[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
FISCAL YEAR 2009 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
SECOND SESSION
__________
MARCH 5, 2008
__________
Serial No. 110-80
__________
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
40-940 PDF WASHINGTON DC: 2008
---------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866)512-1800
DC area (202)512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail Stop SSOP,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON 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 ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland
BRAD MILLER, North Carolina VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma
NICK LAMPSON, Texas JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois
GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona W. TODD AKIN, Missouri
JERRY MCNERNEY, California JO BONNER, Alabama
LAURA RICHARDSON, California TOM FEENEY, Florida
PAUL KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas
DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon BOB INGLIS, South Carolina
STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington
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 PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia
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
MICHELLE DALLAFIOR Democratic Professional Staff Member
SHIMERE WILLIAMS Democratic Professional Staff Member
ELAINE PAULIONIS PHELEN Democratic Professional Staff Member
ADAM ROSENBERG Democratic Professional Staff Member
ELIZABETH STACK Republican Professional Staff Member
STACEY STEEP Research Assistant
C O N T E N T S
March 5, 2008
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.................................. 8
Written Statement............................................ 10
Statement by Representative Bob Inglis, Ranking Minority Member,
Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, Committee on Science
and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives.................. 11
Written Statement............................................ 11
Prepared Statement by Representative Jerry F. Costello, Member,
Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, Committee on Science
and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives.................. 18
Prepared Statement by Representative Rosgoe G. Bartlett, Member,
Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, Committee on Science
and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives.................. 19
Witnesses:
Mr. Steve Isakowitz, Chief Financial Officer, Department of
Energy
Oral Statement............................................... 20
Mr. Mark E. Gaffigan, Acting Director, Natural Resources and
Environment Team, U.S. Government Accountability Office
Oral Statement............................................... 21
Written Statement............................................ 23
Biography.................................................... 32
Dr. Arthur Bienenstock, President, American Physical Society;
Special Assistant to the President for Federal Research Policy,
Stanford University; Professor, Stanford Synchrotron Radiation
Laboratory and Departments of Applied Physics and Materials
Science and Engineering
Oral Statement............................................... 33
Written Statement............................................ 34
Biography.................................................... 35
Discussion
Section 999 of the Energy Policy Act........................... 36
Breaking Dependence on Oil Through Alternative Energy.......... 38
Solar Research and Development Funding......................... 40
Solar Workforce Training....................................... 41
Solar Power Goals.............................................. 42
Long-term Energy Security Interests............................ 42
U.S. Interest in Hydrogen...................................... 43
Reprogramming Request for High Energy Physics Laboratories..... 44
FutureGen Concerns............................................. 45
Maintaining America's Competitive Advantage.................... 46
Funding for Rare Isotope Beams................................. 47
Appendix 1: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Mr. Steve Isakowitz, Chief Financial Officer, Department of
Energy......................................................... 50
Appendix 2: Additional Material for the Record
Statement of Mr. Clarence H. ``Bud'' Albright, Jr., Under
Secretary, U.S. Department of Energy........................... 58
Statement of Dr. Raymond L. Orbach, Under Secretary for Science,
U.S. Department of Energy...................................... 69
THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY FISCAL YEAR 2009 RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
BUDGET PROPOSAL
----------
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 5, 2008
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Energy and Environment,
Committee on Science and Technology,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:10 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 2009 Research and
Development Budget Proposal
wednesday, march 5, 2008
10:00 a.m.-12:00 p.m.
2318 rayburn house office building
Purpose
On Wednesday, March 5, 2008 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 2009 (FY 2009) Budget
Request for research and development programs.
Witnesses
Dr. Raymond Orbach is the Under Secretary for Science
at DOE, where he directs the Office of Science, serves as the
Secretary's science policy advisor for all departmental
programs, and oversees DOE's 17 national laboratories and
education activities. Prior to joining the Department, Dr.
Orbach served as Chancellor of the University of California at
Riverside.
Mr. C. H. ``Bud'' Albright Jr. is the Under Secretary
of Energy at DOE, where he oversees the Energy and Environment
programs which include research and development efforts in the
offices of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Fossil
Energy, Nuclear Energy, Electricity Delivery and Energy
Reliability, among others. Prior to joining the Department in
2007 Mr. Albright served as the Republican Staff Director of
the U.S. House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Mr. Mark Gaffigan is an Acting Director in the
Government Accountability Office, Natural Resources and
Environment Team, which is responsible for recently produced
reports on DOE funding for advanced energy technologies, the
hydrogen fuel initiative, oil production shortages, and the oil
and natural gas research program.
Dr. Arthur Bienenstock is the President of the
American Physical Society, which tracks funding for basic
research at DOE, among other agencies, and has also produced
several reports on applied energy research in recent years. Dr.
Bienenstock is also a Professor of Physics as well as the
Special Assistant to the President for Federal Research Policy
at Stanford University.
The $7.7 billion request for DOE civilian energy R&D funding in FY
2009 is divided among five offices. The Office of Science (SC),
represented in the hearing by Dr. Orbach, funds basic research at
universities and 17 national laboratories, and is the single largest
federal supporter of physical sciences research. The other four
offices, represented by Mr. Albright, focus on applied research and
technology development in the fields of Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy, Fossil Energy, Nuclear Energy, and Electricity Delivery and
Energy Reliability.
OFFICE OF SCIENCE
The FY 2009 budget request for the DOE Office of Science is $4.7
billion. This represents an increase of $704 million, or 18 percent
over the FY 2008 enacted level of funding, and $478 million or nine
percent below funding authorized in COMPETES. (Note: COMPETES includes
only a top-line authorization level for the DOE Office of Science; it
is silent on funding for specific research program areas.)
The request for Basic Energy Sciences (BES) is $1.6 billion, an
increase of $298 million or 23 percent over enacted FY 2008 funding. As
the largest program within the Office of Science, BES conducts research
primarily in the cross-cutting areas of materials and chemical
sciences, and based on a series of recent workshops, plans to focus
more on specific research areas for energy applications.
The budget would provide $369 million for Advanced Scientific
Computing Research (ASCR), an increase of $18 million or five percent
over enacted FY 2008 funding. This includes funds to continue upgrading
the Leadership Class Facilities at Oak Ridge National Laboratory and
Argonne National Laboratory.
Biological and Environmental Research (BER) would receive $569
million under the President's budget, which is $24 million over current
year funding. In addition to the role of BER in areas such as genomics,
climate change research, medical applications, and environmental
remediation, the FY 2009 request supports continued funding for three
bioenergy centers established in FY 2008.
The FY 2009 funding request for High Energy Physics (HEP) is $805
million, which is $117 million or 17 percent more than the enacted FY
2008 level. This program conducts fundamental research in elementary
particle physics and accelerator science and technology. Funding for
the NOnA neutrino physics experiment and research in preparation for
the International Linear Collider at the Fermi National Accelerator
Laboratory and Stanford Linear Accelerator Laboratory are restored in
this request.
Fusion Energy Sciences (FES) receives $493 million, an increase of
$207 million or 72 percent over enacted FY 2008 funding. Of this
amount, $214 million is dedicated to restoring funding for the U.S.
role in the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER).
Finally, Nuclear Physics (NP) would receive $510 million, an increase
of $77 million (18 percent) over FY 2008 funding.
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 has varied greatly over
the years according to shifting Administration and Congressional
priorities, as the chart below indicates.
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. With continued high
natural gas prices and sizable barriers to deployment of renewable and
nuclear power technologies, coal will likely make up the largest
percentage of this growth and continue to provide the largest part of
U.S. electricity generation for the foreseeable future (roughly 50
percent). Despite heavy investments in wind, solar and geothermal
energy R&D, the bulk of the Nation's renewable energy portfolio comes
from hydropower and still comprises only seven percent of total
electricity generation. There are currently 104 operating nuclear power
reactors in the U.S., with several new reactors in various stages of
planning. However, it is expected that, short of very aggressive
investment in nuclear capacity, new nuclear plants will only serve to
replace aging existing plants in terms of overall electricity market
share in the near-to-medium term. For the foreseeable future oil will
fuel the Nation's transportation sector, though recent Administration
and Congressional biofuels initiatives aim to drastically decrease its
97 percent market share.
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE)
The President's proposal of $1.26 billion for the Energy Efficiency
and Renewable Energy program at DOE represents a 27 percent cut from FY
2008 congressional appropriations, with the elimination of the
Weatherization Assistance program, a key component of the Nation's
energy efficiency strategy, bearing a large brunt of the decrease.
Biomass and Biorefinery Systems would receive $225 million, a 14
percent increase over FY 2008 funding. This program seeks to make
ethanol from cellulosic sources cost-competitive through advancing the
technologies and practices to make the entire ethanol supply chain more
efficient. The largest share of the increase ($36.4 million) goes to
work with industry for demonstration of biorefineries at both the
commercial-scale and at smaller scale for higher risk technologies.
The FY 2009 request of $221 million for Vehicle Technologies is an
increase of $8 million over the FY 2008 appropriations, while funding
for the Hydrogen Technology program decreased by $64 million, or over
30 percent. The large decrease in funding for the Hydrogen Technology
marks the end of the Administration's five-year commitment to hydrogen
R&D, and a shift of program priorities to wider applications of
advanced vehicle technologies, especially for plug-in electric vehicle
platforms. The FY 2009 budget proposes a transfer of $31 million from
the Hydrogen Technologies program to the Vehicle Technologies Program
largely for increases in the hybrid electric systems and technology
integration initiatives. The hybrid electric systems program funds R&D
to reduce the cost of battery systems. The technology integration
program aims to accelerate the adoption and use of alternative fuel and
advanced technology vehicles through demonstrations and education
initiatives.
The proposed funding for the Solar Energy program would be
decreased by $12.4 million, a seven percent reduction, to a total of
$156.1 million in FY 2009, which is also $93.9 million below the level
authorized in EPACT 2005. Wind energy is slated for $53 million,
essentially even with FY08 levels.
The Geothermal Technology Program would receive an increase of $10
million to a total of $30 million in FY 2009. This is a reversal from
last year's budget which proposed eliminating this program, but is
still far short of the $95 million authorized in the Energy
Independence and Security Act of 2007.
The budget request provides $3 million for both conventional
hydropower and marine and hydrokinetic energy research, a 70 percent
reduction, despite explicit authorization in the Energy Independence
and Security Act of 2007 for R&D in marine and hydrokinetic
technologies at the level of $50 million in FY 2009. It is expected
that a significantly higher level of federal effort is required to take
advantage of this underdeveloped renewable resource in an
environmentally friendly manner.
The Administration's request for Industrial Technologies Program
(ITP) of $62 million is a three percent decrease from FY 2008
appropriated levels, and $128 million less than the amount authorized
in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. Heavy industry
accounts for approximately one-third of energy use in the U.S., and the
ITP has maintained a long and successful history of developing
technologies and deploying them in industry, despite being funded at
one-third of the levels from as recently as FY 2000 ($175 million).
Office of Nuclear Energy
The Administration request for Nuclear Energy (NE) is $629.7 for
research and development, with nearly half of that request dedicated to
the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative which is focused on implementing the
Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP). For NE's Research and
Development programs, this represents approximately $191.7 million
above the FY 2008 enacted funding level ($438 million).
The United States has been conducting research on the reprocessing
of spent nuclear fuel since 2002 under the Advanced Fuel Cycle
Initiative (AFCI). In 2006, the Administration announced a change in
this program when it unveiled GNEP as its plan forward to develop
advanced, proliferation-resistant nuclear fuel cycle technologies that
would maximize the energy extracted from nuclear fuels and minimize
nuclear waste. GNEP has drawn criticism based on the substantial costs
estimated for implementing the program and the technical challenges
associated with developing, demonstrating and deploying advanced
technologies for recycling spent nuclear fuel that do not separate
plutonium. Last fall, the National Academies issued a report expressing
similar concerns. The FY 2009 request is $301.5 million, substantially
higher than the FY 2008 enacted funding for GNEP of $181 million. GNEP
aside, general research activities on a closed nuclear fuel cycle are
more widely considered to be worthwhile.
