And you are talking about bringing in private investors. I
would like to learn a little more about that. You know, what
kind of stakes are they going to get in this, what kind of
return are they going to get for their investment, and if it
doesn't work out, what is going to happen with these Centers
afterwards?
Dr. Orbach. We are currently actually evaluating the
proposals that have come in, which indeed have included the
private sector. We have given them a five year commitment for
$25 million a year, and the understanding that we have is that
after the five years, we will assess whether they have been
successful. It is a new concept--you are quite right--for us,
and so, we are looking both at procedures at effectiveness, and
whether we can deliver on the investment.
That is the reason why we want the private sector involved.
We want this to get to market.
Chairman Gordon. Well, I think it is a type of experiment
that we need to be making, and as I said earlier, you seem to
be on top of your game, and I hope this will be successful.
Thank you for joining us today.
Dr. Orbach. Thank you.
Chairman Lampson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. At this time, in
the spirit of fairness, I think I will recognize the Ranking
Member on the Full Science Committee, Mr. Hall.
Mr. Hall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And to Mr. Shope, I don't have my--I can't see that far. I
wish you would bring that table a little closer to us, if you
would.
Mr. Shope, I have some questions that I need to ask you,
sir. I want to talk to you about--do you know what I am about
to ask you about?
Mr. Shope. I am anxiously awaiting.
The Ultra-Deepwater and Unconventional Onshore Research and
Development Program
Mr. Hall. The ultra-deep provision that I put in the last
four budgets, I put it in four times as a Democrat, and
Republicans accepted it. This last time, I put it in as a
Republican, and the Democrats accepted it. We have passed it
and sent it to the President. He signed it, and now, there is a
move on to take it out of the budget, and to take it out of the
budget, you have to have a bill go through here, and I love the
President. I would absolutely jump in the fire for him, but
every now and then, I don't agree with him, and I think he is
wrong in trying to move the ultra-deep legislation and take it
off the books, because it doesn't cost anything, it is going to
get reserves that are known there. It involves technology from
schools and universities. It is more of a research bill that it
is an energy bill, but it pays for itself in known quantities
of energy that are there. We just can't get them up, but we are
going to get the technology to get some up. It doesn't cost
anybody anything. It is not a gift to Exxon or the big people,
because they are not the ones that really look for it, and they
can buy their own technology if they want to. Independents
can't, but independents will do most of this work.
And it is just a win-win deal, and I have not been able to
impress anybody over the White House with that situation, but
everybody else I know pretty well agrees with me.
Now, I guess what I want to ask you, and I know your budget
calls for the repeal of the Ultra-Deepwater and Unconventional
Onshore Research and Development Program, and that is, I think,
is the President's request, and maybe, the gentleman that he
got from OMB, that is there advising him. And wonderful guys,
admire them, respect them both, but--and I don't hate the
sinners, I just hate their sin on this type thing, that is a
quote from Billy Graham, it is a pretty good, all old guys are
good to quote, you know.
I want to ask you, though, and EI assessment of EPAct
concluded that this was one of only a few that would increase
supply and pay for itself through increased royalties. I just
don't know any way to better, it is going to get over $1
billion more in 12 years than we have to spend for it, and we
get maybe 70 years of energy out of it. I cannot understand why
anybody would want to repeal this.
They sent it, to of all people, Ed Markey, to repeal it,
about three months ago or four months ago or five months ago.
Democrats and Republicans alike gathered together and killed
that bill, cleared off a place and killed it right there on the
floor about four months ago. I hope we are going to do the same
thing this time, and I don't think we will have a lot of
repercussions from over there, but I just, you know, it pays
for itself, and until that happens, it is the law of the land,
and it is to be funded on a yearly basis.
Can you please tell me what the status of that funding is
at this time?
Mr. Shope. Yes, Congressman. And I appreciate and
understand your comments.
There is a difference of opinion, however, from the
Administration, as to whether there are adequate incentives for
the industry to do this research on its own, and there are
costs associated, in the sense of foregone revenues, that will
be going towards the program.
So, we have submitted legislation to repeal that provision
of EPAct once again this year. That being said, we fully intend
to comply with the law as it exists, and that currently
includes operation of this program. We did issue the contract
to RPSEA last year in December. We have established the
advisory committees, the two advisory committees that are
required. Members are now being appointed to these committees,
and the program is moving forward with all due diligence and
full force, until it is repealed by this body.
Mr. Hall. Please convey to George Herbert Bush's son that I
am trying to help him, you know, like the little Scout helped
the lady across the street, but she didn't want to go across
the street, but I am trying to help him here, and trying to get
a supply of energy that might keep our children, your kids and
your grandkids from having to fight a war, because this country
will fight for energy, and we don't have to. We have it right
here, if we could just reach out there and get it.
I want to read, and I am not being a smart-aleck with you
or anything, but Section 99H. Funding, Oil and Gas Lease
Income, you are familiar with that section, aren't you? I think
there are seven places in there where it uses the word, and we
have put it in here this way, and used the word ``shall,'' not
``may,'' or direct that we prefer that they do that. It says,
``and after distribution of any such funds as described in
subsection (c), $50,000,000 shall be deposited in the Ultra-
Deepwater and Unconventional Natural Gas.'' You know where that
is.
Mr. Shope. Yes, sir.
Mr. Hall. A little bit on down there later, it says ``under
this part without fiscal year limitation, to remain available
until expended.'' Even on the next page, it says, in section
(d) under Allocation, from the federal ``Fund under subsection
(a)(1) in each fiscal year shall be allocated as follows.''
Later, it says ``32.5 percent shall be for activities under
section 999A.'' A little later, ``7.5 percent shall be for
activities under section''--it is not ``may'' or precatory
words, or we hope you will. It says ``shall,'' and I think we
are going to defeat the bill that he has sent over here. It
doesn't give me any pleasure to do that. It is painful for me
to have to try to do that, but I think we are going to be able
to do it, and maybe we get underway with this, and I would like
to work with you in working this out, because it might prevent
a whole generation of youngsters from having to get on a
troopship and go take some energy away from someone when we
have got plenty right here at home that is clean.
Thank you, sir. I respect you and I appreciate it. I yield
back my time, sir.
Chairman Lampson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I now yield
myself five minutes, and I want to continue that same line, if
I may. I don't mean to be piling on either, but RPSEA happens
to be in my Congressional district, and it is something that is
important to an awful lot of folks there, and I join Mr. Hall.
When he first introduced that legislation many years ago,
and also the work to continue the effort now, because we do
recognize that it is an important piece of legislation.
Mr. Hall. I am even glad you are back.
Chairman Lampson. Thank you very much. I am too.
And obviously, the President thought that it was important,
because he did sign it into law, and that is where I wonder
about the difference of opinion.
We did receive a letter from the Department and proposed
legislation last week, asking that this section of the law be
rescinded, and given the enormous hydrocarbon resources in
these fields, it is foolish. So, what reasons does the
Department have for eliminating the Ultra-Deep program,
especially in light of its elimination of oil and gas research?
Mr. Shope. Congressman, the Administration believes that
there are adequate incentives, particularly with the current
price of oil, for industry to invest in this research and
development.
While there certainly is a recognition about independent
operators, it is always a concern that they don't have the
ability to spend these types of dollars. The service industry
that supports them certainly does, and the Administration
believes that when you have to look at the total availability
of dollars, as to where our highest priority work needs to be
done with taxpayer funded dollars, this program, certainly,
there are other incentives to have that work accomplished,
aside from using taxpayer dollars to do it.
Chairman Lampson. So, it is the belief that there is an
adequate research being done by those companies now. If
Congress doesn't rescind this law, and I don't expect it is to
do that, you made the comment, and let me ask again, will the
Department carry out this research as it is instructed to do so
by law?
Mr. Shope. Let me be perfectly clear, Congressman. We
absolutely will do that. We are currently doing it, as I
mentioned. We are fully supportive----
Chairman Lampson. Then can you tell me why OMB is holding
up the money?
Mr. Shope. The money? Well, right now, the RPSEA contract
is--money is starting to flow soon, so we have the plan that is
in action, RPSEA is preparing the plan for review.
Chairman Lampson. Is it the Administration's position that
it is complying with the law, then, fully, right now, the OMB
has released all the money it is supposed to have?
Mr. Shope. It has released adequate funds to begin that
process.
Chairman Lampson. It hasn't released the funds that the law
is saying that it should. The Administration proposes to cancel
out oil and gas research, and apparently, the reasoning that
this R&D, with the reasoning that it can be done by industry
alone, yet given the cost of oil and gas research, only the
biggest oil companies can afford to do this research, and
deploy the newest technologies in the most technically
challenging fields, so how can smaller firms leverage federal
resources for oil and gas research?
Mr. Shope. Congressman, again, we believe that for
independent operators, particularly the service industries that
provide those services to not only the independents but larger
firms as well, will be able to provide adequate investment, and
continue research and development.
Chairman Lampson. Can you elaborate on areas where industry
maybe isn't currently conducting research, or----
Mr. Shope. I don't--no particular--no particulars are
coming to mind right now, Congressman. Of course, we----
Chairman Lampson. Any real industry effort to explore
methane hydrates that you are aware of?
Mr. Shope. There are international efforts that are ongoing
with respect to methane hydrates. The Department has funded
some research in the past, and that research will be coming to
a conclusion, and the information that we will be able to yield
from that research will further the research and development of
hydrates.
Chairman Lampson. I hope that you will convey the emphasis
that at least Mr. Hall and I have placed on this. We think that
it is something that is important. I personally am disappointed
with the manner in which it has been handled at this point, and
certainly would like to see things change, and change very
quickly.
And at this point, I will recognize the Ranking Member, Mr.
Inglis, for his questions.
The American Competitiveness Initiative
Mr. Inglis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Orbach, the--as I recall, the Congress made a
commitment to doubling funding within ten years. Is that right?
And I am trying to figure out where we are on that schedule.
Several years ago, and I wonder, and this is a seven
percent increase, something tells me if it were gradual over
that time, it would have to be a 10 percent increase in order
to hit the ten years, but--doubling within ten years. Where are
we with that commitment?
Dr. Orbach. The President's commitment to double the
funding for the physical sciences is on track. The President's
request for '07 was a 14 percent increase, and then, a
trajectory out to doubling. And so, the President's request for
'08 represents that trajectory.
Mr. Inglis. So, you think we can get there.
And the Congress made a commitment, too. Not while I was
here, but----
Dr. Orbach. There was, to my knowledge, the Congress and
the President signed an authorization for the National Science
Foundation----
Mr. Inglis. Right.
Dr. Orbach.--to double its budget. The President's
initiative, the American Competitiveness Initiative, focuses on
the physical sciences, which includes the National Science
Foundation, the Office of Science, and also, the core research
in NIST.
Mr. Inglis. Right. So, you are content that we are on
schedule. We are----
Dr. Orbach. Yes, I am.
Mr. Inglis. Could always use more, I suppose, but for
instance--I won't make you answer that.
But now, let us see, the--now, Mr. Karsner spoke of the
$1.2 billion, same sort of question. The President's Hydrogen
Initiative, we are on track there? We are--have we actually
appropriated all of the $1.2 billion, or where do we stand on
that?
Mr. Karsner. This would be the year that we would fulfill
the $1.2 billion, and we are on track.
Mr. Inglis. So, the President's budget request would put us
on track.
Mr. Karsner. Correct.
Mr. Inglis. The question is whether we follow through here
in the House to deliver on that.
Mr. Karsner. That is correct, sir.
Mr. Inglis. The $1.2 billion. And of course, here is hoping
that that is not the end of the initiative, right? We are not
going to be content at $1.2 billion? In other words, we have
got to get, we have got to break through, I suppose, as the----
Mr. Karsner. I wouldn't--it is the end of the initiative,
the five year, $1.2 billion, but it is clearly not the end of
the hydrogen program, and its robust future, that we expect it
to continue growing to meet its technological readiness
milestones, which are necessary over the next decade.
Mr. Inglis. Right. Helpful.
Nuclear Power
Mr. Spurgeon, what is--what holds us back from nuclear
power, really pursuing nuclear power in this country?
Mr. Spurgeon. Well, I think we are doing it at this point.
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 was a major breakthrough,
relative to starting to eliminate some of the barriers that
have been standing in the way of having new nuclear power.
There has been an uncertainty of the regulatory process
heretofore, and when you are talking about major $3 to $4
billion investments, you have got to have pretty good certainty
that if you start down this path and try to finance this kind
of a project, that you are, in fact, going to be able to get a
license to construct and eventually operate the facility.
So, the Standby Support Provision in the Energy Policy Act
is very important in that. That is basically an insurance
policy that protects the sponsor against regulatory and/or
litigation delays.
New reactor types, standardization, is something that we
have needed in this industry. That is something that we now do
have, and we are supporting. What the Department is being is
really a catalyst for leveraging our public money to encourage
private activity in the nuclear arena. So, we have been
operating under the 2010 program as a 50/50 cost-share.
So we are supporting the first plants through the
regulatory process. We are also supporting the--both from a
standardization, but from the early site permit standpoint, we
are trying to get the, some of the environmental issues off the
table before the major commitments for funds are made.
And then, finally, the last piece of this puzzle is to
provide, eventually, nuclear energy is authorized to be part of
the loan guarantee program that would go forward, which looks
for ways to then allow plants to be financed, perhaps with a
greater degree of debt, as opposed to equity, which lowers the
cost to the consumer substantially, for the cost of bus bar
electric power.
So, we have the tools now, and those tools are working. We
have some 30 new nuclear plants that are in one stage or
another of consideration, many of them in your region.
Mr. Inglis. Yes, sir. Yeah.
Mr. Spurgeon. And we look forward to the first applications
for a new nuclear plant this fall.
Mr. Inglis. Okay. Thank you, sir.
Chairman Lampson. Mr. McNerney. Recognized for five
minutes.
Energy Storage
Mr. McNerney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to congratulate the board. Your testimony has been
interesting and informative, and I understand the difficulty of
producing a budget under these constraints. I have some
questions though.
Mr. Kolevar, I heard both you and Dr. Orbach refer to the
need for energy storage, for superconductors, and for the
distribution of electric power, but your budget shows an eight
percent decrease. Now, I clearly understand the need for a good
distribution system, both in terms of reliability, as we have
seen in the Northeast a couple of times in the last decade, but
also in terms of distributing wind energy and solar energy that
are intermittent sources. So, how can you reconcile a decrease
in the budget with the increasing need for research and
development in that area?
And also, is there any plan for construction of
distribution systems incorporating this new technology, or is
this still a paper exercise?
Mr. Kolevar. Congressman, the decrease in the fiscal year
2008 budget is reflected in other programmatic activities,
particularly in the High Temperature Superconductivity program.
In the Energy Storage program, in that activity within the
Office, the fiscal year 2008 budget proposes a doubling of
resources. As I mentioned in the testimony for pursuing both
large-scale utility size applications and then smaller R&D
applications that would benefit principally distributed energy
systems and distributed electrical systems.
We do see these technologies in use today in limited
applications. There is a lot more work that needs to be done.
The Office of Electricity Delivery and the Office of Science
collaborate on storage activities. Generally speaking, while we
partner on these, you will see the line drawn with respect to
the timeframes involved. The work undertaken in Dr. Orbach's
program is consistent with his program more of a long-term
focus.
The work that we have done in the Office of Electricity
Delivery has been really to demonstrate now the feasibility of
storage programs, test them into the system, validate their
capability, continue to support those applications to increase
the feasibility of these applications. And having pushed a
couple of these out in demonstration programs over the last two
years, I expect that the program will spend more time on
research and development, with an eye toward rolling out some
newer energy storage systems, such as flow batteries, in the
next seven to ten years.
Mr. McNerney. So, is that consistent with the decrease in
the budget?
Mr. Kolevar. Well, with respect to energy storage, sir, it
is consistent with the increase proposed by the President for
these activities, a little over a doubling of the moneys
involved.
Geothermal Energy Research
Mr. McNerney. Okay. I am going to move on.
Mr. Karsner, I am very concerned about the zeroing out of
the geothermal studies and research. My understanding is that
there is a report from the MIT that shows up to 25 percent of
our nation's electrical energy can be produced from geothermal
sources in the United States, and this would form a baseline,
as opposed to some other forms of renewable energy.