The FY 2009 budget request eliminates funding for the University
Reactor Infrastructure and Education Assistance program. However, it
also includes directions to Nuclear Energy, through its Energy Research
Initiative process, to designate at least 20 percent of the R&D
appropriated funds for purposes of supporting R&D activities at
university research institutions through competitive awards focused on
advancing nuclear energy technology.
Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability
The Office of Electricity is requesting $134 million for FY 2009, a
$4.5 million reduction from FY 2008 appropriations. Of the total for
this office the Administration proposes $100.2 million for R&D, a $9.3
million decrease from FY 2008 appropriations. However, the request does
include $13.4 million for Energy Storage and Power Electronics which
doubles the FY 2008 appropriation for that program. Advancing energy
storage systems is critical for modernizing the electric grid and
expanding the use of renewable energy sources for power generation.
Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee Program (LGP)
The FY 2009 budget proposes $19.9 million to administer the
Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee Program established under Title
XVII of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58). The FY 2008
omnibus appropriations bill included $38.5 billion for loan obligation
authority for FY 2008 and FY 2009. Within that authority, $18.5 billion
was designated for nuclear power facilities, $6 billion for coal-based
power generation and industrial gasification facilities, $2 billion for
advanced coal gasification projects, $10 billion for renewable and
efficiency projects and $2 billion for front end advanced nuclear
facilities. The Administration's FY 2009 request does not seek
additional loan obligation authority, but requests an extension for the
loan authority until 2011 for nuclear facilities and a 2010 extension
for all other projects.
Fossil Energy R&D
Fossil Energy R&D would receive $754 million in FY 2009, an
increase of $11.2 million compared to FY 2008 appropriations. The
funding increase would go to coal R&D, including the Clean Coal Power
Initiative (CCPI) which will focus on validating carbon capture and
storage in power generation applications in Round III of the program
this year. CCPI funding is available to support projects on both
existing power plants and new power plants. The FutureGen program would
see a substantial increase to $156 million which more than doubles the
FY 2008 appropriations of $74.3 million. The Administration has
proposed a major revision of the FutureGen program which will now place
an emphasis on early validation of clean coal technologies through
multiple demonstrations of CCS technologies at commercially operated
electric generating plants. This proposal is intended to capitalize on
industry's investment in clean coal power plants by providing the funds
for the CCS component of the advanced power plants and is a significant
restructuring of the original program, which was promoted as a near-
zero-emissions power plant that would combine electricity and hydrogen
production. The Fuels and Power Systems program, which includes R&D on
advanced coal technologies to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide
(CO2) at pulverized coal plants and continues R&D on
promising technologies for capture, separation and compression of
CO2, would receive an increase of $33 million to $382.7
million in FY 2009. With the momentum to develop a national greenhouse
gas reduction program growing, it is critical to have an appropriate
investment in RD&D to cost effectively reduce CO2 emissions
from the use of coal, and sequester CO2 on a commercial
scale.
The FY 2009 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 and welcome to today's hearing on the fiscal year 2009
Department of Energy budget request and future directions for
energy research and development.
As indicated in the Committee's schedule notice, we invited
Mr. Albright, the Under Secretary for Energy, and Dr. Orbach,
the Under Secretary for Science, to present the
Administration's Fiscal Year 2009 budget request on January 8.
Unfortunately, they felt that they could not appear before the
Subcommittee this morning. I am disappointed in the treatment
that this subcommittee is receiving by the Department. Although
the witnesses were invited in January, they didn't provide
their testimony to the Subcommittee until 9:00 p.m. last night.
Apparently, DOE does not approve of one panel hearings, which
is commonplace on this committee and has been essentially the
standard practice since the time Representative Sensenbrenner
chaired this committee. I am very surprised and disappointed by
this situation, but I am prepared to proceed with the scheduled
hearing.
Mr. Isakowitz, although you were not invited to appear
before us this morning, I want to give the Administrative an
opportunity to present their budget request to the Members of
this subcommittee, so I invite you to stay seated where you
are, take your seat at the witness table to participate in the
hearing this morning, and I thank you for coming.
The obstacles we face in energy and sustainability are of
unprecedented scale and complexity. The Senate and House are
working on legislation to institute a cap-and-trade program for
greenhouse gases. We are still heavily dependent upon non-
renewable energy supplies that are located outside our borders.
We will only meet these challenges through aggressive and
sustained support of research and development.
That said, I understand the difficult task of balancing
priorities for energy research and development in an
unfavorable budget climate. In general, I believe the
Administration's budget request for DOE is a reasonable one.
The Administration has proposed increases for a number of
important energy R&D programs; however, I believe we need more
invested in other areas that hold the great promise for
diversifying our energy supplies, energy efficiency and
renewable energy technologies.
The budget request for the Office of Science is consistent
with our efforts in the America COMPETES Act and the Democratic
Innovation Agenda to increase investments in basic energy
research and development. It was unfortunate that Congress was
forced to make significant cuts to the Fiscal Year 2008 basic
research budget to avoid the President's veto, and I hope that
a bipartisan commitment to ensuring our country's future
prosperity will help to avoid a repeat of this situation in the
year ahead.
I am pleased that this budget supports a restoration of
funding for the U.S. contribution to the ITER International
Fusion Project, as well as research towards a proposed
International Linear Collider. It is important for us to honor
our international commitments. The credibility of the United
States as a reliable partner in future international research
projects will be significantly undermined if these corrective
actions aren't taken.
The picture for applied energy programs is not quite as
good as the one for basic research. The budget request for
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Programs is 27 percent below
the appropriation for this year. While there are some notable
proposed increases, there are some reductions that take us in
the wrong direction.
The cheapest, cleanest energy we will ever find is the
energy we don't use. Therefore, I cannot understand why the
Administration has once again elected to eliminate the
Weatherization Assistance Program. We should be looking for
more ways to encourage deployment of products and technologies
that increase energy efficiency. We should also provide
increased support for solar and wind energy. If we are to
expand the energy supplied by these renewable sources, we will
need sustained increases in funding for these programs.
In the U.S., industry is responsible for one-third of all
energy consumed, with the majority of that attributable to the
heavy manufacturing sector that is struggling to stay
competitive in an increasingly global marketplace. The
Administration's proposal to decrease funding for the
Industrial Technologies Program is baffling, especially in
light of its record of success.
On the positive side, I am pleased to see the proposed
increase for research and development in biomass and
biorefinery systems. The increased investment in research and
development for cellulosic ethanol production is essential if
we are going to meet the targets we have set for bio-based
fuels.
I am also pleased to see the Administration's proposal to
increase funding for the Geothermal Technology Program after
the Administration proposed closing out this program just a
year ago. The proposed funding level of $30 million is still
far short of the $95 million authorized in the '07 Energy Act,
but at least we are now moving in the right direction.
There is much in this budget proposal that we can agree on,
but not everything. What most troubles me is the
Administration's repeatedly ignoring the law by withholding
funds and trying to repeal programs that Congress authorized
and funded, and I am going to repeat that slowly. What troubles
me most is this Administration repeatedly ignoring the law by
withholding funds and trying to repeal programs that Congress
has authorized and funded.
Specifically I am talking about the oil and gas research
project funded in Section 999 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005.
The Administration should take the time to understand this
program and see the potential in research collaborations
between universities and small, independent producers and to
let them do their work. We cannot flip the switch overnight,
and it is essential to develop and utilize new technologies
that will enable us to reduce our dependence on foreign sources
of energy.
And finally, I must note the absence of ARPA-E in the
budget request. What the Department proposes in its place, a
smattering of small, inter-disciplinary projects and a half-
hearted reworking of the technology transfer policy, simply
will not suffice as a substitute for implementation of this
program.
I have noted just a few items in this diverse budget
proposal. Energy is essential to our way of life. We must do
all that we can to ensure the Department of Energy has the
resources to accomplish the monumental task of guiding us to a
future with a more diverse energy supply that has fewer
environmental impacts. Research and development investments are
the key to that future. I hope the Administration will work
with us to secure a budget for DOE that will accomplish these
goals.
We have a distinguished panel of witnesses with us this
morning, and I look forward to hearing your testimony.
Right now I am pleased to yield to the distinguished
Ranking Member of the Subcommittee, Mr. Bob Inglis.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Lampson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Chairman Nick Lampson
This hearing of the Energy and Environment Subcommittee will come
to order.
Good morning and welcome to today's hearing on the FY09 Department
of Energy budget request and future directions for energy R&D.
The obstacles we face in energy and sustainability are of
unprecedented scale and complexity. The Senate and House are working on
legislation to institute a cap-and-trade program for greenhouse gases.
We are still heavily dependent upon non-renewable energy supplies that
are located outside our borders. We will only meet these challenges
through aggressive and sustained support of research and development.
That said I understand the difficult task of balancing priorities
for energy R&D in an unfavorable budget climate. In general, I believe
the Administration's budget request for DOE is a reasonable one. The
Administration has proposed increases for a number of important energy
R&D programs. However, I believe we need more invested in other areas
that hold the great promise for diversifying our energy supplies--
energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies.
The budget request for the Office of Science is consistent with our
efforts in the America COMPETES Act and the Democratic Innovation
Agenda to increase investments in basic energy R&D. It was unfortunate
that Congress was forced to make significant cuts to the FY08 basic
research budget to avoid the President's veto, and I hope that a
bipartisan commitment to ensuring our country's future prosperity will
help to avoid a repeat of this situation in the year ahead.
I am pleased that this budget supports a restoration of funding for
the U.S. contribution to the ITER international fusion project, as well
as research towards a proposed International Linear Collider. It is
important for us to honor our international commitments. The
credibility of the United States as a reliable partner in future
international research projects will be significantly undermined if
these corrective actions aren't taken.
The picture for applied energy programs is not quite as good as the
one for basic research. The budget request for Energy Efficiency and
Renewable programs is 27 percent below the appropriation for this year.
While there are some notable proposed increases, there are some
reductions that take us in the wrong direction.
The cheapest, cleanest energy we will ever find is the energy we
don't use. Therefore, I cannot understand why the Administration has
once again elected to eliminate the Weatherization Assistance program.
We should be looking for more ways to encourage deployment of products
and technologies that increase energy efficiency.
We should also provide increased support for solar and wind energy.
If we are to expand the energy supplied by these renewable sources we
will need sustained increases in funding for these programs.
In the U.S. industry is responsible for one-third of all energy
consumed, with the majority of that attributable to the heavy
manufacturing sector that is struggling to stay competitive in an
increasingly global marketplace. The Administration's proposal to
decrease funding for the Industrial Technologies Program is baffling
especially in light of its record of success.
On the positive side, I am pleased to see the proposed increase for
R&D in biomass and biorefinery systems. The increased investment in R&D
for cellulosic ethanol production is essential if we are going to meet
the targets we have set for bio-based fuels.
I am also pleased to see the Administration's proposal to increase
funding for the Geothermal Technology Program after the Administration
proposed closing out this program just a year ago. The proposed funding
level of $30 million is still far short of the $95 million authorized
in the 2007 Energy Act, but at least we are now moving in the right
direction.
There is much in this budget proposal we can agree on, but not on
everything. What most troubles me is the Administration repeatedly
ignoring the law by withholding funds and trying to repeal programs
that Congress has authorized and funded.
Specifically I am talking about the oil and gas research project
funded in Section 999 of EPAct 2005. The Administration should take the
time to understand this program and see the potential in research
collaborations between universities and small, independent producers,
and let them do their work. We cannot flip the switch overnight, and it
is essential to develop and utilize new technologies that will enable
us to reduce our dependence on foreign sources of energy.
Finally, I must note the absence of ARPA-E in the budget request.
What the Department proposes in its place--a smattering of small
interdisciplinary projects and a half-hearted reworking of the
technology transfer policy--simply will not suffice as a substitute for
implementation of this program.
I have noted just a few items in this diverse budget proposal.
Energy is essential to our way of life. We must do all we can to ensure
the Department of Energy has the resources to accomplish the monumental
task of guiding us to a future with a more diverse energy supply that
has fewer environmental impacts. R&D investments are the key to that
future. I hope the Administration will work with us to secure a budget
for DOE that will accomplish these goals.
We have a distinguished panel of witnesses with us this morning. I
look forward to hearing your testimony.
I am pleased now to yield to the distinguished Ranking Member of
the Subcommittee, Mr. Bob Inglis.
Mr. Inglis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I suppose I should
respond to your opening statement, and that is that generally
the Department of Energy has the courtesy of testifying--of
having its Under Secretaries testify on a single panel. And
just last week Admiral Lautenbacher, for example, in a similar
situation testified on a separate panel. I don't know why the
Committee decided this week to change all that and decide that
it would not accord this protocol to the Department of Energy,
but as a result we are not hearing from Mr. Albright and Mr.
Orbach. But we are happy to have the rest--the other panel
here.
And I would ask Mr. Chairman that, just to make sure that
this is the case, that Mr. Albright's and Mr. Orbach's
testimony--written testimony will be included within the
record.
[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 (DOE), the Government Accountability Office (GAO),
and the American Physical Society for appearing here today to discuss
funding for vital research and development projects.
After looking over the Administration's FY 2009 DOE Budget
proposal, I find myself in agreement with the two points Dr.
Beinenstock made in his submitted testimony: (1) the FY08 Omnibus
significantly damaged DOE funding and DOE is now scrambling to recover
(2) It's not a good idea to cut funding for the Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
Mr. Gaffigan from GAO will tell us that our investments in
alternatives to oil are nowhere near what they were following the
energy crisis in the 1970s. I wonder if that's because we don't believe
we're coming up on an energy crisis of our own in this century, or if
it's just that we're ignoring it? I'm disappointed to see that this
budget proposal cuts away at hydrogen, solar and nuclear energy
alternatives that can create new industry, new jobs, and a better
climate.
Last year, about this time, I asked Andy Karsner for assurance that
the final year of the President's Hydrogen Fuel Initiative did not mark
the end of our commitment to hydrogen research and development. Mr.
Karsner assured me that while the Hydrogen Fuel Initiative was coming
to a close, it didn't mark ``the end of the Hydrogen Program and its
robust future that [DOE] expects to continue growing to meet its
technological readiness milestones which are necessary over the next
decade.'' Today, DOE will suggest that we cut $64.9 million from the
Hydrogen Program.
Such a reduction would suspend applied research on renewable
hydrogen and delay the advent of a hydrogen future. If enacted, this
funding decrease would mean closure of laboratories dedicated to
renewable hydrogen projects and a subsequent loss in the valuable
momentum and research.
The Department of Energy can help lead this country to energy
security. American ingenuity, venture capitalists, and industry are
ready to join in this effort. I hope that we can find agreement that
breaking free of oil requires great goals and great commitments. This
budget should embody those goals and empower those commitments.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
Mr. Costello. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Lampson. Mr. Costello.
Mr. Costello. I object.
Chairman Lampson. The objection is heard, and it will not
be inserted in the record.
Mr. Inglis. That seems nasty.
Mr. Costello. Mr. Chairman, if I can be heard on my
objection.
Chairman Lampson. Mr. Costello.
Mr. Costello. I thank you. Mr. Chairman, I find it highly
offensive that the Administration did not send Mr. Albright,
the Under Secretary, over here today to present their budget
and to allow Members to ask questions concerning the
Administration's budget.
I am not aware of the protocol in terms of who serves on
what panel or is invited to testify before this subcommittee on
particular panels, but I certainly do not believe that it
should be up to this Administration or any other Administration
as to how this committee conducts its business or who serves on
what particular panel to present their testimony.
Further, I believe that if we allow the Administration just
to submit their written testimony to this committee without
coming over to allow Members the opportunity to discuss the
budget and ask questions, then what is to say that future
Administrations will say, well, the Bush Administration got
away with it. Why don't we just send our written testimony over
and protect our Department from questions that the Members of
this subcommittee and Committee may ask.
So that is my objection, and that is why I am reserving
our----
Chairman Lampson. Thank you, Mr. Costello.
Mr. Inglis. May I be heard on the point? It is--I wonder,
Mr. Costello, last week what do you think we did with NOAA?
Mr. Costello. I don't know what the decision was, but my
point is that it should be up to this committee and not the
Administration, this Administration or future Administrations,
to determine who is going to be invited on which panel to
testify. That should be left to the discretion of this
committee.
You know, are we in the future going to say, well, we
invite you to come over and testify before this subcommittee
and then have the Administration tell us when they want to
testify, what they are going to testify to, and if they don't
get their way, they are not going to come? They will just
submit written testimony?
I find it highly offensive and I think every Member of this
subcommittee should be offended by the fact that Mr. Albright
did not appear here today, and I personally believe that there
are other motives why they are not here today. I think it was
to avoid questions concerning some of the decisions that have
been made in this budget.
Mr. Inglis. If I can be heard on that?
Chairman Lampson. Before you comment let me just make, that
there are two hearings scheduled next week under similar
circumstances; NASA--excuse me. Single panel. Single panel----
Mr. Inglis. It appears to me that we would have had
actually more time for questions, would we not, if there were
separate panels? You would have another round of questions for
everybody on the panel up here, so it doesn't make any sense
what you just said, that there would be less questions.
In other words, so let us do the math. If we have two
people out here, and we have five people up here, five people
get to ask two people questions. If we then go to a second
panel, you actually multiply the number of questions, don't
you? You double the number of questions for each panel.
Mr. Costello. I don't think we are--if the gentleman would
yield, I don't think we are talking about the number of
questions. I think we are talking about one, letting the
Administration determine business that should be conducted by
and rules that should be adopted by this committee, decisions
that should be adopted by the Committee, and secondly, it is
not a matter of the number of questions. I think--my personal
opinion is that Mr. Albright is not here today because he
doesn't want to answer questions concerning certain issues in
this budget, in particular about FutureGen. Now, that is my
personal opinion.
But go back to the point that either this Administration or
future Administrations should not determine decisions that
should be made by this subcommittee. And I am highly offended
that they would not be here today, and I think that every
Member of this subcommittee should be highly offended on both
sides of the aisle.
You know, who knows what is going to happen in the next
election and which Administration is going to be serving in the
White House next. I don't think they ought to dictate the
rules. I think we should.
Mr. Inglis. Yes. Something tells me that that will change
if we get the post-partisanship, and if a future Administration
says that, would you give us the courtesy of letting our Under
Secretaries get back to their jobs.
Mr. Costello. Well, you are conceding that your side will
not win, take the Majority over in the November election.
Mr. Inglis. No. I am hoping that Mr. McCain will also move
us to post-partisanship. I am not sure you got a nominee, but I
assume you will have one before the big dance in November, but
we have got a nominee, and I think that he will be talking
about post-partisanship.
And it seems to me quite a normal courtesy to simply say to
the DOE witnesses, come, testify, answer plenty of questions,
and then get back to work. Don't wait around while you have--
having people you want to put on the panel so the Under
Secretaries are detained here. They are happy to come and
testify. They are willing to come and testify, but now what we
have got is a little waste of time here as we discuss whether
we did--we are upset and offended that they didn't come and
testify. Well, they are happy to come and testify, and they
were going to answer questions. It is just--it is a courtesy to
allow the Administration to come in, testify, and then leave.
We did that last week. I don't know why we are not doing it
this week. It really--it is one of those things where it is
just sort of somebody got their back up, I guess, and decided
that pride was more important than just moving along. And it is
unfortunate, I think.
So here we are in Science Committee with what is typically
done in other committees, where you just have a little bit of
pride entering into the situation and not allowing good work to
be done.
Mr. Costello. Mr. Chairman, I don't know about the pride
factor, but I do know this. I do know that this Administration
should not make decisions concerning policy that should be
reserved for decisions made by this subcommittee. For that
reason I continue to object.
Mr. McNerney. Mr. Chairman, I would like to be heard on the
issue.
Chairman Lampson. You are recognized for five minutes.
Mr. McNerney. I am going to follow up by saying I am
surprised and disappointed that the DOE is not represented here
this morning. I am looking forward to some of the testimony. I
read what I was given this morning, and they seem to be setting
a precedent here of not complying with our requests for
testimony.
So I hate to see a pattern develop in which this committee
and other committees call for testimony and are not given the
obligation.
So I am going to join Mr. Costello and add my objection and
disappointment to this behavior by the Department of Energy and
the Administration.
Chairman Lampson. Your objection is noted. I might add that
Mr. Isakowitz has been asked to represent the Department and
allowed to take the place, and I want to make a comment that I
thought post-partisanship was already here, and it began with
me when I came back to the House of Representatives and my
effort to try to make sure that we didn't have nonsense like
this.
We do have a responsibility in this Congress, and our
responsibility is that of oversight. We have, I thought, the
right to set the rules when somebody invites, when I invited
someone to our house. If a guest comes into my home, I
typically don't allow them to tell me what I have to do in
being a good host. It seems to me that that is the courteous
way to handle something like this.
I did not want this, Bud Albright is a friend of mine and
has been for a very long time. I have not spoken with him. I
don't know all of the reasons why this is occurring. It seems
to me that the bottom line in my mind is that it is our
responsibility to hear testimonies. When we invite someone to
come here to help us understand what that proposal is, we ought
to at least be able to set the terms of those visits.
It has been that way. I believe that it was done that way
under Mr. Sensenbrenner when I served under him and he was the
Chairman of the Science Committee. I know that there have been
Cabinet Members who have sat in this room at that table with
outside witnesses. It was not intended to be offensive to the
people that we invited to be our guests in any way whatsoever.
I think that in order to be consistent and to make sure
that we do things to set the precedent that needs to occur for
future panels that we sit on, that I would uphold the
objection.
Ms. Biggert. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Lampson. Does anyone else wish----
Ms. Biggert. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Lampson. Yes. Ms. Biggert, you are recognized.
Ms. Biggert. Thank you. I am disappointed that the
gentlemen are not here, but maybe this side of the aisle is the
hostess with the host, and there is a difference of opinion
about this situation.
And I don't think that the DOE is being unreasonable since
the Committee has not and will not be asking other
Administration witnesses from NOAA and NSF and NASA to the DHS
tomorrow to testify on a panel with outside experts. So I guess
we are in--maybe we are in the silly season, but I think that
is too bad.
I am most concerned with the gentleman from Illinois'
comment that they are not here because they didn't want to
answer questions. They have submitted their testimony, and we
have it. I don't see any reasons for not including that, and we
have somebody that represents them to answer the questions. I
don't know what evidence there is that they have something that
they want to--not want to tell us. I think that they have
always been very open and answered our questions extremely well
and have been here. And I think this is just too bad that we
have this situation.
And I would ask that their testimony be included.
I yield back.