So, what is the justification for zeroing out that part, or
that research area?
Mr. Karsner. Well, the study that you refer to
specifically, the Tester study on enhanced geothermal systems,
obviously wasn't out or taken into account when this budget was
formulated in excess of 20 months ago, but--so to comment
further on that, the historic and conventional geothermal
technology that has been the focus of the program, as a legacy
of a program, is not applied to the enhanced geothermal systems
potential identified in that study.
It really amounts to about 15 gigawatts of energy
nationwide. That 15 gigawatts is being right now very
proactively exploited in the marketplace, very profitably by
participants in the marketplace, largely based on Energy Policy
Act provisions in policy that induced greater development and
exploitation of the convention geothermal.
We will not foreclose on the possibility of emerging
technologies, and we are reviewing the results of that study,
to see if it is worthy of integrating into future
considerations.
Mr. McNerney. How is my time, Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Lampson. Thank you very much. Mr. Bartlett from
Maryland, five minutes.
Ethanol Potential and Sustainability
Mr. Bartlett. Thank you very much. Five minutes, five
panelists, thank you very much for cooperating with short
answers.
I might note, Dr. Orbach, that seven percent exponential
growth, does double in ten years, so you are on target.
We are producing enough ethanol to make a minimal
contribution to reducing our dependence on gasoline, but it has
had an enormous effect on corn prices. They have doubled from
$2.11 in September to $4.08 in December. Tortillas are
increased in price in Mexico, and they aren't able to buy as
many, and my dairymen are dying because of these high prices.
Who is looking at the potential in your bioengineering
research and sustainability? Is that your responsibility or
somebody else's?
Dr. Orbach. It is the Department's responsibility, and we--
--
Mr. Bartlett. I would just encourage you to look at
potential and sustainability, because you know, the fact that
you can do it doesn't mean that you are going to have enormous
amounts of energy in the future. We still have to eat, and you
know, that is going to compete with the need for these, for
this energy production.
More on Nuclear Power
Mr. Spurgeon, how many years do we have to operate a
nuclear power plant to get back the fossil fuel energy it took
to build it?
Mr. Spurgeon. I don't have that number----
Mr. Bartlett. If you don't have that number at your
fingertips----
Mr. Spurgeon.--right off the top of my head, but it is not
that long, sir.
Mr. Bartlett. Well, could you please get that number for
the record, please?
Mr. Spurgeon. I certainly will.
[The information follows:]
Mr. Bartlett. I get wildly divergent numbers as to how long
that takes, and I would like to have it from the experts, what
it really is.
Mr. Spurgeon. Be glad to give it to you, sir.
Mr. Bartlett. Thank you. Thank you very much.
Power Plant Siting
Are you looking at siting future power plants in populated
areas, so that we can use the excess heat for district heating
and with ammonia cycle cooling for refrigeration in the
summertime, rather than rather stupidly siting them where we
have to use drinking water and cooling towers to dissipate
precious energy?
Mr. Spurgeon. Most of the new plants that are being
considered today are located, or designed to be located, or
planned to be located, I should say, at the site of existing
reactor facilities. Most of our reactor sites were originally
designed to accommodate more units than currently exist on
those sites. So, this will be the first steps----
Mr. Bartlett. I hope that when we are really siting new
plants, that we look at putting them where people live. By the
way, if I sleep four feet from the nuclear power plant in one
of our submarines, I have less radiation than if I am laying
out on the beach. And we really need to be siting these in
populated areas, so we can use the district heat. It is really
pretty dumb to use drinking water, evaporate drinking water to
dissipate heat that we desperately need in a world that is
going to be increasingly energy deficient.
Energy Conservation
Mr. Karsner, I had the privilege of leading a nine Member
delegation to China just over the break at Christmas and New
Year's. I celebrated New Year's in China. And they began their
conversation on energy by talking about post-oil. They seem to
get it. We are having trouble getting it. And they have a five
point program, the first point of which is conservation. You
didn't mention that. Is conservation included in your
efficiency, or who has responsibility for promoting
conservation in our country?
Mr. Karsner. Well conservation and efficiency, of course,
are very closely linked. Conservation, getting less from less,
efficiency, getting more from less. And but the idea is using
less in both instances.
So, we do have a responsibility. Our Office was formerly
named the Office of Conservation, before it was changed to the
Office of Efficiency.
Mr. Bartlett. Good. Well, you know, conservation is two
people riding in the car. Efficiency is using a Prius rather
than an SUV. So, they are different, but both of them have the
same goal, that is, using less energy, and still live
comfortably.
Electro-Magnetic Pulse (EMP) Preparedness
Mr. Kolevar, you are responsible for energy distribution.
How much energy will you be able to distribute after a robust
EMP laydown? And I note there was an article just a couple of
days ago about the threat from China and EMP laydown. Sir, is
the answer none?
Mr. Kolevar. The answer would be zero electrical energy.
Mr. Bartlett. You are correct, sir. And I would submit that
this ought to be a very high priority. A single weapon that
made it 300 miles high over the center of our country would
shut down all electric productivity for the foreseeable future.
Am I not correct?
Mr. Kolevar. I do not dispute that. I don't know those
numbers specifically, but the impact would be dramatic.
Mr. Bartlett. Yes. Thank you very much.
Potential Coal Supply
Mr. Shope, you mentioned coal. We have 250 years of coal.
If you just increase, use two percent, which we will have to do
better than that, that shrinks to 85 years. If you use some of
that energy to convert the coal into a liquid or a gas, you
have now shrunk to 50 years, and since energy is now fungible,
and it moves on a world market, if we share our 50 years of
coal, just two percent increase with the world, that shrinks it
to 12.5 years. That is not much, is it?
Mr. Shope. I am not sure I understand your question,
Congressman.
Mr. Bartlett. Well, you know, we brag we have 250 years of
coal.
Mr. Shope. Right.
Mr. Bartlett. So, then, don't worry about energy for the
future. But if you increase its use only two percent, that 250
years shrinks to 85 years. And since you can't fill your chunk
of the car with coal and go down the road, you are going to
have to convert it to a liquid or a gas. Now--and if you use
the energy to do that from coal, you are now down to about 50
years, and since all energy today moves on a global
marketplace, and we are going to share that 50 years of coal
with the world, now it shrinks, four into 50, it is 12.5. So,
now we are down to 12.5 years.
That doesn't leave me very sanguine that coal is going to
solve our energy future. Am I wrong?
Mr. Shope. Well, Congressman, of course, with respect to
coal, that is one of the main things we are working on, is
making it more efficient, the use of it more efficient, and
that is what our program is geared towards, is to get more
energy out of the coal reserves we have, and we do have ample
coal supplies in the United States. I think----
Mr. Bartlett. You think 12.5 years at only two percent
growth is ample, okay? I am not sure it is ample.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Lampson. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Bartlett.
I am apologizing to all of our Members for the timeliness of
this, because of this joint session that is about to start, we
are going to try to rush through these as quickly as we can.
I will call next on Mr. Lipinski.
The International Linear Collider
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would appreciate
if the panel members could answer some written questions that I
am going to submit.
Right now, I just want to raise three issues. The last one
is the only one I will ask a question on, but I just wanted to
first say, to Mr. Shope, I am concerned that the $79 million is
not enough for carbon sequestration, and I just want to raise
that issue, and follow up with some questions on that.
Mr. Karsner, I just wanted to mention that Representative
Inglis and I have reintroduced our H Prize Act this year, to
authorize the Secretary of Energy to establish monetary prizes
for technological advancement in hydrogen energy. I think it is
a smart way to go about doing it. I am happy to see that there
is a significant increase in hydrogen research also in the
budget this year.
But the thing I really wanted to talk about and ask the
question is to Dr. Orbach. And I want to thank you and the
Department for advocating for the International Linear
Collider, specifically housing it there at Fermilab in
Illinois. I think this can bring great benefits, and it is very
significant for the United States to be able to house this
collider in the United States. I have spoken with Congressman
Hastert on this issue. Fermilab is located in his district. I
talked to Dr. Oddone, who is the Director at Fermilab. Could
you elaborate a little bit, briefly, on the progress of
bringing ILC to Fermilab, and the significance for our country
of doing that?
Dr. Orbach. Well, it will be very significant if we can
bring it here. What we are doing in our '08 budget is doubling
the amount of funds for R&D for the superconducting cavities
and the other elements that would go into the International
Linear Collider. We are in the process of developing an
international agreement, or an international relationship that
would enable us to correlate our R&D with the research and
development in Asia and in Europe, so that we can make it truly
international.
We are just beginning to work out the details of that, and
we hope that that will lead in a few years to the availability
of the building blocks for the International Linear Collider.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you. I will yield back.
Chairman Lampson. Thank you very much, Mr. Lipinski, and
now, I will recognize Ms. Biggert, the former Chairman of our
subcommittee.
More on the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP)
Ms. Biggert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have got a couple
questions I hope I can get in.
Mr. Spurgeon, you know, I have said many times before that
I support the vision of GNEP, namely, to develop and deploy
technologies, reduce the volume and toxicity of nuclear waste
by recycling and maximizing the energy extracted from our
uranium supplies.
I am concerned, and I am not convinced that the Department
is proceeding in a way that really is going to build public or
Congressional support for this important program, and that
really does worry me. As you know, I would be a lot more
comfortable with DOE's plans if the Department had completed a
comprehensive systems analysis.
And I know that you mentioned in your testimony that you
are working on a systems analysis, on a variety of deployments
systems alternatives. And you are conducting a program
environmental assessment, I know, because there was one that
was held in Joliet right near my district.
So, why can't the DOE conduct a similar programmatic
systems analysis to help build support for the vision of GNEP,
and why do you still believe that the commercial scale
demonstration is the best way to proceed, rather than the
engineering scale demo, especially since there hasn't been a
comprehensive systems analysis?
And I know that, you know, there was a cut in the budget
last year by the Appropriations Committee, because there hadn't
been this analysis, and we just have to get going. It really
concerns me that you say, what, 15 years before we are going to
be set, and you know, I think this is so crucial to our energy
demands, and to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
Mr. Spurgeon. I agree with you, ma'am. We do need to get
going, and that is the whole point of the program. We are
conducting a comprehensive systems analysis. Some of the
decisions are relative to precise scale, will be an outcome of
that. We are proceeding with the generic environmental impact
statement, programmatic environmental impact statement, in
order to move the process forward, and we are engaging
industry, because there is a great deal of worldwide expertise
in this arena.
So, we are underway with cooperative programs currently,
with Russia, with France, with Japan, and we intend to exploit
the worldwide knowledge in this area, in order to leverage our
own program, to be able to take advantage of the technology
that does exist, so we don't have to reinvent all of the wheels
here locally.
Ms. Biggert. Well, I guess we need that, since we are 25
years behind.
Mr. Spurgeon. Yes, sir. Yes, ma'am. We certainly do.
Ms. Biggert. But you still haven't answered my question,
about----
Mr. Spurgeon. In terms of the scale?
Ms. Biggert. Yes.
Mr. Spurgeon. We believe that there are many pieces that
need to be demonstrated yet, and that is what the R&D program
is all about, associated with this program. There are pieces
that need to be demonstrated at the prototypic or demonstration
scale, and that is what we intend with part of this budget. And
tests that will demonstrate the entire process.
There are other pieces of the program. Because they are so
similar to existing facilities, like some that I know you have
visited, that are ready for commercial scale deployment. Now,
the precise capacity will be determined as a result of our this
year's evaluation, and the systems analysis. It can, though, be
built, these facilities can be built in a modular fashion that
allows us to get started and expand to commercial scale as we
go.
So, that is your--the conclusion is not reached. The intent
is to move it as fast as we can, consistent with good science.
The Rare Isotope Beam
Ms. Biggert. All right. I just want to thank Dr. Orbach for
the ACI. I think you and Dr. Bodman have really pursued that,
and the research and physical sciences, and thank you so much.
I can't leave this hearing without asking you about RIA or
RIA-Lite. I know that it is still in the President's budget. If
you could just tell me the status of that.
Dr. Orbach. We will be, in fiscal year 2008, having a
competition for the design of what we now call the Rare Isotope
Beam, and that design competition will be the same as the
siting. That is, whoever proposes the best design, that is
where it will be built.
We have, in--when you receive the outyear budgets, when
they go to Congress, you will find PED money in the out years
for the beginning the process, but the design right now is in a
competitive situation, and that is what we are pursuing.
Ms. Biggert. Thank you. I yield back.
Chairman Lampson. Thank you. Ms. Giffords.
Solar Energy
Ms. Giffords. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Karsner, briefly. I was pleased to see the President's
'08 budget when it came to solar. I believe there is about an
81 percent increase, $148 million. Coming from Arizona, a state
with an abundance of sunshine, it is certainly very good news.
I am curious about the President's initiative. I am curious
if it is on track, the obstacles that possibly you are facing,
and whether or not by 2015, we are truly going to have
photovoltaic cells that are competitive with other types of
power. So, if you could please address that, I would appreciate
that.
Mr. Karsner. I believe it is not only on track. I believe
it holds great potential for getting ahead of that 2015
timetable, particularly in places with--where we can unlock
solar resources like Arizona and the Southwest, not just
through photovoltaics, but you might note that we have also
increased funding for concentrated solar power, which can
increase base load generation, and shape the power, in
collaboration with the expected results from storage capacity
that we expect from Dr. Orbach's efforts.
Ms. Giffords. Thank you. I yield back.
Chairman Lampson. All done? Thank you very much.
Well, I want to thank everyone, and as we bring this
meeting to a close, particularly each and every one of our
witnesses for testifying before the Subcommittee. I think it
has been a very informational hearing for everyone here, and
our witnesses have given this committee a better understanding
of DOE's plans and priorities for the coming year.
If there is no objection, the record will remain open for
additional statements from the Members, and for answers to any
of the follow-up questions that the Committee may ask of the
witnesses. Without objection, so ordered.
This hearing is now adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:05 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
Appendix:
----------
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Raymond L. Orbach, Under Secretary for Science, U.S.
Department of Energy
Questions submitted by Chairman Nick Lampson
Q1. This Committee is concerned about future of U.S. high energy
physics and the prospects for siting the International Linear Collider
on U.S. soil. While it is of paramount importance that the U.S.
maintain its global leadership in this and many other scientific
fields, Congress will undoubtedly exercise extreme caution in moving
forward with the development of facilities that may cost the taxpayers
billions. We need only look back as far as the Superconducting Super
Collider to see the pitfalls that must be avoided as the ILC concept
ripens.
Q1a. Where does the ILC currently rank in the Department's priorities
of proposed projects and facilities?
A1a. The Office of Science Facilities for the Future of Science, A
Twenty Year Outlook report, issued in November 2003, ranked the
International Linear Collider (ILC) as the top priority in the mid-term
category.
Q1b. What is DOE'S timeline for development of the ILC, and how does
this compare to the timeline laid out by the research community?
A1b. The Department of Energy's Order 413.3A provides a rigorous series
of milestones, known as Critical Decisions, to provide checks and
balances and controls for the management of construction projects. The
Office of Science's success in managing large construction projects
like the Spallation Neutron Source has stemmed from rigorous observance
of these milestones, enforced by intensive use of both internal and
external reviews. The Critical Decisions process is among our key tools
for determining the readiness of construction projects, correctly
costing and scheduling the projects, and keeping them on time and
within budget. The Office of Science takes the requirements of Order
413.3A very seriously.
Briefly, the major milestones are as follows: Critical Decision-0--
Approve Mission Need, Critical Decision-1--Approve Alternative
Selection and Cost Range, Critical Decision-2--Approve Performance
Baseline, Critical Decision-3--Approve Start of Construction, and
Critical Decision-4--Approve Start of Operation of Project.
Every construction project must meet requirements for approval of
Mission Need, Alternative Selection and Cost Range, and Performance
Baseline before a start of construction can be approved.
The ILC has not yet passed the Critical Decision-0 (CD-0)
milestone--that is, Mission Need for the ILC has not yet been
established. The Department is at a very early stage in this project
planning. Several requirements must be met before CD-0/Mission Need can
be determined. Among them is an assessment of the scientific
opportunities potentially represented by the ILC. This assessment will
await analysis of early physics results from the Large Hadron Collider,
which are now expected about 2010-2011. The technical feasibility of
core technologies will also have to be demonstrated.