Chairman Lampson. Thank you. I just want to point out that
on Tuesday and Thursday of next week there are panels of
Administration officials who are going to be serving or
testifying with outside panelists. So it is being done, and
like I said a minute ago, there was one Cabinet Member who came
with outside panelists under----
Ms. Biggert. If the gentleman will yield. I think that----
Chairman Lampson. Be happy to.
Ms. Biggert.--they are not--the rule is not being applied
uniformly, and so that this is why we--the question is raised.
Chairman Lampson. How has it not been applied uniformly or
not being applied?
Ms. Biggert. Well, NSF and NOAA----
Chairman Lampson. NASA and NIST have a hearing scheduled
next week.
Ms. Biggert. Yeah, but some of them have outside and some
have not.
Chairman Lampson. Of these two, these two have, and I think
that it should be the decision of this committee, not the
decision of the Administration telling us how we need to run
our business. And again, it should cut across partisan lines.
There should be no difference 10 years from now or two years
ago. It should be that we set the rules, in my opinion.
Ms. Biggert. Could the gentleman from Illinois answer what
is the evidence that they don't want to answer questions?
Mr. Costello. If the gentlelady will yield, I didn't say
that I had evidence. I said it was my personal opinion that Mr.
Albright does not want to answer questions concerning the
decision to scrap the Future Generation Project. As the
gentlelady may know, the Chairman of the Full Committee, along
with the Chairman of the Subcommittee, myself, and other
Members have asked the GAO to review the decision and how the
decision was made by the Administration to scrap this program
after five and one-half years of investments and so on.
But it is my personal opinion. That is not the point. The
point here this morning is should the Administration set policy
for this committee, or should this subcommittee set our own
policy and determine exactly what the rules will be for
conducting business before this subcommittee. I don't think,
you know, the Administration as the Ranking Member said, that
Mr. Albright was willing to come here this morning, but
apparently he was willing to come under his rules and under his
terms and conditions as to how he would testify or what panel
he would be on. And I don't think that should be in this
Administration or any Administration's discretion to set policy
for this committee.
And that is the entire point that I am making.
Mr. Inglis. If Mr. Chairman----
Chairman Lampson. Ms. Biggert, are you finished with your
time? Ms. Biggert, are you finished with your time?
Ms. Biggert. Yes, sir.
Chairman Lampson. Okay.
Ms. Biggert. I yield back.
Chairman Lampson. Then I recognize Mr. Inglis.
Mr. Inglis. I would just like to respond to the gentleman
from Illinois that as of seven o'clock, eight o'clock last
night Mr. Albright was coming and was perfectly willing to
come. DOE tells us that they have never testified at a budget
hearing in a situation like this. In other words, that it has
been the practice of this committee and the procedure to allow
Administration witnesses to present the budget and then get
back to work. This is their work as well, but they also can--
they have other things that they need to attend to.
So I think it is not accurate to say that Mr. Albright
didn't want to come here and answer questions. He was happy to
be here and to answer questions. And if you do the math, he
would have answered more questions this way. In fact, if you
want more questions about FutureGen, do the math, and you got
more question opportunities with two panels than you got with
one. So if you want to make a point about FutureGen, the math
works in your favor to have two panels.
So--but what we are asking for here is simply this. Now we
are--the DOE has not been afforded the courtesy, and now the
Minority is about to not be afforded a courtesy and that is to
ask unanimous consent, and I would specifically ask unanimous
consent to allow the testimony of Mr. Orbach and Mr. Albright
to be admitted as part of the record.
Mr. Costello. Mr. Chairman, I object, and if we, in fact,
follow this course and accept the testimony, we are sending a
message to the Administration and to the Department of Energy
and for that matter, other departments that this subcommittee
has jurisdiction over that they can set the rules, and if they
do not like the policy set by this committee, they just simply
do not have to come over and testify. They can submit their
written testimony and set policy for this committee.
We, you know, we can continue this all morning if you would
like, but the fact is I think we are setting a terrible
precedent here. I think as I said earlier, all Members of this
subcommittee on both sides of the aisle should be highly
offended that the Administration has decided that they will
come before this subcommittee only when they set the policy and
under the conditions that they like.
So with that, Mr. Chairman, I object.
Chairman Lampson. And the objection is noted.
Mr. Inglis. I request a vote to the objection
notwithstanding to proceed with putting it in the record.
Mr. McNerney. Mr. Chairman, before the vote I would like to
ask a question of the Ranking Member.
Chairman Lampson. Hold on one second.
Mr. Inglis. Mr. Chairman, I am not sure it is debatable at
this point. I think we ought to proceed to a vote.
Chairman Lampson. Mr. McNerney.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Ranking Member
said the DOE has never presented in a panel with other experts.
Chairman Lampson. Hold on one second, please. I have to do
something slightly differently than that. I have to say that it
is my prerogative, I believe, to allow this testimony to go
into the record or not, and I am choosing to not allow that
testimony.
And at this point in time you may appeal that decision.
Mr. Inglis. And so I appeal the ruling of the Chair, Mr.
Chairman.
Chairman Lampson. Further proceedings on this will be
postponed to the call of the Chair.
Recess for 15 minutes as of now.
[Recess.]
Chairman Lampson. Okay, our meeting is back in session. I
would recognize Mr. Costello for five minutes.
Mr. Costello. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Mr. Chairman, as you
know, we have been talking to the Minority on this issue. I
would be willing to withdraw my objection if the Minority will
agree that we will not accept the testimony of the
Administration in the future in lieu of an Administration
witness appearing before the Committee to offer testimony,
unless there is unanimous consent to do so.
I yield to the Ranking Member for his comment.
Mr. Inglis. I thank the gentleman from Illinois'
suggestion. I think it is a good suggestion. I agree with him
that it should not be a precedent that we allow Administration
officials to duck hearings and submit written testimony. So I
appreciate his offer and am happy to accept it.
Mr. Costello. I thank the gentleman, and at this time I
withdraw my objection.
Chairman Lampson. The objection is withdrawn, and I ask Mr.
Inglis to continue with his opening statement.
Mr. Inglis. So, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and we have
achieved post-partisanship here. See, we have worked together
cooperatively, and the nice thing about this committee is even
though we have differences of opinion that arise from where you
sit determines where you stand and all that, still there is no
personal acrimony, and I very much appreciate that in the
Chairman and the gentleman from Illinois, my friends whom I am
happy to work with. And so thank you for the cooperative spirit
we just saw in working through that.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing, and I
want to thank our witnesses from the Department of Energy and
the Government Accountability Office and the American Physical
Society for appearing here today to discuss vital research and
development projects and the funding for those.
After looking over the Administration's fiscal year 2009
DOE budget proposal, I find myself in agreement with the two
points that Dr. Beinenstock made in his submitted testimony.
One, that the fiscal year 2008 Omnibus significantly damaged
DOE funding, and DOE is now scrambling to recover, and two, it
is not a good idea to cut off funding for the Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
Mr. Gaffigan from GAO will tell us that our investments in
alternatives to oil are nowhere near what they were following
the energy crisis in the 1970s. I wonder if that is because we
don't believe we are coming up on an energy crisis of our own
in this century, or if it is just that we are ignoring it? I am
disappointed that this budget proposal cuts away at hydrogen,
solar, and nuclear energy alternatives that can create new
industry, new jobs, and a better climate.
Last year about this time I asked Andy Karsner for
assurance that the final year of the President's Hydrogen Fuel
Initiative did not mark the end of our commitment to hydrogen
research and development. Mr. Karsner assured me that while the
Hydrogen Fuel Initiative was coming to a close, it did not mark
``the end of the Hydrogen Program and its robust future that
DOE expects to continue growing to meet its technological
readiness milestones which are necessary over the next
decade.'' Today DOE would suggest that we cut $64.9 million
from the Hydrogen Program.
Such a reduction would suspend applied research on
renewable hydrogen and delay the advent of a hydrogen future.
If enacted, this funding decrease would mean closure of
laboratories dedicated to renewable hydrogen projects and a
subsequent loss in the valuable momentum and research.
The Department of Energy can help lead this country to
energy security. American ingenuity, venture capitalists, and
industry are ready to join in this effort. I hope we can find
agreement that breaking free of oil requires great goals and
great commitments. This budget should embody those goals and
empower those commitments.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Chairman Lampson. Thank you, Mr. Inglis. I ask unanimous
consent that all additional opening statements submitted by the
Subcommittee Members be included in the record.
Without objection, so ordered.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Costello follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Jerry F. Costello
Mr. Chairman, thank you for overseeing this budget hearing today. I
appreciate the opportunity to take a closer look at the Department of
Energy's (DOE) budget request for fiscal year 2009 and also to discuss
the FutureGen project, a prototypical clean coal research project five
years in the making which was recently scrapped by DOE.
I've been very clear that I think the decision by DOE to back out
of the agreement to build the FutureGen project in Mattoon, Illinois
was about politics. It is hard for me to believe that the
Administration would have pulled the plug on the project had the
Alliance decided to build the plant in Texas. Until just weeks before
announcing their decision, Secretary Bodman stated that they were
``diligently working to complete the process and issue the Record of
Decision.'' Although I have heard DOE's reasoning behind the changes to
the project, I don't believe any of the problems were insurmountable,
nor do I believe the newly proposed project is any better than
FutureGen as originally envisioned.
What I do know, Mr. Chairman, is that none of the reasons
previously stated by officials at DOE for scrapping FutureGen in
Mattoon warranted the inevitable lengthy delays that this decision will
cause to carbon capture sequestration technology research and
development. After the President announced this clean coal initiative
at the State of the Union in 2003, after five years of work, coalition
building and negotiation, and after more than ten million dollars of
taxpayer money spent, it's absolutely baffling that a decision as
short-sighted as this was made.
Finally, I'm afraid that in addition to ``re-scoping'' the
FutureGen project and delaying the development of this critical
technology, this decision has sent a terrible signal to our private
sector partners to not invest in coal technology and not to trust the
Federal Government. I firmly believe that a significant investment by
the Federal Government to fully develop clean coal technologies. DOE's
decision to cancel this project and start again at square one is a huge
disappointment and represents irresponsible government. At a time when
we are spending close to a trillion dollars in Iraq, certainly we can
afford to invest in our energy future. Waiting three years will not
make this project any cheaper and does not get us any closer to fully
developing coal as an energy resource. This decision says to all those
who have invested in this project-to the people of Mattoon, to the
FutureGen Alliance of energy companies and to countless others that the
government can walk away from a project whenever it wants.
Thank you, again, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to discuss the
DOE budget. I am committed to advancing clean coal technology, I
believe that developing our domestic coal reserves to use coal cleanly
and efficiently should be an essential part of this nation's energy
policy. I look forward to hearing from our panelists on this matter.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bartlett follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Roscoe G. Bartlett
In order for the United States to expand the use of commercial
nuclear power, an expansion which I strongly support, it will be
necessary to increase the number of trained and certified nuclear
engineers and technicians. That is why I was extremely disappointed
when the Department of Energy chose two years ago to propose
termination of the existing University program within the Office of
Nuclear Energy. While the Department continued providing applied R&D
funding to universities through its GNEP program, the lack of basic
stewardship support and organizational accountability has had a
tangibly negative impact on nuclear engineering programs and research
reactors around the United States, including at the University of
Maryland, College Park.
In its FY 2009 budget submission, the Department has apparently
rethought the need to be a steward of the U.S. University-based nuclear
education enterprise. The FY 2009 budget again recommends elimination
of funding for the University Reactor Infrastructure and Education
Assistance program. However, it also includes directions to the Office
of Nuclear Energy, through its Energy Research Initiative process, to
designate at least 20 percent of the R&D appropriated funds for
purposes of supporting R&D activities at university research
institutions through competitive awards focused on advancing nuclear
energy technology.