The Global Design Group (GDE), a self-organized group drawn from
the international research community for the ILC, issued its Reference
Design Report in February 2007. This report includes the desired
scientific scope of the project and a very early stage cost estimate
using international methodology and assuming that construction would
occur from 2012 to 2019.
A decision to go forward with the ILC is not imminent. Even
assuming an eventual positive decision to build an ILC, its schedule
will almost certainly be lengthier than the GDE assumptions. Completing
the R&D and engineering design, negotiating an international structure,
selecting a site, obtaining firm financial commitments, and building
the machine could take us well into the mid-2020s, if not later.
Q1c. What are the current preliminary cost estimates for the ILC?
A1c. We do not yet have a preliminary cost estimate for the ILC that
has been commissioned, reviewed, and validated by the Department. The
Global Design Effort (GDE), a self-organized group drawn from the
international research community for the ILC, issued a ``Reference
Design Report'' in February 2007. This report includes a very early
stage cost estimate based on international methodology which is,
however, very different from that used by DOE in costing projects. For
example, the GDE estimate does not include cost for detectors at the
facility, construction escalation or inflation, contingency,
engineering design, or a number of other costs that DOE incorporates
into Total Project Cost. While the GDE Report is helpful in providing
the basic outlines of the scientific scope and initial design
parameters of the project, it does not provide sufficient information
on such key elements as proof of core technology to allow a reliable
cost estimate at this time.
Q1d. Will the Department take steps to record the history of the
failed SSC project and develop from that a ``Lessons Learned''
document?
A1d. There have been a number of ``lessons learned'' reports on the
Superconducting Super Collider (SSC) and other large-scale science
projects. The Office of Science is well aware of the lessons from the
SSC experience and has identified five areas that need very close
attention for any such new project. These five areas include:
establishing a fully international basis for the project from the
start; securing the broad support of the wider scientific community for
the project; establishing agreed upon practices for costing, including
how to handle issues like project changes and escalation; and
establishing clear and strong management structures with well defined
reporting lines. The fifth area is close attention to any larger
national or international events that might impact project costs or
alliances. These ``lessons learned'' will be carefully applied in
developing the global ILC R&D effort.
Q1e. What steps have been taken to educate Congress and the public on
the relevance of Elementary Particle Physics, and the ILC specifically?
A1e. The call for better public outreach on the goals of particle
physics in general and the ILC specifically has been clearly made by
Congress and others. The Department has funded a number of publications
in this area.
A notable contribution to informed public discussion is the 2006
National Research Council (NRC) report Revealing the Hidden Nature of
Space and Time: Charting the Course for Elementary Particle Physics
(also sometimes known as the ``EPP 2010 Report''). The report discusses
the reasons in layman's language for maintaining U.S. leadership in
elementary particle physics, explains the scientific opportunities
potentially represented by an ILC, and recommends U.S. investments in
R&D for the ILC.
In addition, several initiatives by the elementary particle physics
community have improved and expanded public communication over the past
few years.
Symmetry Magazine (http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/cms/) was
founded in 2004 and presents a broad, human account of the aspirations
and achievements of high energy physics.
The Quantum Universe report (http://www.interactions.org/
quantumuniverse/qu/) is an exciting and readable account of the
dramatic new questions facing the field. Its sequel, Discovering the
Quantum Universe (http://www.interactions.org/quantumuniverse/qu2006/),
lays out the exciting opportunities to be addressed by the ILC and the
ILC's relationship to the Large Hadron Collider soon to begin at CERN
in Switzerland. The ILC Reference Design Report recently issued by the
GDE includes a 30-page illustrated companion document, Gateway to the
Quantum Universe (http://media.linearcollider.org/
ilc-gatewayquantumuniverse-draft.pdf), that
explains the potential benefits of the ILC in non-technical language
and outlines the steps forward to achieve it.
In recognition of the need to explain the scientific basis for the
ILC to a wider public, the GDE has set up a network of communicators in
the U.S., Europe, and Asia. In addition to the Gateway document
referred to above, they publish a weekly ILC Newsline (http://
www.linearcollider.org/cms/) that features recent news, advances in the
accelerator R&D, and articles of general interest relating to project
organization and outreach activities.
Q1f. What steps have been taken in the development of the ILC plan to
include the private industries that will ultimately be contracted to
build and operate the ILC? Are you planning to develop an
industrialization plan?
A1f. Two years ago, a not-for-profit organization called the Linear
Collider Forum of America (LCFOA) was formed by representatives from
small and large U.S. companies. LCFOA provides a formal network for
committed members to reach out to their counterparts across U.S.
industry to educate them about the technologies being developed for the
ILC and the potential opportunities for new business. LCFOA holds two
to three meetings per year and has recently hosted a symposium and
reception in the House Science Committee room to provide information
and initiate a dialogue with Members of Congress and their staff.
LCFOA is planning a symposium in mid-May that will bring
representatives of industry, government, and the research community
together to help identify areas where the accelerator technology can
provide benefits that seed new industrial activity, research, and
commercial applications. This symposium is organized around five
themes: the use of linear accelerators for medicine and industry;
applications of the superconducting accelerating technology; high power
radio frequency sources; nanoscale instrumentation; and detector
technologies with new imaging applications. The LCFOA symposium is part
of a globally coordinated activity to develop partnerships between
industry and the research community.
Q1g. What steps have been or will be taken to assemble a team for a
U.S. bid to host the ILC?
A1g. The GDE Reference Design Report assessed the viability of sample
sites in the U.S. (near Fermilab), Japan, and Europe. These sites
varied in detail, but all were found to be viable and of comparable
cost to construct.
The Fermilab site builds upon the extensive infrastructure already
in place at the existing laboratory. Fermilab is taking the lead in
developing the expertise necessary to prepare a bid to host the ILC,
and has established a regional community committee to support the ILC
planning process and serve as a local outreach group to describe the
benefits and impacts an ILC could bring.
Q2a. The Office of Science funds some $800 million a year in grants.
But it has been said that only one of ten proposals for funding to DOE
Office of Science get funded. Do you believe this is the right
proportion? If not, where should that proportion be in the next five
years?
A2a. The Office of Science grant funding is about $600 million per year
primarily to colleges and universities. These grants are awarded
through open competitive solicitations for proposals. A rigorous
scientific peer review process is the standard practice for the Office
of Science in order to ensure the highest quality research is funded.
The standard for funding proposals should be the quality of the
proposal and not the proportion of proposals funded.
Thirty-two percent of the more than 1,600 new grant proposals
received during FY 2005 were funded. Approval rates for grant renewals
of funding for the second and third years of three-year grants and for
supplemental awards were significantly higher, at about 90 percent.
Combined, about half of the proposals received during FY 2005 were
funded. While funding decisions for about 20 percent of the more than
1,800 new grant proposals received during FY 2006 are still pending. I
anticipate that once all grant decisions are made, approval rates for
proposals received during FY 2006 will be similar to those in FY 2005.
I believe that this is a healthy, competitive percentage of proposals
funded.
Q2b. How do you balance new construction versus upgrading of existing
facilities and university grant funding?
A2b. To ensure that the most scientifically promising research and
enabling research tools are supported, each program in the Office of
Science engages in long-range planning and prioritization; regular,
external, independent review of the supported research and scientific
facilities to ensure quality and relevance; and evaluation of program
performance through establishment of and subsequent measurement against
goals and objectives.
These activities rely heavily on input from external sources;
including workshops and meetings of the scientific community, advice
from federally chartered advisory committees, intra-DOE and interagency
working groups, and reports from other groups such as the National
Academy of Sciences. The reports and advice received often include
recommendations on new scientific opportunities through research or new
instruments and on appropriate levels of funding to develop the plans,
priorities, and strategies for the program and to help maintain an
appropriate balance among competing program elements, from new
construction and upgrades of existing facilities to new research
initiatives and university grant funding.
Based on these inputs and other factors, including Department
mission need and Administration priorities, each program is responsible
for planning and prioritizing all aspects of supported research and
facilities and for conducting ongoing assessments to ensure a
comprehensive and balanced portfolio.
Questions submitted by Chairman Bart Gordon
Q1. The FY08 budget request proposes the development of three Bio-
Energy Research Centers through the Office of Science. Given the Office
of Science long-standing role supporting basic research and the
physical sciences, this could be considered a big leap into the realm
of applied energy technology development. The plan is to run these
centers like a ``biotech startup'' with substantial private investment.
Private investors have their own parameters for what they consider to
be a worthwhile investment that may or may not be compatible with what
the Department envisions for these programs. The Committee would also
like to ensure that the centers maintain activities distinct from one
another, and do not duplicate existing efforts.
Q1a. Why would private investors be compelled to put their ``skin in
the game''? What kind of return on investment can investors expect to
see and in what timeframe? Does this arrangement require negotiating
unique intellectual property contracts?
A1a. The three Bioenergy Research Centers will support comprehensive,
multi-disciplinary fundamental research that is expected to provide the
scientific foundation for development of cost-effective biofuels and
bioenergy production. The nature of the basic research to be supported
by these centers is believed to be high-risk to the private sector. Its
high potential pay-off, however, is expected to attract private
investors. The solicitation for proposals for the Centers was announced
in August 2006. Proposals were due February 1, 2007 and are currently
undergoing peer review. The specific nature of these private
investments and the timeframe for a return on investment is not
prescribed in the Funding Opportunity Announcement. The Centers will be
encouraged to explore collaborative opportunities with private
investors through the licensing of technology arising at the Centers
and through entering into a variety of partnering agreements according
to the contract provisions that will be included in the agreement for
the operation of the center.
Q1b. How would the research at these centers differ from what is
conducted at other labs and within industry? How will these centers be
distinct from one another?
A1b. These Centers are designed to fill a critical void in the Nation's
efforts to develop and deploy cost-effective, commercially viable
methods for producing cellulosic ethanol and other biofuels by focusing
on basic research. Unlike industry-sponsored research in this area,
which typically aims at incremental improvements to current
technologies, the Centers are aimed at fundamental breakthroughs. Many
experts in this field believe strongly that, absent transformational
breakthroughs in basic science, it will be extremely difficult, and
probably impossible, to develop a viable biofuels economy. Present-day
conversion methods are simply not efficient enough, and incremental
improvements will not meet the need. Experts largely agree that until
we can produce ethanol from cellulose, ethanol will not be cost-
effective. But, breaking down cellulose into sugars is a challenging
problem. At the same time, many scientists believe that the
biotechnology revolution and today's advanced systems biology at the
cutting edge hold out the promise of real solutions.
DOE can provide advanced scientific resources to address the
biofuels challenge which no other institution, research organization,
or funding agency, private or public, can match.
In the Funding Opportunity Announcement the Department did not
specify any particular technology focus for the Bioenergy Research
Centers. Rather, we deliberately requested applicants to provide their
best scientific roadmap. While we did put a certain emphasis on
cellulosic ethanol (and liquid transformation fuels generally), we
largely left the research focus open. We are looking to the best
scientific minds to identify the best approaches and we will not know
the specific focus and approach of each Center until we have selected
the three awardees.
Whatever the outcome of the solicitation, however, there are many
advantages to deploying multiple Centers. First, the existence of three
Centers will create competition in the race for real solutions to our
energy security needs-and experience has shown competition to be an
enormous incentive for scientific performance and research success.
Second, multiple Centers will enable us to make maximum use of the
talent available to address this problem and, third, will enable us to
explore multiple avenues to a solution at the same time, thereby
potentially hastening success. And, finally, even as the Centers
compete, they will also be able to learn from one another, especially
as we facilitate and review their management with an eye to maximizing
``best practices.''
Q1c. What are the long-term prospects for these labs after their
initial research goals are met, or deemed otherwise unattainable? Will
they cease to operate or continue indefinitely with DOE funding?
A1c. The FOA offers no DOE commitment beyond the initial five-year
period and requests that the research program described in the
application be limited to this period. Applicants were not allowed to
request construction funds and were instructed to plan for having the
Center fully operational within one year of the award being made, so
that completion of specific short-term objectives could be made during
the five years of the award.
Q1d. Please provide a breakdown of all the teams submitting proposals
for the Bioenergy Research Centers and, if possible, the current state
of bid selection.
A1d. Applications for the Bioenergy Research Centers are currently
undergoing scientific merit review. DOE does not release information on
ongoing financial assistance activities, not even the identities of
applicants. Once selections are made, expected in summer 2007, the
names of the selected applicants will be announced.
Q2a. Section 1102 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 mandates that the
Department set aside 0.3 percent of funds for research, development,
demonstration and commercial application for authorized educational
activities. It was intent of both the House and Senate that this Fund
be established and the funds in it be expended starting in FY 2006. We
are now well into FY 2007 and the Department has not dedicated funding,
has not been able to tell Congress what is spent on research,
development, demonstration, and commercial applications, or what is
spent on the allowable science education activities under Section 1102
and 983 of EPACT. Can we expect these activities to be underway in time
for teachers to receive training this summer under this program?
A2a. I appreciate your interest and support of the Department's
contribution to math and science education in the U.S. We intend to
reach the 0.3 percent funding level for authorized educational
activities, if in fact we are not already exceeding that amount. We are
currently in the process of determining the Department's total funding
for research, development, demonstration, and commercial applications
activities and also the total amount the Department spends on education
activities. We will provide those figures to you as soon as they are
available.
Q2b. If not, what is preventing this program from moving forward?
A2b. DOE is moving forward on the authorized activities contained in
Sections 1102 and 983 of the Energy Policy Act that have received
appropriated funding from Congress. We are in the process of
establishing a plan for the development of new programs that take
advantage of the Department's unique capabilities for science education
through experiential learning opportunities. Once we have an approved
plan in place for new and enhanced programs as well as peer reviewed
evaluation of those programs, the Administration will propose an
appropriate funding level and, if funded by Congress, programs like
those envisioned in the Energy Policy Act will move forward.
Questions submitted by Representative Ralph M. Hall
Q1. I understand you are trying to balance funding between facilities
and core research, can you please explain what you base your funding
decisions on and what your plan is for the out years?
A1. The Office of Science scientific user facilities and its core
research programs are inextricably linked. Without balanced investments
in both facilities and research, we would run the risk of limiting
scientific productivity, missing windows of opportunity to advance
areas of scientific research and innovation, and decreasing the Office
of Science's effectiveness in addressing DOE mission needs. Therefore,
our spending plan attempts to carefully balance priorities in
facilities and core research to promote a healthy and productive
program.
To help maintain appropriate balance among competing elements of
program, such as the balance of funding between facilities and core
research program, each program in the Office of Science engages in long
range planning and prioritization; regular external independent reviews
of the supported research to ensure quality and relevance; and
evaluation of program performance through establishment of and
subsequent measurement against goals and objectives. These activities
rely heavily on input from external sources, including workshops and
meetings of the scientific community, advice from the federally
chartered advisory committees, intra-DOE and interagency working
groups, and reports from other groups like the National Academy of
Sciences. The reports and advice provided often include recommendations
on appropriate levels of funding to develop research and facility
plans, priorities, and strategies.
Each Office of Science program considers these external inputs and
is responsible for planning and prioritizing all aspects of supported
research, conducting ongoing assessments to ensure a comprehensive and
balanced portfolio, supporting the core university and national
laboratory programs, and maintaining a strong facility infrastructure
to support its mission.
The Office of Science will continue to invest in its world-leading
user facilities, which serve as valuable research tools for U.S.
science and are critical to the effective accomplishment of our varied
and complex missions. About 50 percent of the users at our facilities
come from universities and are funded by the Office of Science or other
federal agencies. In the out years, with the growth proposed in the
American Competitiveness Initiative, I expect to make substantial
progress on many of the new facility and facility upgrade projects
outlined in ``Facilities for the Future of Science: A Twenty Year
Outlook,'' with the goals of maintaining at least an order-of-magnitude
lead in scientific capability over other facilities world-wide, and of
operating our suite of user facilities at or near optimum levels. At
the same time, I also plan to grow our core research funding steadily
at universities and national laboratories and to increase support for
existing and promising new research in areas important to DOE mission
needs and identified by advisory groups and workshops like the Basic
Research Needs workshops which the Office of Science has been
conducting for the past several years.
Q2. What is the status of ITER? How long does our funding commitment
last for, and when are we expecting to see results?
A2. The seven ITER Parties, including the United States, signed the
ITER Agreement on November 21, 2006. The Agreement provides the legal
framework for the ITER phases of construction, operation, deactivation,
and decommissioning. U.S. domestic and international ITER activities
are well underway to complete the ITER design and prepare for the start
of construction. The U.S. Contributions to ITER Project, which supports
the construction phase of ITER, has a nine-year funding profile with a
cap of $1.122 billion. It is a Major Item of Equipment project that was
first introduced in the FY 2006 Budget Request to Congress.
International ITER Project activities in FY 2007 and FY 2008 will
establish overall design and schedule baselines that may affect the
U.S. Contributions to ITER Project. DOE expects to establish the cost
and schedule performance baselines for the U.S. Contributions to ITER
Project in late FY 2008. The U.S. contributions consist of in-kind
equipment, personnel who will work in the international ITER
Organization, and cash for the ITER Organization central fund. The
preliminary schedule for the U.S. Contributions to ITER Project
concludes in FY 2014. Afterward, the ITER Organization is scheduled to
complete assembling and commissioning the ITER facility between 2014
and 2016. It is anticipated that research operations at ITER will begin
in about 2017 and extend over a 20-year period. Funding for
decommissioning would be furnished annually during the 20-year
operation period. Deactivation would commence around 2037. The funding
for deactivation would be furnished during a five-year period starting
when ITER is shutdown around 2037.
Q3. What do you see as the future of the elementary particle physics
program in the United States and future of domestic facilities?
A3. Overall, the U.S. will play a leadership role in the physics of the
Large Hadron Collider when it begins producing data in 2008 and in
world leading research programs in neutrino physics and dark matter as
well as a pivotal role in the development of next generation
accelerators through its strong program of technology R&D for future
accelerators. This research program will be carried out largely through
strong collaborations involving both U.S. universities and the DOE
national laboratories. Office of Science High Energy Physics user
facilities will be concentrated at Fermilab after the Stanford Linear
Accelerator Center (SLAC) B-factory completes operations in 2008.
The current plan is to continue running the Fermilab Tevatron
through the end of fiscal year 2009. This is based on input from the
Particle Physics Project Prioritization Panel (P5), a sub-panel of the
High Energy Physics Advisory Panel, in December 2005. The schedule for
turning on the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) continues to evolve, and new
results from the Tevatron are regularly being published. P5 will meet
this summer to consider whether their recommendation needs to be
revised on the basis of new information.
While the Tevatron collider program will be completed by the end of
the decade, other accelerator-based facilities at Fermilab will
continue. In particular, the accelerator-based neutrino program, which
employs Fermilab's powerful proton beam, will continue to be a world-
leading center investigating the science of the neutrino. The flagship
experiments in this program, MINOS and NOvA, are expected to run well
into the later part of the next decade.
As to the longer-term future, although we may eventually be able to
make a strong scientific case for the ILC, it is premature to make that
determination at this time. While there has been some progress through
initial international efforts, much work remains to be done before the
U.S. is in a position to make informed evaluations and decisions. Even
assuming a positive decision in the future to build an ILC, its
schedule and cost will almost certainly exceed the optimistic
projections. Completing the R&D and engineering design, negotiating an
international structure, selecting a site, obtaining firm financial
commitments, and building the machine could take us well into the mid-
2020s, if not later. Within this context, the Department has started to
re-engage the U.S. particle physics community in a discussion of the
future of particle physics by asking the question: were the ILC not to
turn on until the middle or end of the 2020s, what are the right
investment choices to ensure the vitality and continuity of the field
during the next two to three decades and to maximize the potential for
major discovery during this period?
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Dennis R. Spurgeon, Assistant Secretary for Nuclear
Energy, U.S. Department of Energy
Questions submitted by Chairman Bart Gordon and Subcommittee Chairman
Nick Lampson
Q1. The Department released the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership
(GNEP) Strategic Plan this year. However, neither this plan nor the DOE
Budget Request provides sufficient justification for the significant
increases in funding requested for GNEP. The plan calls for research
and development of advanced reprocessing technologies, commercial
deployment of evolutionary reprocessing technologies, and the
commercial deployment of a fast reactor. In two years, the Secretary is
to make a Record of Decision regarding the path forward to the
commercializing of reprocessing and recycling. This is a pretty short
period of time.
Q1a. How does the Department plan to spend a four fold increase in
funding for GNEP in one year?
A1a. The FY 2008 budget request for the Global Nuclear Energy
Partnership (GNEP) supports spending primarily in two areas: research
and development (R&D) involving experimentation and advanced
computation and simulation ($297 million) and, proposed facility
definition and conceptual design ($92M).
The R&D category includes funding for university programs
supporting GNEP ($48.5M), continued work to improve our knowledge and
confidence in advanced fuel cycle technology, including spent fuel
separations, transmutation fuel, systems analysis, advanced computer
simulation, and nuclear and materials science and engineering.
The facility funding covers laboratory-led conceptual design
activities for the Advanced Fuel Cycle Facility, a research facility to
be located at a DOE site; and industry-assisted studies on both a
consolidated fuel treatment center and an advanced burner reactor. The
remaining $6 million of the FY 2008 budget request from the Office of
Nuclear Energy for GNEP would go to support transmutation education and
other support activities.
Q1b. What is the balance in funding between the R&D activities and the
commercialization activities?
A1b. The Department plans to use $45M of the FY 2008 budget request for
industry to complete conceptual design studies of facilities suitable
for commercialization; to document cost, schedule, risk, and needed
technology; and to develop an economic analysis that shows how costs
would be shared between government and business. Of the $297 million
requested in FY 2008 for R&D funding, approximately $133M supports work
to address scale up and end-to-end testing in order to move from
laboratory to commercial scale. This includes funding to invest in both
physical and intellectual infrastructure needed to support initiatives
for closing the fuel cycle.
Q1c. In two years, industry can basically perform studies such as
environmental impacts for siting these facilities, designing these
facilities, and economic analysis for the facilities; how much are we
going to spend on studies?
A1c. The Department plans to support multiple industry studies with the
$45 million of FY 2008 funds, as outlined above. The ongoing siting
studies for potential locations for GNEP facilities will be completed
with FY 2007 funds.
Q1d. GNEP as proposed will spend billions of dollars to develop the
Advanced Burner Reactor. Do you envision that this reactor would be a
U.S. export product?
A1d. The advanced burner reactor is planned to be developed to destroy
transuranics from spent nuclear fuel and simultaneously produce
electricity. It is important to note that it is the Department's goal
that, through GNEP, that the majority of Advanced Burner Reactor costs
would be funded by industry (including development and construction).
The Advanced Burner Reactor could be produced as a U.S. export product
to other fuel cycle states.
Q1e. Could the Advanced Burner Reactor envisioned by GNEP ever be
converted to a breeder reactor?
A1e. The Advanced Burner Reactor is currently planned to be designed
and licensed to consume plutonium and other transuranic elements. As
such, it would not be built to breed plutonium. Changing the internal
configuration of such a reactor from a burner to a breeder
configuration would be difficult, although not impossible. Because GNEP
envisions using this technology only within fuel cycle states where
similar technology is already in place, proliferation concerns would be
minimal.
Q2. Some in the DOE have argued that in order to lead the debate on
how nuclear technologies are deployed worldwide, the U.S. needs to lead
in all aspects of the nuclear fuel cycle. This argument has some
merits, but the rate of deployment of nuclear technologies in the U.S.
and worldwide needs to be considered. While there is interest on the
part of the nuclear industry, not one of these utilities has actually
submitted a license application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Q2a. What gives the DOE such confidence that the nuclear industry is
going proceed with such a rapid deployment of nuclear power plants that
we need to start commercial reprocessing in the very near future, when
the industry itself has indicated that a good estimate of the rate of
deployment of nuclear power plants will not be known until 2020 at the
earliest?
A2a. Since the signing of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct), it is
our understanding that the NRC has received letters of intent from 15
companies stating that they plan to submit applications for combined
construction and operating licenses (COLs) for up to 33 reactors by
2008. The first COL is expected to be issued by late 2010 and a new
advanced light water reactor would be operational by the 2015-2016
timeframe. Based on the success of EPAct incentives in evoking these
letters of intent and the completion of the final design tasks through
the Nuclear Power 2010 projects, we believe that the power companies
will have the confidence they need to begin building the next
generation of new nuclear plants.
Q2b. What indication do you have that the U.S. nuclear industry is
committed to commercial reprocessing?
A2b. Several private sector nuclear industry respondents clearly stated
that they were interested in participating in the development of
domestic commercial reprocessing facilities in response to the
Department's August 2006 Request for Expression of Interest in GNEP
Facilities.
Q3. DOE seemingly concluded that fast reactors are the only reactor
type that can effectively burn nuclear waste. It is not clear that the
Department has thoroughly examined the capability of other technology
options such as the high temperature gas cooled reactors.
Q3a. Can you please be specific as to how much has been spent and any
documentation that has supported the examination of other waste burning
technologies such as high temperature gas cooled reactors?
A3a. A wide variety of fuel cycle strategies were investigated as part
of the Department's Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative (AFCl) and
predecessor programs with annual funding of roughly $5 million over the
time period of 2001-2006. Approximately $3 million in FY 2005 and $2
million in FY 2006 was devoted specifically to examining the gas cooled
reactor (GCR) deep burn concept.
Extensive studies were conducted of the waste management impacts of
alternative fuel cycle strategies. A key finding of these studies was
that the transuranic (TRU) elements (primarily Pu, Am, Np, and Cm)
present in light water reactor (LWR) spent nuclear fuel (SNF) are the
primary contributors to the waste characteristics that pose the
greatest disposal challenges (e.g., long-term heat load, peak
repository dose, and radio toxicity). Thus, a critical goal of the
Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) strategy is to exclude these
materials from the waste in its final form. In a closed fuel cycle, the
TRU are separated from the SNF and transmuted into fission products
with more amenable waste characteristics; this process is commonly
called `actinide burning'.
The Department has evaluated the burning potential of existing
LWRs, advanced LWRs, advanced fast reactors (FRs), accelerator-driven
systems, and the complete spectrum of Generation-IV reactor concepts
(including high temperature gas cooled reactors and fast reactor
alternatives). The key distinguishing feature for burning potential is
the neutron energy spectrum--thermal or fast.
Extensive studies of multiple recycles in thermal LWRs were
conducted in 2001-2005. The general conclusion was that LWRs could be
utilized for the initial recycle of plutonium, as currently employed in
France. However, each recycle of the TRU becomes progressively more
difficult and would be limited by fuel handling issues. A modest heat
load/radio toxicity benefit was observed for a variety of LWR recycle
strategies, however, a complementary fast spectrum system would still
be required to complete the burning mission and yield more significant
benefits.
In summary, the burning potential of various reactor systems,
including high temperature GCRs, has been evaluated. Thermal recycle
systems could achieve partial burning of recycle TRU, but would require
a follow-up fast reactor to complete the burning mission. GNEP
continues to investigate these mixed (thermal/fast) technology options
as alternate deployment strategies, with concurrent development of a
sodium-cooled fast reactor technology as the baseline approach.
Q3b. Which labs have been involved in this work?
A3b. The U.S. laboratories performing the advanced fuel cycle analyses
include Argonne National Laboratory, Brookhaven National Laboratory,
Idaho National Laboratory, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Los
Alamos National Laboratory, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, and Sandia
National Laboratory.
The LWR recycle analysis was conducted in collaboration with the
French CEA Laboratory to assure that the most recent international
experience with LWR recycle fuels and mixed oxide experience was
reflected.
The high temperature gas-cooled thermal reactor fuel cycle analysis
was conducted by Argonne National Laboratory and Brookhaven National
Laboratory in close collaboration with General Atomics. The Oak Ridge
National Laboratory and the Idaho National Laboratory have also been
involved in the fuels work for this reactor type.
Q3c. Should more be spent on further work in this regard?
A3c. The FY 2008 budget request for GNEP supports continued
investigation of mixed (thermal/fast) technology options as alternative
deployment strategies. The extensive LWR recycle studies previously
conducted were motivated by the fact that LWRs will continue to
dominate the U.S. nuclear fleet for the next several decades. Using
LWRs for a partial burning mission would require the development and
demonstration of recycle fuels. Furthermore, some modifications to
conventional LWRs would be required to allow widespread application of
recycle fuels. If high temperature gas-cooled reactors are deployed
extensively for either process heat applications or electricity
production, their suitability for a partial burning mission would also
be considered.
Q4. For reasons of balance of trade and U.S. influence on the non-
proliferation front, it is important for there to be a healthy U.S.
owned nuclear industry. As does DOD, DOE should consider the health of
the U.S. owned nuclear industry when making procurement decisions.
There is growing concern about DOE issuing nuclear research and
development contracts to foreign owned or based nuclear companies that
in turn receive research and development contracts from their own
respective governments.
Q4a. Is reciprocal treatment afforded to U.S. companies?
A4a. Speaking only for the Office of Nuclear Energy (NE), the
overwhelming majority of DOE's Nuclear Energy Research and Development
(R&D) funding goes to American laboratories and universities. They are
free to sub-contract work with foreign entities. NE seeks to ensure
that research dollars find their way to the people and facilities that
can best do the work at the lowest cost. This tends to favor domestic
R&D except in cases where suitable facilities do not exist, such as
fast reactor test programs, or where a specific expertise or facility
lies outside the United States. A special situation exists in the
Generation IV program, where U.S. R&D is augmented by research funded
by other countries, with all participating countries sharing the
results of the research.
Developing recycling facility concepts and designs requires
expertise and practical experience that is in very short supply in the
United States, as we have not designed or operated such facilities on a
commercial scale in decades. In this case, DOE may rely in part upon
foreign-owned companies that are typically subsidized by their
governments. Domestic companies may participate in this work and in so
doing develop more domestic capability.
Q4b. What is your assessment of the current state of the U.S. owned
nuclear industry?
A4b. With the lack of nuclear plant orders in the United States since
1978, there has been a consolidation in the nuclear industry, and many
nuclear plant component manufacturers, suppliers, and construction
companies are no longer in that business.
Although the Nuclear Steam Supply System vendors, Westinghouse and
General Electric, have continued selling reactors overseas and
servicing the currently operating reactors worldwide, many U.S.
companies have not been similarly engaged and have not maintained their
American Society of Mechanical Engineers N-stamps (quality assurance
programs) which are needed for manufacturing nuclear plant components.
A large number of nuclear plant components will have to be procured
overseas. The prime example of this situation is that U.S. companies no
longer have the domestic capability to make the large ring forgings
needed for major nuclear components such as reactor pressure vessels.
In fact, there is only one company worldwide that can produce these
forgings, The Japan Steel Works.
With announcements by 15 power companies of their intentions to
submit applications to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for combined
Construction and Operating Licenses for as many as 33 new nuclear
reactors, U.S. manufacturers are getting ready to reacquire, or acquire
for the first time, their N-stamps, but it will take some time before
the number of domestic companies holding N-stamp certification, in the
low one-hundreds today, is as high as when our current nuclear plants
were being built, just below 500.
As the market for new reactor orders solidifies and these companies
retool, many of the components of nuclear power plants are expected to
be built in the United States. Until such manufacturing capacity is
expanded domestically, however, components for some of the new U.S.
reactor plants, especially large pressure vessels, steam generators,
and pumps, will have to be built overseas.
Q4c. Does NE have any policy of giving U.S. owned companies any
preference in competition over R&D contracts?
A4c. Much of DOE's research portfolio is aimed at support or
stimulation of a public interest, as opposed to buying R&D for the
direct benefit of DOE, and thus is issued as a financial assistance
instrument and not as a procurement contract. This differentiates DOE
somewhat from DOD, which does R&D for the creation of weapons systems
and the like through procurement contracts. More commonly, DOE issues
contracts for the management and operation of National Laboratories
that conduct research, or DOE issues financial assistance instruments.
DOE's National Laboratories are, of course, based in the U.S. and
conduct virtually all of their operations in the U.S. We discuss the
statutory policies applicable to financial assistance instruments in
the next section.
Q4d. Are there particular laws, regulations or policies that prevent
DOE from giving preferential treatment to U.S. owned nuclear firms in
procurements?