The budget justifications also highlight the Department's intention
to support investigator-initiated basic research, fellowships and young
faculty awards, and infrastructure and equipment upgrades for
University-based research reactors and laboratories.
Who within the Office of Nuclear Energy will be responsible for
management of DOE-funded R&D activities at university research
institutions?
How does the Department intend to allocate these funds?
Will there be University-specific solicitations?
Will these solicitations be peer-reviewed?
How much of the 20 percent will be dedicated to mission-specific
applied R&D?
I look forward to receiving answers to these questions from the
Department of Energy.
Chairman Lampson. It is my pleasure to introduce our
witnesses this morning. Our first witness is Mr. Steve
Isakowitz, the Chief Financial Officer of the Department of
Energy, Mr. Mark E. Gaffigan is the Acting Director of the
Natural Resources and Environment Team for the U.S. Government
and Accountability Office, and Dr. Arthur Bienenstock is the
President of the American Physical Society and Professor at
Stanford Synchrotron Radiation Laboratory and in the
Departments of Applied Physics and Materials Science and
Engineering at Stanford University.
You will each have five minutes for your spoken testimony.
Mr. Gaffigan and Dr. Bienenstock, your written testimony
will be included in the record for the hearing, and when you
are all complete with your testimony, we will begin with
questions. Each Member will have five minutes to question the
panel.
Mr. Isakowitz, please begin.
STATEMENT OF MR. STEVE ISAKOWITZ, CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER,
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Mr. Isakowitz. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Inglis, Members of
the Committee--Subcommittee, thank you for giving me the
opportunity to appear before you to discuss the Department of
Energy's budget request for 2009.
I think it is safe to say that the goals of the Fiscal Year
2009 budget are largely unchanged from our budget goals in
previous years. This budget request provides us the resources
needed to continue to move forward on our five central
missions.
First, promoting and enhancing energy security. Second,
nuclear security. Third, the scientific discovery and
innovation, fourth, environmental responsibility, and fifth,
management excellence.
Since 2001, this Administration and Congress have invested
more than $180 billion in the Department of Energy and its
programs. These investments have been used to address the
growing demand for affordable, clean, and reliable energy, have
helped safeguard our national security, and have enabled
scientific research, leading to significant improvements in the
quality of life and health of the American people and our
environment.
The Department's fiscal year 2009 request in the amount of
25 billion was developed with the need to continue these
activities in mind and to address the energy challenges that
confront us daily.
An investment of this size allows us to fulfill our central
missions as well as advance the goals of the President's
American Competitive--Competitiveness Initiative to ensure the
U.S. technological competitiveness and economic security.
It also allows us to continue our progress towards the
goals of the President's Advanced Energy Initiative,
accelerating the research, development, and deployment of
clean, alternative energy technologies.
The Department of Energy is responsible for promoting
America's energy security. We encourage the development of
reliable, clean, and affordable energy supplies, as well as
strengthening U.S. competitiveness by leading in innovation and
scientific discovery. At the same time we continue to ensure
the security of the nuclear stockpile, and we reclaim and
restore the sites that are the Nation's environmental legacy.
All this is done under the rubric of sound management,
consistent with the President's management agenda to improve
performance and accountability.
But this budget request also reflects our concerns about
America's energy future. The projected growth in global energy
demand is a major challenge for us all. It is a challenge that
must be met with responsible action. Global demand will
continue to grow. We cannot depend solely on hydrocarbons to
meet it. This is a problem for all nations, energy producers,
and consumers alike.
I believe, therefore, that it is vital that the United
States pursue policies that enhance global energy security, not
just our own. We need new energy options, cleaner, more
efficient technologies, and alternative fuels, and we must
support fully the research and innovation necessary for their
development. We must diversify our energy supplies, diversify
our energy suppliers, and establish and secure additional
energy supply routes.
This budget document should also be viewed as a roadmap
showing the future course of America's energy security. This
course will not, in my judgment, be an easy one, but it is
necessary. These efforts will require a sustained commitment on
the part of Government, strong private sector investment, and
strategic collaborations between the Government, the private
sector, and the research community, including academia. Our
goal is to foster continued economic growth and promote a
sustainable energy future.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement, and I am pleased
to answer any questions you or the other Members of the
Subcommittee may have about the Department's budget request.
Chairman Lampson. Thank you, Mr. Isakowitz.
Mr. Gaffigan, you are recognized.
STATEMENT OF MR. MARK E. GAFFIGAN, ACTING DIRECTOR, NATURAL
RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT TEAM, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY
OFFICE
Mr. Gaffigan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman and
Members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to be here to discuss
long-term trends in DOE's energy R&D funding and key barriers
to the development and deployment of advanced energy
technologies. These issues are of critical importance as the
Nation strives to meet its energy needs.
Today, the United States is heavily reliant upon
conventional fossil fuels with oil, natural gas, and coal
providing most of our energy. Fossil fuels have provided the
benefits of relatively cheap and plentiful energy and great
economies of scale from a fossil fuel-based infrastructure.
However, this is a dual-edged sword, as the lack of
diversification in our energy portfolio does not easily provide
alternatives when concerns about the cost and supply of fossil
fuels rear their ugly head.
Well, after a relative lull in these concerns since the
price spikes and shortages of the 1970s and early '80s, these
concerns are back, bigger than ever. Fossil fuel prices have
risen, and a continued reliance on these finite resources, in
particular foreign oil, has raised concerns about supply.
However, adding to the mix of these renewed price and
supply concerns is a relatively new and sustained concern about
the environmental costs of fossil fuels. In particular, the
combustion of fossil fuels that account for significant amounts
of greenhouse gas emissions.
Advanced energy technologies offer the promise of
alternatives to our current energy portfolio. DOE has funded
research and development in advanced renewable, fossil, and
nuclear energy technology since the 1970s.
Today I would like to address two issues. One, the trend in
DOE energy R&D funding, and two, the key challenges to develop
and deploy advanced energy technologies.
First, as the chart to my right shows, the trend in DOE
energy R&D funding over the past 30 years has been a story of
steep decline, followed by slight recovery. In today's dollars
DOE energy R&D funding for advanced technologies in renewable,
fossil, and nuclear energy peaked 30 years ago at $6 billion,
falling 92 percent in 20 years to about a half billion dollars
before a rebound over the last 10 years to about $1.4 billion
in 2008.
However, funding today still has not reached a quarter of
its peak of 30 years ago. DOE's fiscal year 2009 budget for
this R&D is about $1.8 billion. In addition, DOE's Office of
Science has requested $4.7 billion, primarily for fundamental
research in such areas as basic energy sciences, high energy
physics, and fusion energy. Some aspects of this basic research
for things like material sciences may have useful applications
for advanced energy technologies.
Regarding advanced energy technologies, the development and
deployment of these technologies present key technical costs
and environmental challenges. For renewable energy, a key
challenge is to make these technologies cost competitive. For
fossil energy, a key challenge is to address the environmental
impacts of emissions, in particular the carbon dioxide and
mercury emissions of coal plants. Nuclear energy faces key
challenges in addressing its high capital costs and
environmental concerns about minimizing and managing nuclear
wastes.
However, while DOE has spent about $57 billion over the
past 30 years for R&D and these technologies, the Nation's
energy portfolio has not dramatically changed. As the second
pie chart shows here to my right, conventional fossil energy in
1973 provided 93 percent of our needs, yet 30 plus years later
it still provides 85 percent of our energy.
It is clear that DOE energy R&D funding alone will not be
enough to deploy advanced energy technologies. Thus,
coordinating DOE energy R&D with other federal energy R&D
programs and policies, incentives, standards, and mandates will
be important. In addition, other governments at the local,
State, and foreign levels, and the worldwide private sector
will play key roles.
To put all this in some perspective, one energy consulting
firm recently estimated that worldwide clean energy investment
could surpass $7 trillion by 2030. That is 122 times the $57
billion DOE has spent in the last 30 years. As the Nation goes
forward, it will be important for DOE energy R&D to find its
niche amidst all these players and activities. Given the
limited research dollars available to DOE, in the fiscal
environment of a nation with a $9 trillion debt, it is
important to make these dollars count. These dollars can count
the most by targeting them towards specific and measurable
goals with a clear federal role and benefits that make advanced
energy technologies cost competitive and environmentally sound
so that their deployment will be sustainable in the
marketplace.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my opening remarks. I have
submitted a written statement for the record, and I welcome any
questions you might have. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gaffigan follows:]
Prepared Statement of Mark E. Gaffigan
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
I am pleased to be here today to discuss the challenges that our
nation faces in meeting its future energy needs. The United States has
primarily relied on market forces to determine its energy portfolio.
The market has generally succeeded in providing us with plentiful,
reliable, and inexpensive conventional fossil fuels--oil, natural gas,
and coal--to power our vehicles and run our homes and businesses.
However, as shown in Figure 1, the Nation's energy portfolio today has
not dramatically changed since 1973. In 2006, fossil fuels accounted
for 85 percent of the Nation's energy supply as compared with 93
percent in 1973--the primary difference in the portfolio was the growth
of nuclear power in the 1970s and 1980s. Oil continues to account for
97 percent of the energy consumed for transportation and fossil fuels
continue to generate 71 percent of the Nation's electricity; renewable
energy grew slightly during this period to seven percent of U.S. energy
consumption.
While conventional fossil fuels have provided us with relatively
inexpensive and plentiful energy, they present economic and national
security risks and have adverse health and environmental impacts. For
example, about two-thirds of the oil we consume is imported, and supply
constrictions have contributed to major energy price shocks several
times since 1973. More recently, decreased domestic production and
increased world consumption of oil have pushed prices upward, nearly
doubling the amount American consumers have paid for oil in just the
past three years. In addition, DOE projects that U.S. transportation
demand will increase by 31 percent and U.S. electricity demand will
increase by 35 percent by 2030. Furthermore, emissions from the
conventional burning of fossil fuels have contributed to health
problems--about 50 percent of Americans live in areas where levels of
one or more air pollutants are high enough to affect public health.
Also, the combustion of fossil fuels account for most of the greenhouse
gas emissions--particularly carbon dioxide--that have been linked to
global warming.
Since its inception in 1977, the Department of Energy (DOE) has had
leadership responsibility for energy research, development, and
demonstration (R&D) to deploy advanced renewable, fossil, and nuclear
technologies. DOE's energy R&D goal is to develop technologies for
meeting future energy demands, addressing health and environmental
issues, and diversifying the Nation's energy portfolio.\1\ During the
past 30 years, DOE has spent about $57.5 billion for R&D in renewable,
fossil, and nuclear technologies. In addition, DOE's Office of Science
has spent about $34.3 billion from fiscal year 2000 through fiscal year
2008 on related basic energy research in such areas as high energy and
nuclear physics, basic energy sciences, and fusion energy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ DOE is also responsible for energy efficiency programs, which
are integral to addressing future energy challenges by reducing demand.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE's fiscal year 2009 budget requests $1.8 billion for renewable,
fossil, and nuclear energy R&D and $4.7 billion for the Office of
Science. In addition, several other federal agencies perform R&D to
develop advanced energy technologies. For example, the Department of
Agriculture funds R&D on ethanol and biodiesel production and energy
crops that maximize ethanol production. The Department of Defense is
the Nation's largest consumer of transportation fuels, spending $13.6
billion on energy in fiscal year 2006. The Department of Defense is
conducting R&D--some of it in collaboration with DOE--to develop
alternative fuels to displace oil. One Air Force program has already
certified a new fuel for the B-52 bomber, a 50/50 blend of the standard
oil-based JP-8 jet fuel and a new synthetic fuel currently derived from
natural gas that may be derived from biomass in the future.