A4d. There are no laws, regulations, or policies that explicitly
prohibit DOE from giving preferential treatment to U.S. firms in
procurements for nuclear research and development contracts. However,
the Competition in Contracting Act of 1984 generally requires that
agencies procure goods and services using full and open competition,
and restrictions must be justified as necessary to meet the agency's
needs or as falling within the Act's stated exceptions. With regard to
nuclear energy, the Energy Research, Development, Demonstration, and
Commercial Application Act of 2005 (Title IX of the Energy Policy Act
of 2005) contains two provisions that requires DOE, at the very least,
to consider foreign participation:
Section 952(c) of the Act mandates that DOE shall
carry out a Nuclear Power 2010 Program. Specifically, Section
952(c)(2)(C) further states that the administration of the
program shall include ``participation of international
collaborators in research, development, and design efforts, as
appropriate.''
Section 953 of the Act, Advanced Fuel Cycle
Initiative, mandates the conduct of a program to evaluate
proliferation-resistant fuel recycling and transmutation
technologies. Section 953(c) specifically provides: ``In
carrying out the program, the Secretary is encouraged to seek
opportunities to enhance the progress of the program through
international cooperation.''
Notably, Section 2306 of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPAct 92),
and its implementing regulations at 10 C.F.R. 600.500 et seq., required
an affirmative finding that a financial assistance award is in the
economic interest of the United States, and a further finding that the
foreign country under whose laws the foreign firm is organized affords
U.S. firms comparable participation and investment opportunities and
provides adequate protection of U.S. intellectual property rights.
However, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 05) does not contain any
similar provision, nor does it prescribe any blanket preference for
U.S. firms for research and development programs. Current DOE programs
derive most, if not all, of their direction from EPAct 05. Hence, the
requirements of Section 2306 of EPAct 92 and its implementing
regulations are largely inapplicable to ongoing programs.
In addition, when we issue a research and development financial
assistance or procurement award, the Bayh-Dole Act 35 U.S.C. 200 et
seq. requires that small businesses, university, and non-profit
awardees retain ownership of new inventions subject to a preference in
any exclusive licensing of companies who agree to substantially
manufacture in the United States. For awardees not subject to the Bayh-
Dole Act, DOE owns all new inventions unless a waiver is granted. In
negotiating patent waivers, we seek to have provisions that maximize
benefit to the U.S. economy such as by seeking U.S. manufacture of any
commercial exploitation of the new inventions.
Q5. The relationship between the Next Generation Nuclear Plant (NGNP)
and GNEP is not clear, making it difficult to discern a comprehensive
nuclear policy from the department.
a. Please outline the relationship between the NGNP project
and GNEP?
b. Of these which is an industry priority?
c. Are you confident that U.S. companies will be willing to
assume the cost-share of NGNP?
A5. One of the key objectives of the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership
(GNEP) is to make nuclear power an attractive alternative to fossil
fuels for developing countries around the world. Because the power
generation requirements are limited for these countries, they will
likely need smaller reactors. A Very High Temperature Reactor (VHTR),
such as the one being developed under the Next Generation Nuclear Plant
(NGNP), is a small modular reactor design that could be very well
suited to meet the objectives of GNEP for global deployment of nuclear
power to developing countries.
In the meantime, a continuing priority of the Department is the
Nuclear Power 2010 program which seeks to bring new nuclear reactors
online in the very near term. Domestically, NGNP is not currently
considered a competitive base load electrical power generation
technology. Therefore, continued research and development is needed
before it is of greater interest to the nuclear power industry. The
petro-chemical industry and other energy and product manufacturing
industries are the most likely to be interested in NGNP as a heat
source for energy intensive processes. At this time, these industries,
while expressing interest, have not expressed a willingness to invest
equally with the government in the licensing and deployment of NGNP.
They are interested in the government's pursuit of this technology with
possibly a small percentage cost share. The Department remains
committed to the timeframe laid out in the Energy Policy Act of 2005
for development of the NGNP and is seeking to increase industry
cooperation.
Questions submitted by Representative Ralph M. Hall
Q1. You point out that 45-50 1,000 megawatt nuclear reactors must be
built over the next 25 years to maintain nuclear's 20 percent share of
electricity generation.
Q1a. Will our current fleet last this long?
A1a. Most of the existing 103 U.S. nuclear plants are expected to
continue operating for the next 25 years. As of today, forty-eight of
these nuclear reactors have received license renewals for an additional
twenty years of operation with another eight currently under review by
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).
Should the entire fleet of currently operating nuclear plants
receive only a single twenty-year license renewal, the first retirement
would be expected in 2029. By 2032, 12 reactors totaling 8,000
megawatts of capacity will have been retired leaving in place 92 of the
original 104 reactors with 94,000 megawatts of capacity. The rate of
reactor retirements then accelerate in subsequent years with half of
the current nuclear fleet retired by 2040 and only a handful of nuclear
plants operating in 2050.
Q1b. Will we have to build 45-50 new plants and, in addition, replace
our current 103?
A1b. The ``45-50'' gigawatts (GW) range does not include additional new
plants needed to replace retiring nuclear plants. The 45-50 new plants
address the increase in electricity demand over the next 25 years
(through 2032). Additional new plants will be needed to replace the
current operating plants when they are retired in order to maintain
nuclear's share of electricity generation.
Q2. Is the Nuclear Power 2010 program on-schedule? Between this
program and EPACT, are they sufficient to bring on-line the necessary
nuclear generation we need?
A2. The Nuclear Power 2010 program is on schedule. This program and the
incentives from the Energy Policy Act of 2005 will help offset the
technical and financial risks facing the ``first movers'' in building
new nuclear power plants, and offer a significant catalyst to get power
companies to build new nuclear capacity. Over a dozen power companies
have announced their intentions to apply for combined Construction and
Operating Licenses (COLs) for over 30 nuclear units. The reactor
designs chosen, all being greater than 1,000 megawatts, represent as
much as 46 gigawatts of new capacity.
While it remains uncertain how many new nuclear plants will be
built, as new nuclear plants are successfully placed into service on
schedule and within projected budgets, we can expect more orders to
follow. However, these new orders are always contingent on market
conditions including factors such as the rate of growth in electricity
demand, fossil fuels costs, manufacturing and construction
infrastructure capability, and relevant environmental regulations.
Bringing 50-60 reactors on line before 2032 would dictate a pace of
as many as five per year over a 10-15 year period. Such a pace could be
challenging, especially if there is a delay in follow-on orders, as
utilities await successful start-up of the first few reactors and
expansion of the United States manufacturing and construction
infrastructure.
Q3. One of the goals of the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative is to
provide for proliferation-resistant technologies to recover the energy
content in spent nuclear fuel.
Q3a. Is this program creating this technology or does it already exist
and this program is expanding on it?
A3a. The basis for a proliferation-resistant fuel cycle are the
separations processes for light water reactor spent nuclear fuel that
do not isolate pure plutonium; fabrication of fuels and targets from
the separated actinides for fast reactor transmutation; and recycle of
spent fast reactor fuel, again without separating pure plutonium.
The technologies described above for a proliferation-resistant fuel
cycle have been demonstrated only in small-scale tests conducted at the
national laboratories, but the results are encouraging. AFCI is not
limiting the technology to domestic use; if applied world-wide,
international proliferation risks would be greatly reduced.
Q3b. Is the 80 percent reduction in the volume of waste an accurate
estimate?
A3b. The 80 percent reduction in waste volume resulting from
application of the advanced fuel cycle technologies under development
in AFCI/GNEP is a reasonable estimate based on current knowledge and
experience, as well as numerous assumptions regarding the nature of the
wastes and the waste management processes used.
Q3c. Would this waste require the same conditions for burial at Yucca
as the waste that is currently slotted to go there?
A3c. Assuming deployment of GNEP technologies and facilities as
currently envisioned, it is expected that the volume, heat load and
radio-toxicity of waste to be disposed in a geologic repository will be
reduced. The conditions for disposal of this waste have not yet been
analyzed in detail, although it is possible the waste packages could be
smaller and, because of reduced heat content, more densely
concentrated.
Question submitted by Representative Daniel Lipinski
Q1. Argonne National Laboratory in Illinois receives a significant
portion of the funds for GNEP. Can you elaborate on the Department's
plan to utilize the research at Argonne Lab to support GNEP as it moves
forward?
A1. From its earliest beginning with the first nuclear pile at Stagg
Field at the University of Chicago in 1942, the history of the U.S.
civilian nuclear power program has been supported and driven by the
technical expertise at the Argonne National Laboratory (ANL) and its
associated facilities. The ANL expertise has been involved in virtually
all U.S. reactor concepts built, or envisioned, up to this time. In
particular, ANL is currently supporting the Global Nuclear Energy
Partnership's (GNEP) advanced spent fuel reprocessing and reactor
design projects. ANL currently receives about ten percent of the GNEP
funds in FY 2007 to support these important areas. In addition, ANL is
home to the Advance Fuel Cycle Initiatives' national technical director
for separations and the campaign manager for advanced waste forms and
waste management. ANL's participation and contribution to the GNEP
effort is planned to evolve as the GNEP program is implemented.
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Alexander Karsner, Assistant Secretary for Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, U.S. Department of Energy
Questions submitted by Subcommittee Chairman Nick Lampson
Q1. Administration support for renewable electricity technologies,
such as solar PV and wind, is much appreciated as concerns about
foreign energy dependence and climate change continue to increase.
However, there is concern that the administration seems to be picking
winners, rather than providing broad-based support across the entire
spectrum of renewables technologies.
Section 931 of EPACT 2005 specifically directs DOE to conduct a
program of research, development, demonstration, and commercial
application for geothermal energy.
Why don't the Department's FY07 and FY08 budget requests reflect
the directions given in EPAct for geothermal energy?
A1. Since the 1970s, the Department of Energy has conducted a research
and development program in geothermal technology valued in excess of
$1.3 billion. That investment has helped to produce the strong market
for geothermal energy we see today. Projects under construction, or
which have both Power Purchase Agreements and are undergoing production
drilling, amount to 489 megawatts in eight western states. Also, the
industry now benefits from provisions in EPACT providing tax credits
and a streamlined leasing process.
Q2. The Department's 2003 Strategic plan included geothermal energy
research as part of its efforts to ``improve energy security by
developing technologies that foster a diverse supply of reliable,
affordable, and environmentally sound energy. . .'' Geothermal power
was part of DOE's ``long-term vision of a zero-emission future in which
the nation does not rely on imported energy.'' But more recently, the
Department of Energy seems to not agree with this assessment.
Q2a. What has happened in the past three years to apparently change
the Department's views of the geothermal resource base and its
potential?
A2a. In recent years, the Department's Geothermal Program has achieved
key research objectives for conventional hydrothermal technology
development. Geothermal power production from high-temperature, shallow
resources is now a relatively mature energy technology. Projects under
construction, or which have both Power Purchase Agreements and are
undergoing production drilling, amount to 489 megawatts (mw) in eight
western states. Additionally, the Western Governors Association
geothermal task force recently identified over 100 sites with an
estimated 13,000 MW of near-term power development potential.
Q2b. The Department indicated in 2003 that there were many
technological challenges to achieving production from the vast
geothermal resource base. Does the Department now consider these
challenges are solved [sic], have new information that indicates its
prior assessments of geothermal resources are incorrect [sic], or has
the Department concluded that federal efforts and technology
development cannot overcome them?
A2b. Our geothermal program has achieved its key research objectives
for conventional hydrothermal technology, and has provided substantial
incentives that support the near-term development of the technology and
deployment of the large geothermal resource base.
The Department believes that recent substantial incentives, many
authorized by the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT), will do more to
support development of the conventional hydrothermal resources than
technology development efforts. For example, geothermal now has both an
investment tax credit and a production tax credit that will improve the
technology's competitive position. (Qualifying facilities can claim one
or the other, but not both.) EPACT also contains provisions that
streamline and accelerate the geothermal leasing process.
Q3. The recent MIT report, ``The Future of Geothermal Energy'' has
generated significant interest in the potential for Enhanced Geothermal
Systems. During the DOE budget hearing on March 7, 2007, you mentioned
that DOE had not had the benefit of the MIT report in formulating the
FY08 budget request.
Q3a. Having now had the opportunity to review the MIT report, does it
in any way change DOE's assessment of the potential benefits to be
gained from geothermal R&D?
A3a. The MIT report, titled, ``The Future of Geothermal Energy,''
specifically points to the potential benefits of Enhanced Geothermal
Systems (EGS) as a long-term energy option for the Nation and it is a
significant and important academic contribution. On June 7&8, EERE
conducted a workshop with industry, also entitled ``The Future of
Geothermal Energy,'' to consider the findings of the report and hear
from stakeholders on research & development trends in the industry.
Q3b. How does DOE view the potential of geothermal resources,
especially EGS resources now? Does DOE believe EGS merits the R&D
funding support recommended by the MIT report?
A3b. The Department is using some of the FY 2007 geothermal funding to
conduct a technology assessment of EGS to help industry prioritize its
technology needs.
Q4. Congress recognized the need for R&D and deployment of new
advanced hydropower technologies, when in Section 931 of EPAct 2005, it
directed [sic] Secretary to conduct a program of research, development,
demonstration and commercial application for Advanced hydropower
technologies to enhance environmental performance and yield greater
energy efficiencies.
Q4a. Why don't the Department's FY07 and FY08 budget requests reflect
the directions given in EPAct for hydropower?
A4a. The hydropower industry has demonstrated the ability to achieve
efficiency optimization, and fish survivability performance targets
without further DOE direct investment. In the fiscal year 2006
Appropriations Conference Report, the conferees recommended $495,000
for hydropower research and directed the Department to ``complete
integration studies and close out outstanding contracts in advanced
hydropower technology.''
Q4b. At a time when the U.S. is looking to maximize all of its
renewable resources because of the growing effect of climate change,
why has the Department terminated the hydropower R&D program?
A4b. The Department terminated its hydropower program in fiscal year
2005, consistent with congressional direction over the previous years.
The Department completed an assessment of undeveloped U.S. hydropower
resources, the technologies needed to develop the resources, and the
feasibility of developing the resources, and determined that the
Department had contributed the necessary tools to industry to pursue
development of these hydropower resources.
Q5. Preliminary assessments indicated that the ocean off U.S.
coastlines represents a vast potential source of clean, renewable
energy.
Q5a. Historically, what R&D activities, if any, has DOE conducted in
the area of ocean power (including wave, tidal, current, and ocean
thermal technologies)?
A5a. The Department had a program that ended in 1994, that evaluated
Ocean Thermal Energy which did not indicate commercial viability. DOE
is currently supporting a small project on wave energy technology R&D
with one company and has previously supported projects for ocean
current and tidal technologies via the Small Business Innovation
Research Program.
Q5b. Given the early developmental stage of many of the technologies
to tap the ocean as an energy resource, why has DOE declined to request
RD&D funding to advance these technologies?
A5b. The Department is monitoring domestic and worldwide progress in
ocean energy technologies in collaboration with the Electric Power
Research Institute and the International Energy Agency. Some countries
with higher resource potential than the United States, relative to
their overall energy needs, are active in ocean energy R&D. Ocean wave
and current technologies are still in their infancy stage, with a small
number of demonstration systems operating worldwide. The Department
will continue to consider emerging technologies like ocean energy in
evaluating its R&D programs based on assessment of national potential
of these energy resources, results of R&D, expected technology
progress, and the potential benefit from competing investments.
Questions submitted by Chairman Bart Gordon
Q1. There is enormous potential in deploying energy efficient
technologies throughout industry, low-income households and the Federal
Government itself. Yet programs designed to do exactly that (i.e.,
Federal Energy Management Program, Weatherization programs, Industrial
Technologies) are being cut back.
Why is there an apparent lack of recognition by DOE of the need
for greater emphasis on improving energy efficiency?
A1. The Department considers energy efficiency as a critical component
of our balanced portfolio. The Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy (EERE) programs related to energy efficiency comprise
approximately 46 percent of the total EERE proposed FY 2008 budget
(including program direction and support funds).
The Department is pursuing multiple programs to improve energy
efficiency. Our Federal Energy Management Program is actively promoting
the use of Energy Savings Performance Contracting (ESPC) across all
federal agencies--awards have increased from $36 million in 2004, to
$124 million in 2005, to a record $321 million in 2006. The Department
provides education and outreach on nation-wide utility incentive
policies; best practices on demand-side management programs; and is
integrating energy efficiency into utility, State, and regional
resource planning activities. To assist market adoption of efficiency
measures, our Industrial program is pursuing a number of voluntary
energy savings programs. Our ``Save Energy Now'' program sends energy
experts to the nation's most energy-intensive manufacturing facilities
to conduct assessments on how these businesses can save energy.
The Department is providing funding, tools, and technical
assistance to support voluntary energy savings programs on the local
level through efforts such as Rebuild America and the State Energy
Program. Through these programs, many states retrofit and update
existing local government buildings, offices, and schools and also
inform the public about the importance of energy conservation. In
addition, our Building Technologies Program is implementing an
integrated and aggressive plan to achieve cost-neutral Zero Energy
Homes by 2020, and commercial buildings by 2025. In addition, the
Department helps accelerate the adoption of efficient building
technologies and products in the market through the EnergyStar rating
system.
Q2. The Department's abysmal record on promulgating appliance
efficiency standards is now well known by Congress, consumers,
industry, and even appliance manufacturers. It has come to the
Committee's attention that even those standards that DOE has
promulgated thus far are considered even by some industry
representatives to be ineffective in saving energy and reducing
consumer's electricity costs. Though the exact reasons for the delays
and the promulgation of weak standards are not at all clear, the
Committee appreciates that some attention is now being paid toward
rectifying the situation at the Department.
Q2a. Please list all appliances for which DOE is required to
promulgate standards.
A2a. Statutory requirements to promulgate standards cover the following
categories of appliances. Note that some of the appliance rule-makings
may be bundled together for efficiency, so the number of final rule-
makings may be lower. The Department is on schedule to complete 23 of
the standards by June 2011 and one additional by 2015 (automatic ice
makers).
Determinations are underway in the following categories:
Battery Chargers and External Power Supplies
(Determination Analysis)
High Intensity Discharge Lamps (Determination
Analysis)
Q2b. To date, how many standards have been promulgated since the
Administration took office in January 2001?
A2b. No efficiency standards final rules have been promulgated since
2001. In the 18 years prior to the January 31, 2006 report to Congress,
the Department issued 12 standards for products other than those
directed in statute. Congress has set standards in legislation as
recently as the EPACT05 standards for 15 additional products.
Q2c. Of those standards that have been set or proposed by DOE, please
specify when the standards take effect, how the new standards improve
on existing standards, and the projections for energy and cost savings.
A2c. The proposed rule for Distribution Transformers was issued on
August 4, 2006. The proposed standards would take effect in 2010,
approximately three years after the planned issuance of the final rule.
The Department's proposed level for liquid-immersed and medium dry
voltage distribution transformers would save 2.4 Quads of cumulative
energy over 29 years (2010-2038). In addition, the cumulative national
net present value of total consumer costs and savings from 2010-2038
ranges from $2.52 billion to $9.43 billion, depending on discount
rates. The proposed rule would improve on existing standards for
transformers.
The proposed rule for Residential Furnaces and Boilers was issued
on October 6, 2006 with a standard effective date of 2015.
The Department's proposed standard level for residential furnaces
and boilers would save 0.41 Quads of cumulative energy over 24 years
(2015-2038). In addition, the cumulative national net present value of
total consumer costs and savings from 2015-2038 ranges from $650
million to $2.48 billion. The proposed rule also provided an initial
roadmap for states to petition the Department for exemption from
preemption of the federal standards. The Department recognizes the
potential for additional energy savings that may be achieved under
appropriately exempted state standards.
Q2d. Please provide the same data for alternate proposals that were
rejected by DOE.
A2d. First to be clear, the Department has not yet issued a final rule
for furnaces and boilers or distribution transformers. We are still in
the process of analyzing the proposed rules in light of comments
received. In the notices of proposed rule-making, the Department
considered several factors for economic justification, including safety
and regional financial impacts. The highest standard level for
Distribution Transformers evaluated is estimated to save 9.8 quads of
energy but is estimated to impose a net cost on consumers of $9.4
billion to $14.1 billion (2004$) in present value terms at three
percent and seven percent discount rates, respectively. The lowest
standard level considered is estimated to save 1.8 quads and would save
consumers between $2.2 billion and $7.4 billion (2004$) in present
value terms at three percent and seven percent discount rates,
respectively.
Q2e. Please provide details on the perceived limit in statutory
authority to develop stricter standards that would ultimately save
consumers billions?
A2e. The Energy Policy and Conservation Act directs the Department to
establish and amend energy conservation standards such that they
achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is
technologically feasible and economically justified. Generally, to
determine whether a standard is economically justified, Congress
directs that the Department determine that the benefits of any proposed
standard exceed its burdens to the greatest extent practicable. Under
the statute, the Department cannot propose stricter standards if in so
doing burdens exceed consumer benefits.
Q2f. What is the process for setting these standards, which federal
agencies or entities are involved in this process, and who makes the
final decision on setting a standard?
A2f. As prescribed by the Energy Policy Conservation Act (EPCA), energy
efficiency standards generally are established by a three-phase public
process: advance notice of proposed rule-making (ANOPR), notice of
proposed rule-making (NOPR), and final rule. DOE seeks public comment
during both the ANOPR and NOPR phases of the rule-making process. The
last step in the rule-making process is the publication of a final rule
in the Federal Register. The final rule promulgates standard levels
based on all of the analyses and explains the basis for the selection
of those standards. It is accompanied by the final Technical Support
Document.
In each rule-making, DOE must comply with all applicable laws,
regulations, and executive orders. In addition to the statutory
criteria that must be considered in these rule-makings, the Department
also analyzes and responds to public comment. Additionally, the
Department conducts reviews for the following 13 requirements:
1. Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and
Review''
2. Regulatory Flexibility Act
3. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
4. National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
5. E.O. 13132, ``Federalism''
6. E.O. 12988, ``Civil Justice Reform''
7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
8. Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act of 1999
9. E.O. 12630, ``Governmental Actions and Interference with
Constitutionally Protected Property Rights''
10. Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001
11. E.O. 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use''
12. Section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration Act of
1974
13. Congressional Notification
The Secretary of Energy makes the final decisions regarding all the
Department's rule-makings.
Questions submitted by Representative Ralph M. Hall
Q1. You talk about the technical feasibility for wind energy to
generate 20 percent of our nation's electricity and to produce more
than 300 gigawatts of production capacity to our urban load centers.
Q1a. What is the time-frame for this goal?
A1a. The time-frame for achievement of twenty percent production by
wind will be determined by the private sector in response to market
signals.
Q1b. I have noticed that the President's budget did not include an
extension of the production tax credit. Do you see this as an
impediment to reaching 20 percent and 300 gigawatts?
A1b. Reaching the technical feasibility point of twenty percent
generation by wind will ultimately be determined by the private sector
in response to market forces. The Department works collaboratively with
the Department of Treasury (which has jurisdiction on these issues) on
tax policy issues.
Q2. In the FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership, you say the technologies
that result from it could lead to substantial oil savings if adopted by
industry participants. Is there a plan in place to encourage adoption?
A2. The Partnership focuses on the high-risk research needed to develop
the necessary technologies, which helps reduce costs and address
barriers. However, commercialization is ultimately industry's decision.
In addition, the program's university-oriented activities create
graduate education opportunities working with new technologies and
encourage undergraduate engineering students to gain experience with
hybrid systems technology and advanced combustion engines. This
training and experience can help ensure the work force has the
necessary expertise to help industry such technologies to industry.
Q3. You mention in your testimony that R&D on combustion engine
efficiency will allow ``a car that previously got the CAFE average of
27 miles per gallon on gasoline could potentially get 37 miles per
gallon with an advanced, clean diesel.''
Q3a. Please explain what you mean by this.
A3a. Advanced diesel engines can provide a 25-40 percent improvement in
fuel economy relative to the average conventional gasoline engine of
today, based on the vehicle type and application. As part of a DOE
diesel engine development project for a light truck/SUV application, a
fuel economy improvement of over 45 percent was demonstrated.
Hybridization of gasoline passenger vehicles potentially show similar
range increases in efficiency improvements. The mile per gallon figure
stated above is an estimate and will vary depending on vehicle type and
duty cycle.
Q3b. Is R&D being conducted on gasoline engines?
A3b. Yes, R&D is being conducted on gasoline engines with the goal of
improving their efficiency by 10 to 20 percent. Such R&D focuses on
improving the combustion process for higher efficiency, developing
catalysts to reduce emissions from lean-burn gasoline engines for
passenger vehicle application, and enabling more efficient use of
ethanol.
Q4a. What biomass conversion technologies are available today for the
production of cellulosic ethanol?
A4a. The conversion technologies that are available today can be
categorized into two major types of processes, which each involve
several types of feedstocks:
1. Biochemical conversion processes combine chemical
pretreatments, enzymatic hydrolysis and fermentation to convert
sugar from cellulosic feedstocks into ethanol.
2. Thermochemical conversion processes aim to first convert
the cellulosic feedstocks into synthesis gas or oil, and then
convert these intermediate products into ethanol either through
fermentation or a catalytic reaction.
Q4b. How long will it take for these conversion technologies to become
cost effective for mass production?
A4b. The Department's research and development aims to make both
biochemical and thermochemical technologies cost competitive by 2012.
Q4c. How are we going to move from 10-percent scale demonstrations to
full-scale deployment by 2012?
A4c. The Program's RD&D reduces the overall cost and risk to the
biomass industry, and improves the likelihood of obtaining financing
for full-scale commercial facilities. Overall knowledge gained from the
10 percent scale solicitation and the commercial scale Section 932
projects, enzyme and ethanologen development R&D, and the program's
other RD&D is aimed at accelerating the ability of the biomass industry
to design cost-competitive cellulosic ethanol plants to meet the
President's AEI 2012 goal.
Q4d. How will this be achieved while fulfilling the goal of making
these cellulosic based biofuels widely available to the public at
reasonable cost to all Americans?
A4d. We believe that the combination of the accelerated DOE Biofuels
RD&D programs, the President's legislative proposals to implement the
proposed Alternative Fuel Standard (AFS) and the increasing cooperation
with USDA, DOT and other key federal agencies to facilitate ethanol
deployment--are part of a coherent approach needed to bring the costs
in line with competing fuels. Then the market will bring the benefits
of cellulosic ethanol based fuels to the public on a large scale within
the next decade.
Q5. We've heard the President speak of switchgrass, corn stover, and
wheat straw as feedstocks for cellulosic ethanol. Is enzyme research
the Department is undertaking going to be applicable across the
spectrum of feedstocks?
A5. Yes. The enzyme research supported by EERE's Biomass Program and
the Department's Office of Science target a diverse range of feedstocks
including switchgrass, corn stover, wheat straw, as well as wood chips.
In recent years, the Biomass Program's research focused on using a
combination of pretreatment and enzymes with corn stover as a model
agricultural residue. This work is now beginning to focus on
switchgrass as a model energy crop. One of the Program's main R&D
objectives is to develop more efficient enzymes for lignocellulosic
feedstocks (e.g., woodchips) and make them a part of an integrated
process that minimizes ethanol costs. To this end, some of the Energy
Policy Act, Section 932 selectees will work with leading enzyme
companies to create tailored enzyme preparations for their feedstocks
of interest. Additionally, a new solicitation with the objective of
increasing enzyme efficiency is in the planning stages at DOE. It is
envisioned that the projects awarded from this solicitation will result
in enzyme systems that are cost effective for a variety of feedstocks.
Questions submitted by Representative Daniel Lipinski
Q1. The FY08 budget request calls for an increase of 38.8 percent over
FY06 levels for hydrogen technology R&D. How does the Department intend
to spend these funds?
A1. The Department's budget request of $307 million reflects the
President's Hydrogen Fuel Initiative commitment of $1.2 billion over
five years (FY04 to FY08) to accelerate R&D in hydrogen and fuel cell
technologies. The increased funds in the FY08 request compared to the
FY06 appropriations will be spent on basic science research through the
Office of Science (an 83.1 percent increase) and on focused applied R&D
through the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (an
increase of 38.8 percent).
Q2a. I am disappointed that the FY08 request has zeroed out funding
for geothermal. Recently there has been a great deal of interest in
deep drilling for geothermal energy.
I am curious to know whether, in making the decision to zero out
geothermal funding, there were any discussions about deep drilling
potential?
A2a. Our geothermal program has achieved its key research objectives
and has provided substantial incentives that support the near-term
development of the technology and deployment of the large geothermal
resource base. The FY 2007 operating plan for the Department included
$5 million to support geothermal power co-produced with oil and gas
demonstration efforts, for an evaluation of enhanced geothermal systems
to help industry prioritize its technology needs, and to bring to
completion selected projects on exploration, drilling, and/or
conversion technologies.
Q2b. Has there been consideration for a demonstration-scale project of
an underground repository that you would mine for power generation on
the surface?
A2b. Yes, with support from the Department, the world's first heat
mining (also called enhanced geothermal systems (EGS) project, where
technology is used to create a geothermal reservoir, was undertaken at
Fenton Hill, New Mexico, in 1976. The initial work demonstrated the
feasibility of extracting energy through heat mining.
Questions submitted by Representative Mark Udall
Q1a. Given the challenging national goals being set by Congress and
the President for increasing the role of renewable energy in our energy
mix, what are the long-term science and technology needs for solar,
wind and biofuels?
A1a. The Department has undertaken a thorough review of these needs in
the series of workshops around the topic of ``Basic Research Needs to
Assure a Secure Energy Future.'' The entire series of reports includes
work on hydrogen, biofuels, solar, nanotechnology, etc. and is
available at this website: http://www.sc.doe.gov/bes/. These workshops
contributed to the budget and policy formation processes that resulted
in the Advanced Energy Initiative and the American Competitiveness
Initiative.
Activities noted in the Advanced Energy Initiative (AEI) include
lowering the cost of producing cellulosic ethanol, improving the
performance of lithium-ion batteries and improving the cost and
performance of wind and solar technologies. The introduction of these
advanced technologies in the marketplace will lower the costs of
producing electricity from these renewable energies and will facilitate
the growth of a productive manufacturing base and an active marketplace
for renewable energy technologies.
As identified in the AEI, long-term science and technology needs
for solar center around increasing conversion efficiency and lowering
costs, including the development of novel compound semiconductors,
polymers, and nanostructured devices. Work is also needed in
photoelectrochemical materials and devices. Solar thermal electric
systems need further work in materials, especially thermal storage
materials and high temperature working fluids. Thermochemical cycles
are also of interest for producing fuels such as hydrogen. Improved
polymers are needed for low temperature solar thermal applications.
Key activities for wind technologies will focus on research,
development and testing for improving the performance, cost
effectiveness and reliability of large and distributed wind energy
systems. For wind turbines, further long-term work is needed for meso-
scale atmospheric modeling to improve forecasting; for the aerodynamics
of wind turbine blades such as turbulence, separation, stall, as well
as improved materials and designs for turbine blades, gear-boxes and
hubs; and for power electronics for converting power to 60 cycle line
voltage.
For biofuels, further work is needed on both biochemical approaches
for producing biofuels, i.e., from cellulosic biomass--such as
enzymatic hydrolysis, particularly for systems that can ultimately
enable pretreatment, hydrolysis, and fermentation in a single tank, and
on thermochemical approaches for producing biodiesel, jet fuel,
ethanol, and other fuels.
Q1b. Does the President's budget for EERE strike the proper balance
between investment in short-term R&D (e.g., improving and deploying
today's technology, processes, etc.) and investment in long-term R&D on
``game-changing'' technologies (e.g., new biomaterials, PV
nanostructures, etc.)?
A1b. Yes. The President's budget request for EERE strikes the proper
balance of short-term RD&D investments and longer-term inquiries. In
addition, the work of EERE is complemented and coordinated with that in
the Office of Science to maximize the benefit of the taxpayer's
investments.
Q1c. Please describe the process of collaboration between EERE and the
Office of Science, if any.
A1c. In addition to the activities mentioned above, EERE and the Office
of Science (SC) collaborate in a variety of ways, including technical
workshops, roadmaps, structured activities between SC and EERE, use by
EERE-supported researchers of SC facilities, and joint solicitations.