In addition to R&D funding, the Federal Government can attempt to
tap the vast resources of the private sector through tax incentives,
such as tax credits to companies that make certain types of energy
investments. These tax preferences--which are legally known as tax
expenditures--result in forgone revenue for the Federal Government. The
revenue losses can be viewed as spending channeled through the tax
system. The Federal Government provides the energy industry and
consumers with 20 tax expenditures affecting energy supply, totaling
$6.3 billion in fiscal year 2007 and $4.9 billion in fiscal year
2008.\2\ While the tax subsidies were historically directed toward the
conventional energy sector, they have also been directed toward
stimulating the deployment of advanced energy technologies.\3\ For
example, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 provided a (1) two-year
extension of the production tax credit for renewable technologies, (2)
new investment tax credit of up to $1.3 billion for constructing new
clean-coal power plants, and (3) new production tax credit of 1.8 cents
per kilowatt-hour for up to 6,000 megawatts of new nuclear power
capacity lasting eight years after each qualifying nuclear reactor
begins service. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 also authorized DOE to
implement a new loan guarantee program for energy projects that
decrease air pollutants or greenhouse gases, employ new or
significantly improved technologies, and have a reasonable prospect of
repayment. In February 2007, the Congress authorized DOE to guarantee
loans of up to $4 billion.\4\ In December 2007, the Congress directed
DOE to make loan guarantees of up to $38.5 billion in fiscal years 2008
and 2009.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Summing of tax expenditure estimates does not take into account
interactions between individual provisions.
\3\ The alternative fuels production credit, the largest energy-
related tax credit, is a tax credit of $3 per oil equivalent barrel (in
1979 dollars) for gas produced from biomass or synthetic fuels produced
from coal.
\4\ See Pub. L. No. 110-5 (2007).
\5\ This direction appears in an explanatory statement to Pub. L.
No. 110-161 (2007), published by the House of Representatives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moreover, the Federal Government can enact standards and mandates
that could impact the Nation's energy portfolio. For example, the
Federal Government has recently revised the renewable fuels standards
to require the use of 36 billion gallons of biofuels by 2022.\6\ For
electricity, the Congress has considered renewable portfolio standards
that require a percentage of electricity be generated from renewable
sources. Consideration has also been given to either a carbon tax or a
carbon cap and trade program to reduce the environmental impact of
carbon emissions and to better enable the market to compare total costs
of conventional fossil energy sources with advanced energy
technologies. Many states and foreign governments have enacted energy
portfolio standards, mandates, and financial incentives to stimulate
the deployment of renewable energy technologies that address their
growing energy needs and environmental concerns. In particular, 29
states have established renewable portfolio standards requiring or
encouraging that a fixed percentage of the state's electricity be
generated from renewable sources. For example, in response to the Texas
renewable portfolio standard's requirement that 5,880 megawatts of
renewable capacity be installed by 2015, electric power companies had
installed over 1,900 megawatts of new renewable capacity by September
2006--about three percent of Texas' total electricity consumption.
Similarly, to develop a sustainable energy supply and protect the
environment, Germany established a goal to increase the share of
renewable energy consumption to at least 4.2 percent of its total
energy requirements by 2010 and 10 percent by 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Pub. L. No. 110-140 (2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Within this broader context, I will discuss today (1) funding
trends for DOE's renewable, fossil, and nuclear energy R&D programs and
its Office of Science and (2) key challenges in developing and
deploying advanced energy technologies. My remarks are primarily based
on our December 2006 report on key challenges to developing and
deploying advanced technologies for using renewable, fossil, and
nuclear energy.\7\ I will also highlight findings from our recent
reports on DOE's R&D for oil and natural gas and the Hydrogen Fuel
Initiative.\8\ We conducted our work for these reports from October
2005 through December 2007 in accordance with generally accepted
government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and
perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide
a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit
objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable
basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ GAO, Department of Energy: Key Challenges Remain for Developing
and Deploying Advanced Energy Technologies to Meet Future Needs, GAO-
07-106, (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 20, 2006).
\8\ GAO, Department of Energy: Oil and Natural Gas Research and
Development Activities, GAO-08-190R, (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 6, 2007)
and GAO, Hydrogen Fuel Initiative: DOE Has Made Important Progress and
Involved Stakeholders but Needs to Update What It Expects to Achieve by
Its 2015 Target, GAO-08-305, (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 11, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In summary, DOE's budget authority for renewable, fossil, and
nuclear energy R&D dropped by 92 percent (in inflation-adjusted terms)
between fiscal years 1978 and 1998 before bouncing back in part during
the past 10 years. Specifically, DOE's budget authority for renewable,
fossil, and nuclear energy R&D of about $6 billion was near its high
point in fiscal year 1978, when the Nation faced severe energy crises.
DOE's budget authority subsequently declined in the 1980s and 1990s as
energy prices returned to historical levels reaching its lowest level
in fiscal year 1998 at $505 million (in inflation-adjusted terms).
Since then, DOE's budget authority for renewable, fossil, and nuclear
energy R&D has increased to $1.4 billion in fiscal year 2008. The
Office of Science's budget authority also grew by 16 percent from
fiscal year 2000 through fiscal year 2008.
Further development and deployment of advanced renewable, fossil
and nuclear energy technologies faces three key challenges. First,
there are technology-specific challenges. For example, high-wind sites
have generally been developed using current wind turbine technology. To
further expand the use of wind energy, DOE is working with industry to
develop new wind turbine designs and materials that exploit low-wind
and offshore sites. Second, there are cost challenges. These advanced
energy technologies often face high up-front capital costs and the need
to improve operating efficiency so they can better compete with
conventional energy technologies. The nuclear industry, for example,
projects that new nuclear power plants will likely cost between $4
billion and $6 billion each, about twice the cost of comparable
conventional coal power plants. Finally, these technologies face
challenges in addressing emerging concerns related to public health and
the environment. For example, DOE is working with electric power
companies to demonstrate coal gasification and carbon sequestration
technologies designed to enable coal plants to reduce carbon dioxide
and mercury emissions.
DOE's Budget Authority for Renewable, Fossil, and Nuclear Energy R&D
Has Substantially Declined in Real Terms Since 1978
DOE's budget authority for renewable, fossil, and nuclear energy
R&D dropped by 92 percent (in inflation-adjusted terms) from $6 billion
(in inflation-adjusted terms) in fiscal year 1978 to $505 million in
fiscal year 1998 before bouncing back to $1.4 billion in fiscal year
2008. As shown in Figure 2, R&D budget authority in renewable, fossil,
and nuclear energy peaked in the late 1970s and fell sharply in the
1980s. Since fiscal year 1998, R&D budget authority for renewable and
nuclear energy R&D have grown, while fossil energy R&D funding has
fluctuated in response to coal program initiatives.
Nuclear energy R&D, which received no funding in fiscal year 1998,
experienced the largest increase, rising to $438 million in fiscal year
2008. During this period, budget authority for renewable energy
increased by 89 percent and fossil energy increased by 116 percent. A
comparison of DOE's fiscal year 2009 budget request with the fiscal
year 2008 appropriation shows that renewable energy R&D would decline
slightly, while fossil energy R&D and nuclear energy R&D would increase
by 34 percent and 44 percent, respectively (see App. 1).
As shown in Figure 3, budget authority for the Office of Science
increased by 16 percent from $3.4 billion in fiscal year 2000 to $4
billion in fiscal year 2008. The budget request for the Office of
Science for fiscal year 2009 is $4.7 billion, a 19-percent increase
over the fiscal year 2008 appropriation. Because the Office of Science
funds basic research in materials sciences, for example, many of its
R&D programs may have useful applications for energy R&D. In fiscal
year 2009, the Office of Science has requested $69.1 million for
research related to the solar energy R&D program, $42.9 million related
to biomass R&D, and $60.4 million for the Hydrogen Fuel Initiative. The
Office of Science also funds fundamental research in such areas as high
energy physics, nuclear physics, and fusion energy.
DOE Faces Key Challenges in Developing Advanced Energy Technologies for
Deployment
There are key technical, cost, and environmental challenges in
developing advanced renewable, fossil, and nuclear energy technologies
to address future energy challenges.
DOE's R&D Challenges for Advanced Renewable Energy Technologies
DOE's recent R&D focus in renewable energy has been in (1) biomass-
derived ethanol, (2) hydrogen-powered fuel cells, (3) wind
technologies, and (4) solar technologies. The primary focus of ethanol
and hydrogen R&D is to displace oil in the transportation sector. The
primary focus of wind and solar technologies is to generate
electricity. DOE also conducts R&D on geothermal and hydropower to
generate electricity, but they have reflected a small proportion of the
R&D budget in prior years and are not discussed here.
Biomass-derived ethanol. DOE's short-term R&D goal is to help meet
the administration's ``20 in 10'' goal of substituting 20 percent of
gasoline consumption in 10 years with alternative fuels, primarily
biomass-derived ethanol. DOE's longer-term R&D goal is to develop new
technologies to allow the ethanol industry to expand enough to displace
30 percent of gasoline requirements--about 60 billion gallons--by 2030.
In 2007, industry produced over seven billion gallons of ethanol,
displacing about three percent of the Nation's oil consumption.\9\
Ethanol, however, faces high production and infrastructure costs,
creating challenges in competing with gasoline nationally.\10\ Ethanol
refiners in the United States rely mostly on corn as a feedstock, the
use of which has contributed to price increases for some food products,
and ethanol's corrosive properties create challenges in developing an
infrastructure for delivering and dispensing it. DOE's R&D focuses on
(1) developing a more sustainable and competitive feedstock than corn,
primarily by exploring technologies to use cellulosic biomass from, for
example, agricultural residues or fast-growing grasses and trees; (2)
reducing the cost of producing cellulosic ethanol to $1.33 per gallon
by 2012 and $1.20 per gallon by 2017; (3) converting biomass to
biofuels through both biochemical and thermochemical processes to help
the industry expand; (4) contributing to a strategy to develop a
national biofuels infrastructure, including demonstration projects for
integrated biorefineries to develop multiple biomass-related products;
and (5) promoting market-oriented activities to accelerate the
deployment of biomass technologies. Although DOE has made progress in
reducing ethanol production costs, cellulosic ethanol in 2007-based on
current corn prices-still cost about 50 percent more to produce than
corn ethanol.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Biodiesel, electricity from batteries, and other technologies
also contribute to the displacement of oil. DOE's R&D efforts also
include, among other things, liquid fuels from biomass and plug-in
hybrid vehicles.
\1\ See GAO, Biofuels: DOE Lacks a Strategic Approach to Coordinate
Increasing Production with Infrastructure Development and Vehicle
Needs, GAO-07-713, (Washington, D.C.: June 8, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hydrogen-powered fuel cells. The long-term R&D goal of DOE's
Hydrogen Fuel Initiative is to provide hydrogen fuel cell technologies
to industry by 2015 to enable industry to commercialize them by 2020.
To be commercialized, hydrogen fuel cell technologies must be
competitive with gasoline vehicles in terms of price, convenience,
safety, and durability. Hydrogen is the preferred fuel for vehicle fuel
cells because of the ease with which it can be converted to electricity
and its ability to combine with oxygen to emit only water and heat as
byproducts. Let me clarify, however, that hydrogen is not an energy
source, but, like electricity, is an energy carrier. Furthermore,
because hydrogen is lighter than air, it does not exist on Earth and
must be extracted from common compounds. Producing hydrogen through the
extraction process requires energy from renewable, fossil, or nuclear
sources, adding to the challenge of developing hydrogen technologies.
Our January 2008 report concluded that DOE has made important progress
in developing hydrogen fuel cells, but the program has set very
ambitious targets and some of the most difficult technical challenges--
those that require significant scientific advances--lie ahead.
Specifically, R&D for vehicles includes reducing the cost of
commercial-scale manufacturing of fuel cells by nearly fourfold,
storing enough hydrogen on board a fuel-cell vehicle to enable a 300-
mile driving range, and increasing the durability of fuel cells by more
than threefold to match the 150,000 mile life-span of gasoline
vehicles. DOE also conducts R&D on stationary and portable fuel cells
which could be used, for example, to replace batteries on fork lifts
and diesel generators used for back-up power. We recommended that DOE
update its overarching R&D plan to reflect the technologies it
reasonably expects to provide to industry by 2015 to accurately reflect
progress made by the Hydrogen Fuel Initiative, the challenges it faces,
and its anticipated R&D funding needs. I would also note that
developing the supporting infrastructure to deploy the technologies
nationally will likely take decades, tens of billions of dollars in
investments, and continued R&D well beyond the 2015 target date.
DOE's fiscal year 2009 budget request would reduce funding for the
Hydrogen Fuel Initiative by 17 percent from $283.5 million in fiscal
year 2008 to $236 million in fiscal year 2009. The budget also proposes
to increase the proportion of longer-term R&D by increasing the funding
for basic research. Although the Hydrogen Program Manager told us that
funding is sufficient to meet target dates for critical technologies,
other target dates for supporting technologies--such as hydrogen
production from renewable sources--would be pushed back.
Wind technologies. DOE is assessing its long-term vision of
generating 20 percent of the Nation's electricity using wind energy by
2030. Its current R&D efforts, however, are focused on more immediate
expansion of the wind industry, particularly on utility-scale wind
turbines. More specifically, DOE has focused its R&D efforts on
improving the cost, performance, and reliability of large scale, land-
based wind turbines, including both high- and low-wind technologies;
developing small and mid-size turbines for distributed energy
applications, such as for residential or remote agricultural uses; and
gathering information on more efficient uses of the electricity grid
and on barriers to deploying wind technology and providing that
information to key national, State, and local decision-makers to assist
with market expansion of wind technologies.\11\ For example, one of
DOE's targets is to increase the number of distributed wind turbines
deployed in the United States from 2,400 in 2007 to 12,000 in 2015.
Although wind energy has grown in recent years, from about 1,800
megawatts in 1996 to over 16,800 megawatts in 2007, the wind industry
still faces investors' concerns about high up-front capital costs,
including connecting the wind farms to the power transmission grid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ DOE continues to perform R&D on offshore wind technologies as
well.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Solar technologies. DOE's R&D goal is for solar power to be
unsubsidized and cost competitive with conventional technologies by
2015 by, for example, developing new thin-film photovoltaic
technologies using less expensive semiconductor material than
crystalline-silicon to reduce the manufacturing cost of solar cells.
Specifically, DOE is working to reduce the costs of photovoltaic
systems from about 18-23 cents per kilowatt hour in 2005 to about 5-10
cents per kilowatt hour in 2015. DOE is also conducting R&D to reduce
the cost and improve the reliability of concentrating solar power
technologies, which use various mirror configurations to convert the
sun's energy to heat to generate electricity. In addition, DOE has
expanded R&D to address low-cost thermal storage to allow solar thermal
systems to be more valuable to utility grid power markets. Along these
lines, both the photovoltaic and concentrated solar power activities
have ramped up efforts in the areas of grid integration and reliability
to facilitate the transition to larger scale, centralized solar
electric power plants. Investors' concerns about high up-front capital
costs are among the most significant challenges in deploying
photovoltaic or concentrating solar energy technologies. This requires
both technologies to have lower costs for installation and operations
and maintenance, better efficiency of converting solar power to
electricity, and longer-term (20 to 30 years) durability.
DOE's R&D Challenges for Advanced Fossil Energy Technologies
Since fiscal year 2006, DOE has proposed eliminating its R&D in oil
and natural gas R&D and, in January 2008, announced a restructuring of
its coal R&D program.
Increased oil production. Since fiscal year 2006, DOE has proposed
to terminate its oil R&D. In November 2007, we reported that DOE's R&D
focuses on increasing domestic production primarily by improving
exploration technologies, extending the life of current oil reservoirs,
developing drilling technology to tap into deep oil deposits, and
addressing environmental protection. DOE officials stated that if the
oil R&D program continues, it would focus on such areas as enhanced oil
recovery technologies and expanding production from independent
producers. Independent producers account for about 68 percent of
domestic oil production.
Natural gas technologies. Since fiscal year 2006, DOE has proposed
to terminate its natural gas R&D. Our November 2007 report noted that
DOE's R&D focuses on improving exploration technologies, reducing the
environmental impact of natural gas operations, developing drilling
technology to tap into deep gas reservoirs, and developing the
technology for tapping into natural gas in naturally occurring methane
hydrate found in permafrost regions on land and beneath the ocean
floor.
Clean coal technologies. DOE's R&D goal is to reduce harmful power
plant emissions to ``near-zero'' levels by 2020. For new power plant
applications, DOE is developing and demonstrating advanced integrated
gasification combined cycle (IGCC) technologies. In 2003, DOE announced
plans to construct a near-zero emissions commercial scale R&D facility
called FutureGen with an alliance of coal mining and coal-based
electric generating companies. DOE had originally pledged about three-
quarters of the estimated $1 billion cost of the FutureGen project (in
constant fiscal year 2004 dollars). With escalation costs and rising
price of materials and labor, the estimated project costs rose to
nearly $1.8 billion. As a result, DOE announced in January 2008 that it
is restructuring FutureGen to focus on multiple, competitively selected
projects that demonstrate carbon capture and sequestration at
commercially viable power plant project sites. The impact of DOE's
restructuring on FutureGen at this time is not known, but an industry
official from the FutureGen Alliance noted that the project cannot go
forward without Federal Government assistance. Separate from the
FutureGen project, DOE also conducts R&D on near-zero emission power
plants--including carbon capture and sequestration--through its fuels
and power systems programs and its Clean Coal Power Initiative.
DOE's R&D Challenges for Advanced Nuclear Energy Technologies
DOE has focused nuclear energy R&D in the following three areas:
The Nuclear Power 2010 program focuses on reducing
regulatory and technical barriers to deploying advanced
``Generation III'' nuclear power reactors, which are designed
to be more efficient than currently operating reactors. Because
no electric power company has applied to the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission for a license to construct a new nuclear reactor in
the past 30 years, Nuclear Power 2010 shares the costs with
industry of preparing early site permits and or construction
and operating license applications for submission to the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Nuclear Power 2010 also
regulates the risk insurance authorized by the Energy Policy
Act of 2005 that protects industry from certain regulatory
delays during licensing and construction.
The Global Nuclear Energy Partnership program--an
extension of the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative--develops
proliferation-resistant nuclear fuel that maximizes energy
output and minimizes waste. Specifically, the program is
designed to reduce the threat of global nuclear proliferation
by developing advanced technologies for reprocessing spent
nuclear fuel in the 2030 time frame. One of the critical
elements of this effort is to develop a sodium-cooled fast
reactor designed to burn a wide variety of nuclear fuels to
reduce the total amount, temperature, and radiotoxicity of the
fuel that might otherwise have to be stored for thousands of
years in a repository.
Beginning in fiscal year 2008, the Generation IV
Program is focusing solely on the Next Generation Nuclear Plant
(NGNP), designed as a versatile, efficient, high-temperature
reactor capable of generating electricity and producing
hydrogen. DOE collaborates with 12 other international partners
on R&D related to fuels, materials, and design methodologies as
part of the Generation IV International Forum.
Concluding Observations
In the current wake of higher energy costs and the growing
recognition that fossil energy consumption is contributing to global
climate change, the Nation is once again assessing how best to
stimulate the deployment of advanced energy technologies. While still
considerably below its peak in the late 1970s, DOE's budget authority
for renewable, fossil, and nuclear energy R&D has rebounded to $1.4
billion during the past 10 years after hitting a low point in fiscal
year 1998. However, despite DOE's energy R&D funding of $57.5 billion
over the last 30 years, the Nation's energy portfolio remains heavily
reliant on fossil fuels. Many technical, cost and environmental
challenges must be overcome in developing and demonstrating advanced
technologies before they can be deployed in the U.S. market. Our
December 2006 report suggested that the Congress consider further
stimulating the development and deployment of a diversified energy
portfolio by focusing R&D funding on advanced energy technologies.
However, because it is unlikely that DOE's energy R&D funding alone
will be sufficient to significantly diversify the Nation's energy
portfolio, coordinating energy R&D with other federal programs,
policies, incentives, standards, and mandates that can impact the
Nation's energy portfolio will be important for targeting any desired
goals to change the Nation's energy portfolio. In addition, State and
local governments and other nations, along with a worldwide private
sector, will play a role in developing and deploying advanced energy
technologies both here and throughout the global energy market. A key
factor to any sustainable deployment of advanced energy technologies
will be to make them cost competitive, while addressing technical and
environmental challenges, so that the market can support a more
diversified portfolio. Otherwise, without sustained higher energy
prices for our current portfolio, or concerted, high-profile Federal
Government leadership, U.S. consumers are unlikely to change their
energy-use patterns, and the U.S. energy portfolio will not
significantly change.
Contacts and Acknowledgments
For further information about this testimony, please contact me at
[email protected]. Richard Cheston, Robert Sanchez, Kerry Lipsitz,
MaryLynn Sergent, and Anne Stevens made key contributions to this
statement.
Biography for Mark E. Gaffigan
Mark Gaffigan is currently serving as an Acting Director for the
U.S. Government Accountability Office's (GAO) Natural Resources and
Environment team. His current responsibilities include leadership of
GAO's work on energy related issues. Mr. Gaffigan began his career with
GAO in 1987 and has worked on a variety of reviews of federal programs
with an emphasis on budget and program reviews of the U.S. Department
of Energy. Mr. Gaffigan earned a BA in Economics and a MA in Public
Administration from the University of Illinois. He is also a CPA in the
State of Maryland.
Chairman Lampson. Thank you, Mr. Gaffigan.
And from Stanford, Dr. Bienenstock.
STATEMENT OF DR. ARTHUR BIENENSTOCK, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN
PHYSICAL SOCIETY; SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT FOR
FEDERAL RESEARCH POLICY, STANFORD UNIVERSITY; PROFESSOR,
STANFORD SYNCHROTRON RADIATION LABORATORY AND DEPARTMENTS OF
APPLIED PHYSICS AND MATERIALS SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING
Dr. Bienenstock. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Inglis, Members of the
Subcommittee, you have my written testimony. Let me summarize
it briefly.
In doing so I will address two issues: the extraordinary
damage done by the 2008 Omnibus bill to DOE science, and the
balance between DOE's basic research and technology programs.
My one chart, which shows GDP deflated appropriations for
the Office of Science, shows that for more than two decades the
GDP corrected funding for science has been almost flat for DOE
science. However, the deflator for scientific R&D generally
runs about one to two percent above the GDP deflator. Using
these numbers we estimate that the Office of Science has lost
approximately one-third of its budget capacity over the last
two decades.
In Fiscal Year 2006 alone the program suffered a real
reduction of about 7.5 percent, and to date the programs have
not recovered. The '07 and '08 budget requests were designed to
address this issue, but the appropriations failed to
materialize.
This year the consequences have been enormous. Four of the
many major impacts are, first, the budget for the U.S.
commitment to ITER was zeroed out, reneging on our commitment
to this international project and severely damaging our
reputation as an international scientific partner. That will
make it much more difficult in future years for us to engage in
other international efforts that will become very important as
major scientific facilities grow increasingly expensive.