On July 31, 2006, the Department transmitted to Congress, pursuant to
Section 994 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, a coordination plan
detailing a variety of these joint activities, including a number of
workshops conducted on basic science needs for EERE-related applied
research.
Q1d. Is there an established process whereby basic research conducted
under OS programs feeds seamlessly into applied research under the
auspices of EERE?
A1d. Yes. As discussed in the Section 994 report presented to Congress,
the Department periodically reviews science and technology activities,
and provides an updated coordination plan every four years. EERE also
plans with SC, and manages a number of Small Business Innovation
Research and Small Business Technology Transfer program (SBIR/STTR)
activities for SC. Currently, EERE is managing six topics for SC, with
an annual value of approximately $15 million.
Q1e. Is the ``balance'' referenced above appropriate to strike within
EERE? Or should such a balance between short- and long-term research be
struck between EERE and OS?
A1e. Both. As part of its balanced portfolio, EERE pursues near-, mid-,
and long-term investment strategies for its applied research. The
Office of Science is focused on basic research, but new technical
platforms discovered through basic research can have a significant
impact on EERE technologies in both the near-term and long-term. We
have strived to achieve a balance between the EERE and SC investments
to ensure technologies are proceeding steadily from the lab to applied
R&D and to the marketplace.
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Kevin M. Kolevar, Director, Office of Electricity Delivery
and Energy Reliability, U.S. Department of Energy
Questions submitted by Chairman Nick Lampson
Q1. I applaud your efforts to develop a comprehensive electric grid
visualization capability to allow improved federal response during
emergencies such as hurricanes and to identify regional and local
impacts of energy disruptions. I understand that the new transmission
grid monitoring system that is now operational at DOE enables
situational awareness in the Southeastern United States.
What is your plan to extend this visualization
capability across the United States?
Could additional funding and other resources, if they
were brought to bear, help accelerate this process?
A1. I appreciate your interest in this important effort. Wide-area
situational understanding is a key factor in managing the preparedness
for and response to destructive events. The Department is partnering
with the Department of Homeland Security, national laboratories, and
industry to develop this strategic tool to enable real-time status of
the electric grid and to help identify the interdependencies with other
critical energy sectors. Although the visualization tool is now
operational only for the Southeastern United States, we are working
with other major utilities in multiple regions of the country to expand
real-time status information on a national level. Additional funding
would accelerate the process.
Q2. In order for intermittent energy sources such as wind and solar to
play a significant role in our electricity supply system, we must
develop technologies to store the electricity when it is produced, then
draw on it when we need it. As I understand it, storage is one of the
major obstacles to more widespread adoption of renewables. There is a
significant increase in R&D funds for Energy Storage, but a
commensurate decrease in funding for Renewable and Distributed Systems
Integration.
Can you talk about the difference between the Energy
Storage and the Renewable and Distributed Systems Integration
programs and why one is being increased and the other cut?
Can you comment on how energy storage can improve the
value of renewable generation to the electric system?
Why is funding for renewables integration falling
even as the Administration is requesting huge funding increases
for technologies like solar photovoltaics?
A2. In FY 2006 and FY 2007, the energy storage program has focused on
demonstrating and monitoring the performance of current state-of-the-
art energy storage technologies in partnership with the California
Energy Commission (CEC) and the New York Energy Research and
Development Agency (NYSERDA). In FY 2008, the Office proposes to
research and develop the next generation storage concepts to lower cost
and improve energy density. Under the Renewable and Distributed Systems
Integration activity the Office proposes to coordinate and oversee a
variety of demonstration projects that integrate renewables,
distributed generation, storage, and advanced controls. This is in
response to the recognition of the critical link between energy storage
and renewables.
The decrease in funding for the Renewable and Distributed System
Integration program reflects the completion of turbine and engine
research, which will now transition to systems integration.
Energy storage can significantly increase the integration of
renewable sources of energy into the electric system. Storage increases
the reliability of intermittent resources like wind and photovoltaics,
allowing these sources to become relatively constant sources of power.
Renewable power produced in off-peak periods can be stored and used
during periods of greater demand, thus making renewables dispatchable.
Likewise, energy storage can bridge the gap during decreased periods of
renewable production and, when combined with appropriate electronics,
it can also eliminate short-term flutters that decrease power quality
and impact digital equipment on the grid.
The Department has not had a dedicated integration program that
brings together renewables, distributed energy, and storage with
advanced communications. In FY 2008 the Office transitioned the focus
of the Distributed Energy Research activities to Renewable and
Distributed Systems Integration. The decrease reflects the completion
of distributed generation (microturbines, reciprocating engines)
activities to reflect the desire of the Department to have a stronger
role in renewable integration. In FY 2007, a solicitation was initiated
that requested projects focusing on renewable systems integration such
as photovoltaics.
Q3. One way to meet increased electricity demand is for utilities to
build more wires and add more generation, but there is also enormous
potential that we have barely begun to tap to increase the efficiency
options for the grid itself, including high temperature
superconductors, demand-side management technologies, distributed
generation and others.
Why is overall R&D funding in these areas being cut?
Could you discuss how your office is pursuing options
that will better utilize the existing infrastructure?
Which national labs are involved in these efforts?
A3. We agree that there is enormous potential to increase the
efficiency of the grid itself through high temperature superconductors,
demand-side management technologies, and distributed energy
technologies. The overall cut in the Office's R&D funding occurred in
two areas, High Temperature Superconductivity and Renewable and
Distributed Systems Integration. The cut in High Temperature
Superconductivity funding reflects the phasing out of motor research
and completing flywheel cooperative agreements. The decrease in funding
for the Renewable and Distributed System Integration program reflects
the completion of turbine and engine research, which will now
transition to systems integration.
The Office is pursuing three other paths in addition to High
Temperature Superconductivity to improve/optimize the existing
infrastructure. These include real-time monitoring and control of the
grid, advanced energy storage, and systems integration research and
demonstrations. Real-time monitoring and controls allow for faster
operations, which increases reliability, and reduced reserve margins.
Energy storage is critical overall to advancing renewables and
improving grid operations. Renewable and Distributed Systems
integration research is also demonstrating how to best optimize grid
asset utilization.
Many of the national laboratories support our research activities.
The principle laboratories include: Oak Ridge National Laboratory,
Sandia National Laboratory, Idaho National Laboratory, Pacific
Northwest National Laboratories, Lawrence Berkley National Laboratory,
and Los Alamos National Laboratory. The National Energy Technology
Laboratory, a federal procurement office, provides project management
activities for the Office.
Questions submitted by Representative Ralph M. Hall
Q1. In your testimony, you say that, ``Superconductivity holds the
promise of addressing capacity concerns by maximizing use of available
`footprint' and limited space, while moving power efficiently and
reliably.'' You also state that it, ``. . .supports advanced substation
and interconnection designs. . .using less space and improving the
security and reliability of the electric system.''
Given the importance of High Temperature
Superconductivity, can you please explain the reasoning behind
the requested 35 percent decrease in funding from the FY06
level?
A1. The cut in High Temperature Superconductivity reflects the phasing
out of motor research and completing flywheel cooperative agreements.
Approximately one-third of the $45 million requested for the High
Temperature Superconductivity (HTS) subprogram in FY 2007 will be spent
on research of wire technologies: 2G wire development, dielectrics,
cryogenics, and cable systems. This represents a decrease from FY 2006,
when approximately half of the HTS subprogram's funding was spent on
these technologies, because these projects have successfully met
milestones, proven out their technological capabilities, and now move
to the demonstration phase of development. In contrast, the Office
expects to spend approximately two-thirds of the HTS subprogram's
funding on HTS applications in FY 2007, which is an increase from FY
2006 when just half of the funding was spent in this area. Since these
applications, which include motors, have not performed as well, we will
now focus more research dollars on achieving similar successes as have
been seen with the wire technologies. Thus, the Department is focusing
on a near-term critical need within the electric system to not only
increase current carrying capacity, especially in urban areas, but also
to relieve overburdened cables elsewhere in local grids.
Q2. In regards to the Infrastructure Security and Energy Restoration
activity, FY08 recommends a decrease from FY07. Given the importance of
this activity in protecting the Nation's critical energy infrastructure
and assisting State and local governments with energy disruption
preparation and response, please explain the reasoning behind the
reduced funding request.
A2. Although there is a slight decrease of $219,000 in the FY 2008
budget request from the FY 2007 request, the Department still considers
its obligations to protect the Nation's critical energy infrastructure
under the Homeland Security Presidential Directives 7 and 8 to be
extremely important. The Department's involvement with current critical
energy infrastructure programs and its commitment to assisting State
and local governments with disruption preparation and response is and
will continue to be a priority. There is presently less of a need for
as much outside support. Therefore, this decrease reflects the
reduction of laboratory staff by one in order to accommodate program
priorities.
Q3. I understand that Transmission Reliability R&D, Energy Storage
R&D, Gridwise, Gridworks and most projects in Electricity Distribution
Transformation R&D programs are transferred to the Visualization and
Controls sub-account as of FY07. The FY08 request for this sub-account
is $25.3 million, but the budget for these five activities in FY06 was
$83.9 million. Please explain this.
A3. The Visualization and Controls sub-account included the transfer of
high-priority projects from the Transmission R&D, Gridwise, and
Gridworks programs. In FY 2006, the budget for these three (3)
activities was $22.6 million. The FY08 request for the Visualization
and Controls sub-account has been increased to $25.3 million, which
includes additional funding for cyber security research. Most of the
projects in the Electricity Distribution Transformation R&D program
have been transferred to the Distributed Systems Integration sub-
account.
Questions submitted by Representative Daniel Lipinski
Q1. The FY08 request for High Temperature Superconductivity R&D is
significantly reduced from the FY06 and FY07 requests. At one time this
issue was viewed as a great investment for potentially large energy
efficiency gains.
What is Department's plan to continue research in
this field?
Does the Dept. no longer see the promise in the
technology that it had previously, or are the major research
questions essentially resolved?
A1. High Temperature Superconductivity (HTS) holds tremendous promise
for maximizing delivery capacity in existing rights-of-way while
minimizing energy losses. Over the past 20 years, the Department has
stewarded federal resources to carry this technology from inception to
commercialization. In the last year, we began to witness the returns on
this investment with the demonstration of short-length HTS cables at
multiple sites in New York and Ohio. These projects reaffirmed the
potential benefits of this revolutionary technology. In FY08, the
Department plans to use available funds to continue support for core
research in second-generation wire development, as well as to sponsor
projects that enable installation of longer-length HTS cables and other
applications that address many of the research questions that remain
unresolved. The cut in High Temperature Superconductivity funding
reflects the phasing out of motor research and completing flywheel
cooperative agreements.
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Thomas D. Shope, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Fossil Energy, U.S. Department of Energy
Questions submitted by Chairman Nick Lampson
Q1. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 established a research program for
Ultra-deepwater and Unconventional Natural Gas and petroleum
exploration. This is a program that Congress clearly cares about, and
the President apparently approved of by signing it into law. However,
the Department sent a letter to Congress asking to rescind this section
of law, and failed to include funding in the FY 2007 Operating Plan,
effectively killing this program. Furthermore, you are proposing to
cancel out oil and gas research altogether, apparently with the
reasoning that this R&D can be done by industry alone. This is
surprisingly shortsighted on the part of the Administration given the
enormous hydrocarbon resources in these fields, and the fact that,
because of cost and technical complexity of extracting these resources,
only the biggest of oil companies can afford to do the research and
deploy the technologies. These large companies simply have priorities
elsewhere.
Q1a. What reasons does the Department have for eliminating the Ultra-
deep program, especially in light of its elimination of oil and gas
research?
A1a. The Administration's request to repeal this program is based on
the fact that oil and gas are mature industries that have every
incentive, particularly at today's prices, to enhance production and
continue research and development of technologies on their own. There
is no need for taxpayers to subsidize oil companies in these efforts.
The Administration's Research and Development Investment Criteria
direct programs to avoid duplicating research in areas that are
receiving funding from the private sector. We believe that independent
producers, as well as the majors, will continue to purchase innovative
technologies developed by service companies.
Q1b. If Congress does not rescind this section of law will the
Department carry out this very vital research program as it is
instructed to do by law?
A1b. Yes, the Department is currently implementing the program
according to the requirements of the law and will continue to do so
unless the law is repealed.
Q1c. Why have no funds been apportioned to the National Energy
Technology Laboratory for carrying out the activities assigned to it in
Subtitle J of EPAct 2005?
A1c. The $50 million available under Subtitle J in FY 2007 has been
apportioned to NETL. NETL has begun work to produce the first annual
research and development plan, which is required under the subtitle
before research solicitations can be issued. Development and review of
this plan, including review by two Federal Advisory Committees, is
proceeding.
Q1d. How could smaller firms leverage federal resources for oil and
gas research?
A1d. Small firms will be eligible for research awards under the
Subtitle J program. They may submit research proposals themselves or
team with other organizations such as research laboratories or
universities to apply for federal funds. Small firms may want to pay
special attention to the portion of the solicitation for proposals that
will deal with the technology challenges of small producers, one of the
research areas specified by the law.
Questions submitted by Representative Ralph M. Hall
Q1. In the President's 2007 State of the Union speech he stated that
``It's in our vital interest to diversify America's energy supply--the
way forward is through technology,'' that we must increase the supply
of alternative fuels,'' and that we should ``dramatically reduce our
dependence on foreign oil.'' One of the most promising ways to achieve
these goals is through development of coal-to-liquids facilities.
Why is there so little funding recommended in the FY
2008 budget for coal-to-liquids programs?
How does DOE justify this lack of funding of such a
critical technology?
A1. Although past Department efforts and some congressionally directed
funding has focused on production of liquid fuels from coal, the FY
2008 Budget does not support these activities. Coal to liquids is a
mature technology with evolutionary advances and incremental
improvements possible, and therefore is not consistent with the
Research and Development Investment Criteria. Past government funded
programs have resulted in improved processes, catalysts and reactors,
but there were no realized economic benefits because the technology was
still not economic given other business risks and considerations,
indicating that the obstacle was more due to market factors than
technical issues. These coal-to-liquid processes can produce clean,
zero-sulfur liquid fuels that are cleaner than required under the Tier
II fuel regulations. The fuels are compatible with petroleum fuels and
can utilize the same distribution infrastructure.
The Office of Fossil Energy in DOE carries out an extensive
research and technology development in coal gasification and hydrogen
from coal. The targets of these programs are improved technology for
clean coal-based power generation systems (for example, integrated coal
gasification combined-cycle) and hydrogen production from coal,
including DOE's FutureGen project. Because of technology overlaps
between CTL fuel systems and coal gasification-based power and hydrogen
production systems, nearly all of the President's FY 2008 budget for
the DOE programs in coal gasification and coal fuels ($65 million) and
a significant portion of the $27 million for advanced research support
research and technology development that is relevant to the production
of CTL fuels.
A major concern regarding deployment of CTL technology is the
potential impact on greenhouse gas emissions. The FY 2008 Budget
provides $86 million for research directed at carbon capture and
sequestration. This work is relevant to addressing the uncertainties
regarding the viability of CTL fuels production if carbon dioxide
emissions need to be controlled. The Sequestration Program is focused
on applications for coal gasification power generation and hydrogen
production.
Q2. OMB and the Natural Research Council of the National noted that
substantial benefits accrue from the DOE coal R&D program and from the
continued use of coal in the energy mix. However, OMB and NRC have
repeatedly criticized DOE for failing to establish a consistent
measurement system for the future benefits of its coal research
program, the distribution of these benefits between the public and
private sectors, and the methodology and assumptions used in estimating
program costs and benefits.
Why has DOE been lax in developing these measures and
what steps will be taken to remedy this deficiency in FY 2008?
Does DOE's continuing failure to adequately estimate
the benefits of its coal programs jeopardize future funding for
these programs?
A2. DOE has made significant efforts in recent years to develop a
methodology for estimating the benefits of its research and development
(R&D) activities that can be implemented on a consistent basis across
all programs. Results from these efforts are included in the FY 2008
budget submission to Congress. The Department is working to improve
consistency across programs in the methodology and assumptions used in
estimating program costs and benefits. The assumptions and methods
underlying the modeling efforts have significant impacts on the
estimated benefits. Results could vary significantly if external
factors differ from the baseline case or alternative scenarios assumed
for this analysis.
At the heart of the methodology is the National Energy Modeling
System (HEMS), which DOE/EIA uses for its Annual Energy Outlook. The
DOE offices of Nuclear Energy, Fossil Energy, Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, and Electricity Supply and Energy Reliability use a
consistent NEMS framework in conducting benefits analysis. Thus
consistent policy assumptions are applied to all programs. Each of
these DOE programs are evaluated against a consistent set of
``success'' and ``no success'' assumptions, and all benefits reporting
for DOE programs are based on a consistent set of metrics for economic,
environmental, and energy security impacts. In December 2006, a group
of external peer reviewers assessed the consistent policy scenarios
applied to all of these DOE programs. In addition to addressing
comments from the reviewers, DOE is also working to develop consistent
methodologies for gathering cost and performance data for energy
systems and for projecting this data into the future.
There are two major challenges that DOE is continuing to deal with
in its efforts to improve its benefits estimates:
1. Making benefits estimates intuitive and understandable to
its stakeholders, in spite of the large number of major
assumptions needed to predict how an advanced energy technology
might perform and compete over the next 50 years.
2. Dealing with the inherent risk associated with R&D. One
simply cannot state with certainty how likely high-risk R&D,
especially for major programs, such as the near-zero
atmospheric emissions coal plant (including CO2
capture and storage), is to meet its time and performance
goals. A further complication is that in order to estimate the
benefits of an advanced energy system, it must be competed
against other advanced systems that also have significant risk
associated with meeting cost and performance goals.
The first item is largely a communication challenge, and we are
working on new ways to display and explain our results. The second is
an extreme methodological challenge.
The Department is currently pilot testing several risk
methodologies and will be evaluating the results throughout FY 2007.
We do not believe that the methodological challenges to improve R&D
benefits estimates should jeopardize programmatic funding. In some
cases a ``rough'' estimate of benefits can be made that is sufficient
to justify that support for certain R&D should be a priority. For
example, relatively simple analysis that considers the degree to which
greenhouse gases will need to be reduced over time, and the limited
number of options for effecting major greenhouse gas reductions,
strongly suggests that a variety of options will be necessary to tackle
this problem, and that reducing the cost of these options will have
huge societal benefits. R&D to reduce the cost of coal-fueled
electricity generation that includes carbon capture and storage is
clearly one of the more promising options.
Q3. FutureGen is one of the projects at the forefront of the new
technology effort. Central to the success of FutureGen is the ability
to sequester CO2 emissions. Has the department explored
possible storage sites for this sequestered CO2?
A3. Yes, as part of the FutureGen site selection, possible storage
sites for the sequestered CO2 from FutureGen is being
explored via a competitive site selection process through a
solicitation that was issued on March 7, 2006, by the FutureGen
Alliance, our industry partner. Twelve sites in seven states submitted
proposals to host the FutureGen site. These sites had to pass
qualification criteria to be given further consideration against a set
of rigorous site evaluation criteria. The FutureGen Alliance selected
four finalist sites from that group: Mattoon, IL; Tuscola, IL; Heart of
Brazos near Jewett, TX; and Odessa, TX. A final site selection by the
Alliance is expected to be made later this year after the completion of
the environmental review process under the National Environmental
Policy Act.
Q4. Assuming it will be possible to inject the CO2 into the
ground, what type of legal and regulatory framework needs to be in
place in order to ensure that these types of plants will be built, and
provide for safe long-term storage of large scale, long lived
sequestered CO2?
A4. It will be necessary to have legal and regulatory frameworks
developed specifically for carbon capture and storage projects.
Frameworks can either be adopted or adapted from existing regulatory
frameworks. The Department of Energy has been working with the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Interstate Oil and Gas
Compact Commission (IOGCC) in the review and development of regulatory
frameworks for Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS).
CCS can be divided into four areas: capture, transportation,
injection, and long-term storage of CO2. It has been
suggested that the existing regulations under the Clean Air Act could
be adopted to permit modifications necessary to capture CO2
from power plants. Transportation of CO2 via pipelines, rail
and trucks is currently regulated under federal and State statutes
through their respective transportation agencies and, therefore, no new
regulations for the transport of CO2 are necessary.
Frameworks for the injection and long-term storage of CO2 in
geologic formations could be developed from existing analogous
regulations such as the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) Underground
Injection Control (UIC) Program, which are currently implemented by
federal or State environmental and/or oil and gas divisions. CO2
injections for enhanced oil and gas recovery are currently permitted as
UIC Class II operations. The EPA has recently issued guidance to the
EPA regions and states that would allow the deep saline tests under the
Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnerships to be permitted as Class V,
experimental projects. The lessons learned from these research projects
will provide the technical data to permit future full scale CO2
injection projects either under the existing UIC framework or as a new
well classification. Regulations for the long-term storage and
liability could be modeled after the UIC program but will need to be
developed before sequestration can be adopted as a commercial
opportunity to mitigate Greenhouse Gases.
Q5. The Administration has indicated its strong interest in the
development of new and alternative sources of energy. One of the goals
of this new technology would be to reduce carbon emissions.
In looking at the situation today, what would you
estimate the cost to be for a power plant to install current
CO2 capture and sequester technology?
What is the availability of such technology? Is it
easily obtained?
A5. The capture costs will vary depending on the type of power plant
and if the plant is existing or a new build. The costs to install the
technology include capital costs for equipment and operational costs
and can be displayed as increased in the cost-of--electricity,
incremental plant capital cost, and cost of CO2 avoided and
captured. The following table gives estimated current costs. Actual
costs could vary significantly based on the specific plant
configuration.
The increased costs of electricity for capturing and storing
CO2 are significant and the Fuels and Power Systems Program
is undertaking extensive R&D to reduce these costs. The current costs
of these particular scenarios are explained in more detail in the
paragraphs below.
Post-combustion CO2 Capture:
Installing CO2 capture on a new super-critical
pulverized coal power plant using current state-of-the art amine
scrubbing technology (capable of capturing 90+ percent of CO2
emissions) results in an incremental total plant capital cost (TPC)
equal to $1,294/kW. This corresponds to an incremental increase in cost
of electricity (COE) of 4.7cents/kWh (from 6.4 cents/kWh to 11.1 cents/
kWh) equivalent to $63/ton CO2 avoided and $41/ton CO2
captured [1]. The current state-of-the-art amine scrubbing is based of
the Econamine FG+ carbon dioxide capture process being developed by
Fluor Corporation. Significant technical and economical improvements in
amine scrubbing have been made in the past 10 years with the leading
technology developers being Fluor Corporation and Mitsubishi.
Pre-combustion CO2 Capture:
Installing CO2 capture on a new integrated gasification
combined cycle power plant using current state-of-the-art Selexol
scrubbing technology (capable of capturing 90+ percent of CO2
emissions) results in an incremental total plant capital cost (TPC)
equal to -$625/kW. This corresponds to an incremental increase in cost
of electricity (COE) of 2.5 cents/kWh (from 7.5 cents/kWh to 10.0
cents/kWh) equivalent to $33/ton CO2 avoided and $26/ton
CO2 captured.
As of 2004, there are more than 30 small amine scrubbing plants
currently capturing CO2 from flue gas sources (post NGCC and
PC) to be used as feed sources for enhanced oil recovery, the chemical
industry and the food/beverage industry. The size of the current
installations range between 100 and 1,000 ton CO2 captured
per day-significantly smaller than that required for a full-size PC
power plant removing 17,000 ton CO2/day. Although Fluor
Corporation is offering the Econamine FG+ at this full-scale, it is
clear that some commercial development is still required to extend the
envelope of commercial availability into the region required by large
scale power plants.
The current state-of-the-art for Selexol Scrubbing is based of the
designs developed by UOP. There are 55+ worldwide Selexol Scrubbing
processes removing CO2 from natural gas--the process is
considered to be commercially available at the size required for a
full-scale Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle power plant.
Q6. Section 1407 of EPACT authorized $100 million a year for three
years for high temperature Oxyfuel technology. It was to go to two
small and two large Oxyfuel coal plants, both new and retrofits. The
DOE has never funded that section nor is there any money in the budget
for Oxyfuel technology.
Why has section 1407 not been funded and why is there
no focus on retrofits?
A6. The Clean Coal Power Initiative (CCPI) is the primary vehicle used
by the Department of Energy to fund demonstration scale advanced coal
technology projects such as the high temperature Oxyfuel technology
demonstrations authorized under section 1407 of EPACT 2005. In FY 2008,
the Department expects to complete the CCPI Round 3 solicitation and
proposal evaluations. Both new projects and retrofits are eligible to
apply for funding as part of this vehicle. The solicitation will be
followed by project selections to assemble the initial portfolio of
advanced technology systems with carbon capture for sequestration and
beneficial reuse. In addition, the FY 2008 coal budget request includes
$5 Million for Oxyfuel/Oxycombustion R&D to continue the work begun in
FY 2007 and earlier.
Questions submitted by Representative Jerry F. Costello
Q1. Can you please give an update of the status of the FutureGen
project?
A1. The project is moving forward on schedule. We have completed the
first phase of the project, which included completion of the initial
conceptual design and the initiation of the environmental review
process as required under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
In addition, under the first phase, a competitive site selection
solicitation was issued on March 7, 2006, by the FutureGen Alliance,
our industry partner. Twelve sites in seven states submitted proposals
to host the FutureGen site. The FutureGen Alliance selected four
finalist sites from that group: Mattoon, IL; Tuscola, IL; Heart of
Brazos near Jewett, TX; and Odessa, TX. We are aiming to complete the
NEPA process this year to be followed by a final site selection by the
Alliance. We expect to continue preliminary design of the facility as
well as further site characterization on the specific site when it is
selected. The project is on target for a 2012 start date for
operations.
Q2. In FY 2007 the Administration requested $54 million for the
FutureGen project. Since the FY 2006 enacted level for the project was
$18 million, does the Department intend to make up the $36 million
shortfall needed to keep the project on schedule?
A2. The Administration has requested and Congress has appropriated
funds needed to keep the project on schedule, consist with the project
funding plan described in the 2004 FutureGen report to Congress. This
funding stream includes $18 million in FY 2006 and $54 million in FY
2007.
Q3. As you know, the President's budget proposal for FY08 seeks to
eliminate funds needed for FutureGen in the out years. How can it keep
its construction deadline?
A3. The President's FY 2008 budget for FutureGen is $108 million,
consistent with the project funding plan. We are moving forward with
the project activities with construction to begin in FY 2009 and start-
up of operations in 2012. We intend to request the necessary funds in
the out years consistent with this project schedule.
Q4. Please explain why DOE reduced the number of carbon sequestration
projects around the country and how DOE will decide which projects to
cut. How does the FY07 Operating Plan change this?
A4. The Office of Fossil Energy has been focusing its efforts on
implementation of twenty-five field validation tests through the
Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnerships (RCSP) Phase II initiative.
These tests are designed to validate promising geologic formations in
their regions to store CO2. The tests are testing the
injectivity, modeling the fate, and measuring the response of the
CO2 in the formations. In addition, these tests are
developing the protocols for site characterization, monitoring,
infrastructure development, operations, and closure that will be used
to develop future large scale field tests. The information collected in
these tests will support the development of Phase III, Large-Volume
Testing, and provide information that can be used to inform future
commercial Carbon Capture and Storage sites.
In FY 2008, the Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnerships (CSRP)
Field Validation Testing activities (Phase II) will complete and
publish results for several of the 25 geologic sequestration tests
involving CO2 injection and monitoring, mitigation, and
verification (MMV) operations in saline formations, depleted oil and
gas fields, and unmineable coal seams. The Department will prioritize
among its Phase II tests, beginning with those that offer the greatest
potential benefits. The initial focus will be weighted toward saline
formations, since they are expected to offer the greatest capacity for
geologic carbon sequestration. The Department will also initiate an
expedited schedule for the multi-year Phase III of the Regional
Partnership Program. In FY 2008, Phase III work will include the
conduct of four large scale field tests, including completion of the
NEPA Process for selected sites, and other work. In coordination with
the current partnerships, the program will determine the ``highest
potential'' opportunities for the initial expedited round of large
scale sequestration tests in saline, coal, and/or oil and gas bearing
formations. Due to the increased funding level in FY 2007, the
Department of Energy (DOE) was able to initiate Phase III in FY 2007,
further expediting the schedule for these highest priority tests. The
Department will continue to apply a prioritization process to expedite
the most important Phase II and Phase III tests. Several of the Phase
11 tests are being strategically conducted to support Phase III
activities. In addition to the knowledge gained by the Phase II tests,
the initial work on well construction and characterization may support
the Deployment Phase should one of the sites used for Phase II testing
provide the necessary environment for Large-Volume Deployment Testing.
The DOE will continue these field validation (Phase II) tests
through FY 2008. Starting at the end of FY 2007 and through 2008 the
DOE will complete National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) activities
and initiate four large volume sequestration tests through the Regional
Carbon Sequestration Partnerships. This will include the site
characterization and infrastructure development for storage projects
that will inject up to one million tons of CO2 per year for
several years. It is possible that injection could occur in FY 2008. We
are also working closely with the EPA to assess requirements and
procedures for permitting future commercial geologic sequestration
deployments.
Q5. Since last July, all the DOE Carbon Sequestration Partnerships
have been contributing to a thoroughly vetted capacity methodology that
will result in a DOE-produced atlas identifying areas in the U.S. which
have sequestration capacity. This atlas is scheduled to be published in
May of this year.
Are you aware of any shortcomings with the DOE
Partnerships to identify and collect data on geographic areas?
Second, do you believe additional funding is needed
to identify more sequestration sites in the United States?
A5. The Atlas represents Phase I (2003-2006) of the Regional Carbon
Sequestration Partnerships assessment of geological storage capacity.
The Department of Energy (DOE) is using existing funding to work on
both historical and field data collection. During Phase II, which will
last until 2009, the Partnerships are gathering additional information
on geologic formations throughout the United States. This includes open
source data gathered from Federal and State Geologic Surveys and
proprietary data from industry partners. The information collected
during Phase II will be used to update the capacity estimates
throughout the United States and revise and issue an updated version of
the Atlas in 2009. DOE expects to continue the effort to characterize
additional geologic formations after 2009 during Phase III of the
program. In addition, the data collected during the Phase II field
validation tests and Phase III large volume sequestration test will be
used to validate the capacity estimates presented in the Atlas. DOE
will continue to use its resources to develop technologies and evaluate
whether projects will be able to inject and store the necessary volumes
to make this a commercial technology to mitigate future greenhouse gas
emissions.
DOE has shown that adequate capacity exists through the United
States to store hundreds of years of future emissions and additional
geographic regions will be incorporated into the DOE assessment by the
end of Phase III of the Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnerships
Program.
Questions submitted by Representative Daniel Lipinski
Q1. Is the $79 million request for carbon sequestration enough to
ensure that the proposed FutureGen plant can be constructed with this
necessary technology? Do you believe DOE is allocating enough resources
and moving quickly enough to develop this crucial technology that will
lead to reducing our emissions of CO2?
A1. The FutureGen Project, as part of its site selection, has conducted
initial site characterization of the geologic formations that will
store the CO2 generated during its operation. The plant is
schedule to be operational in 2012. The $86 million in the 2008 Budget
(including $7 million of R&D by federal employees under the Program
Direction line item), plus the $105 million in the 2007 Operations Plan
under the Continuing Resolution (including $5 million of R&D by federal
employees under the Program Direction line item) is sufficient funding
to complete NEPA activities for four Large Volume Deployment Tests by
FY 2008 and also for its Core Program to continue with development of
Monitoring, Mitigation, and Verification (MMV) and other relevant
technologies. With these activities, the sequestration technology
should be advance enough to be part of FutureGen and also utilize
FutureGen for technology verification.
DOE has accelerated four Large-Volume Deployment Tests in
coordination with the Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnerships.
Funding from FY 2007 will be utilized to initiate these tests so that
starting at the end of FY 2007 and through 2008 the DOE will complete
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) activities and initiate four
large volume sequestration tests. This will include the site
characterization and infrastructure development for storage projects
that will inject up to one million tons for CO2 per year for
several years.