Next is high energy physics. The reduction of R&D funding
for the International Linear Collider and the zeroing out of
the neutrino project, NOnA make the future of the field very
bleak. Five hundred people at Fermilab and the Stanford Linear
Accelerator Center (SLAC) are being laid off. An additional 10
percent of Fermilab's staff is being furloughed. The loss of
expertise at these labs will hurt science broadly, and the
message to any young American scientist is to avoid the field
or seek a position elsewhere in the world.
Third is the operation of basic energy sciences user
facilities. These facilities support a broad range of
scientific and technological research from structural biology
to semiconductor processing with users from academic,
government, and corporate labs. Even though they are typically
doubly oversubscribed when operating at full capacity, they
will suffer operating reductions of up to 20 percent. The
impact will be felt throughout the U.S. scientific and
technological communities.
Finally, the 2008 budget has resulted in the rejection of
700 proposals in energy research the Department had hoped to
fund. Scientific advances will be delayed, and there will be
significant layoffs of students and post docs in the Nation's
universities as a consequence. Young people will turn away from
scientific careers just when the Nation needs them.
It is vital that the damage done by the '08 Omnibus bill be
reversed, at least partially. I urge you to provide a
supplemental appropriation of at least $300 million to the
Office of Science and allow it to contribute to ITER.
Now let me turn to the '09 budget request. I strongly
support the request and particularly if the supplementary
appropriation is provided. With that budget DOE can fund the
academic programs, it can operate its facilities full-time, and
instrument the magnificent new facilities coming on line.
Second, I believe that the Administration's budget for the
energy efficiency and renewable energy account is insufficient,
and Congress must rectify it.
However, Congress must not offset the increases to EERE by
reductions in funding for the Office of Science. Tempting as it
might be to put off for tomorrow the funding of long-term
scientific discovery for the sake of achieving short-term
technological gains today, we must resist doing so. Otherwise
the scientific basis for future technologies will be severely
undermined.
Thank you for your attention.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Bienenstock follows:]
Prepared Statement of Arthur Bienenstock
Mr. Chairman, Mr. Inglis, Members of the Committee, thank you for
the opportunity to testify today. I am President of the American
Physical Society whose 46,000 members work in academia, industry and
national laboratories. At Stanford University I am a special assistant
to President John Hennessy for federal research policy, and I have
previously served as director of the Stanford Synchrotron Radiation
Laboratory, one of four major X-ray user facilities supported by the
Department of Energy. As a disclaimer, I need to stress that my
testimony today only reflects my opinions, although in many cases they
are consistent with positions held by Stanford University and the
American Physical Society.
In the limited time I have, I will address two issues: (1) The
extraordinary damage done by the Fiscal Year 2008 Omnibus
appropriations bill to several DOE Science programs and the consequent
need to remedy the damage as soon as possible; and (2) The balance
between long-term basic science research and short-term technology
programs in the DOE's energy portfolio and how that is reflected in the
FY 2009 budget request.
To put the FY 2008 DOE Science appropriation in perspective, I want
to call your attention to the historic trend of federal support for the
program. As the chart illustrates, for more than two decades, the
funding has been almost flat when measured in GDP-deflator corrected
dollars.
However, salaries and, at big facilities, electricity bills are
prime drivers of the cost of performing research. As a consequence, the
GDP-deflator understates the inflation associated with research. In the
case of biomedicine, for example, the BIRDPI--officially known as the
Biomedical Research and Development Price Index--generally runs about
one to two percent above the GDP deflator, according to the Office of
Management and Budget, which calculates the index annually. There is no
reason to believe that research costs in other science areas behave any
differently.
Using these numbers as a guide, we estimate that the DOE Office of
Science has lost approximately one third of its budget capacity over
the last two decades. In FY 2006, alone, the programs suffered a real
reduction of about 7.5 percent, and to date, the programs have not
recovered. Indeed, the FY 2007 and 2008 budget requests were designed
to address the issue, but the appropriations failed to materialize.
This year, the Department has finally been forced to take extreme
measures to balance its books. Although many parts of the science
budget were affected, four deserve special mention.
First, the budget for the U.S. commitment to ITER,
which is the centerpiece of the world fusion energy effort, was
reduced to zero. The project involves an international
agreement among the European Union nations, Russia, China,
Japan, India the Republic of Korea and the United States. By
reneging on our commitment, which was supposed to be $160
million for FY 2008, we have severely damaged our reputation as
a reliable international scientific partner, and that will make
it much more difficult in future years for us to engage in
other international efforts. Yet, international collaboration
is likely to become increasingly important as major scientific
facilities grow increasingly expensive.
A second area severely affected is high-energy
physics, long one of the flag ship fields of American science
and one that gave us the World Wide Web, as well as accelerator
capabilities used in medical treatment and synchrotron
radiation-based advanced materials and pharmaceutical research.
The reduction of R&D funding for the International Linear
Collider project and the zeroing out of the neutrino project
NOnA make the future of the field very bleak. Already 500
scientists and engineers at Fermilab and the Stanford Linear
Accelerator Center have been notified that they will lose their
jobs, and an additional 10 percent of Fermilab's staff is being
furloughed. The message to any young American scientist is to
avoid the field or seek a position elsewhere in the world.
The operation of DOE user facilities is a third area
badly damaged. The facilities, which in the aggregate have cost
well more than $10 billion to construct, are gems in the
American scientific enterprise. The facilities support a very
broad range of scientific and technological research with users
from academic, government and corporate laboratories. They are
typically over-subscribed when operating at full capacity. They
will, however, suffer reductions of 20 percent in operations.
For American industrial users, the message is to move R&D
laboratories abroad, where similar facilities can provide more
reliable access. Academic and government laboratories users
will face a marked decrease in effectiveness and productivity.
Finally, the FY 2008 budget has resulted in the
rejection of 700 proposals in energy research the Department
had hoped to fund as part of our nation's effort to gain energy
security. Scientific advances will be delayed. There will be
significant layoffs of students and post-docs in the Nation's
universities as a consequence. Young people will turn away from
scientific careers when the Nation needs them.
It is vital that the damage done by the FY 2008 Omnibus
appropriations bill be reversed partially through a supplemental
appropriation that provides at least $300M of additional funding to the
DOE Office of Science.
This last point provides a segue to my observations about the FY
2009 budget request, which for brevity I will restrict to two points.
First, if appropriated, the funds requested by the Administration for
the DOE Office of Science would move this nation forward markedly in
energy sciences and reverse the trend towards declining budget capacity
that characterizes most of the past two decades. I strongly support the
request, and particularly if the supplementary appropriation discussed
above is provided so that valuable people and skills are not lost from
our national laboratories and academia.
Our nation must move aggressively to reduce carbon emissions and
our dependence on foreign oil and gas. To achieve these twin goals
requires investment in both near-term technological research and long-
term scientific research. We cannot afford to sacrifice one for the
other.
I believe that the Administration's budget for the Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy account is not nearly aggressive enough
and Congress, as it did last year, must rectify it. However, Congress
must not travel down the same road it did last year, when it offset the
increases to EERE by reductions in the planned commitments to the
Office of Science. Tempting as it might be to put off for tomorrow the
funding of long-term scientific discovery for the sake of achieving
quick, visible short-term technological gains today, we must resist
doing so. Otherwise the scientific basis for future technologies will
be severely undermined.
Biography for Arthur Bienenstock
Arthur Bienenstock, the President of the American Physical Society,
is Special Assistant to the President for Federal Research Policy at
Stanford University, where he is also a Professor at the Stanford
Synchrotron Radiation Laboratory and in the Departments of Applied
Physics and Materials Science & Engineering. From September 2003 to
November 2006, he served as the Vice Provost and Dean of Research and
Graduate Policy.
From November, 1997 through January, 2001, while on leave from
Stanford, he was the Associate Director for Science of the White House
Office and Science and Technology Policy (OSTP). At OSTP, Dr.
Bienenstock sought to gain general recognition of the interdependencies
of the sciences and the need for the country to maintain broad
scientific and technological strength. He also focused on ensuring that
the United States has a scientific and technological workforce, at all
levels, to meets the Nation's 21st Century needs. He led a Task Force
on the Government-University Research Partnership aimed at
strengthening the relationship, and championed an Interagency
Educational Research Initiative to fund large-scale, interdisciplinary
research on teaching and learning.
For the 20 years prior to his going to OSTP, Dr. Bienenstock
directed the Stanford Synchrotron Radiation Laboratory at the Stanford
Linear Accelerator Center, leading SSRL's transition from a scientific
project to a major facility. Prior to that, he served as Stanford's
first Faculty Affirmative Action Officer and as Vice Provost for
Faculty Affairs.
From 1963 to 1967, he was on the faculty of Harvard University's
Division of Engineering and Applied Physics.
Throughout the 1963-97 period, he maintained an active research
group in the general areas of solid-state physics, amorphous materials
and synchrotron radiation. He has published over 100 scientific papers
in these areas.
Dr. Bienenstock received a B.S. (1955) and M.S. (1957) degree from
the Polytechnic Institute of Brooklyn. He received his Ph.D. from
Harvard University in 1962. In addition, he was a recipient of a Ph.D.
(honorary) from Polytechnic University in 1997 and from Lund University
in June, 2006.
In 1968, Dr. Bienenstock was the first recipient of the Pittsburgh
Diffraction Society's Sidhu Award for his work in x-ray diffraction and
crystallography. He received the Distinguished Alumnus Award of the
Polytechnic Institute of New York Alumni Association in 1977 and the
Distinguished Service Award of the Department of Energy in 2005. He is
the President and a fellow of the American Physical Society and a
fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
Discussion
Chairman Lampson. Thank you, Dr. Bienenstock.
We will now move to our question period. I recognize myself
as Chairman for the first five minutes.
Section 999 of the Energy Policy Act
Mr. Isakowitz, I am concerned that obstructive tactics by
the Office of Management and Budget have impeded and
unnecessarily delayed the implementation of Section 999 of the
Energy Policy Act. We do not need burdensome governmental
processes and intergovernmental wrangling to slow the benefits
for American consumers.
When will the research dollars that Congress has provided
for the program begin to flow more than the trickle that we
have seen so far?
Mr. Isakowitz. You mentioned earlier the Administration's
proposal to repeal Section 999, but in this fiscal year we
understand and we are operating under the statute to go forward
with the program. And so, indeed, we are moving forward at this
time, having put out a competitive solicitation and do plan to
make awards shortly with regards to this program.
Chairman Lampson. I know that recommendations for research
awards have been made to the Department, and the researchers
are simply waiting for a decision as to whether the projects
are approved or not. But when can we expect DOE to approve or
disapprove recommended research projects?
Mr. Isakowitz. I don't have a date for you, but my
understanding is we are on pace to do something soon with this
program, and it is our intention to award these dollars.
Chairman Lampson. Is there anything that Congress can do to
help expedite the process?
Mr. Isakowitz. No. I think at this time we have what we
need to undertake this program in this fiscal year.
Chairman Lampson. It is my understanding that the annual
plans that have been developed by RPSE and submitted to the
Department of Energy have been developed with the input of
thousands of scientists, geologist, and experts. I am
concerned, however, that OMB has slowed the ultimate approval
of the 2007 annual plan and may well slow the approval of the
2008 annual plan.
Does OMB have the technical expertise to evaluate the
proposed annual plan?
Mr. Isakowitz. Well, you know, as you know it is part in
putting together the research plan as you said, through
committees we have reached out to the community, done a
thorough review, and of course, we coordinate within the
Administration for getting the job done. We believe that the
research plan that we have provided previously and we will be
providing in the future should adequately provide the kind of
information necessary to implement this program.
Chairman Lampson. I think the real answer to that is no, it
should reside with the advisory committee.
Does OMB have any authority to review the annual plan
before it is approved?
Mr. Isakowitz. On many matters that go before the Congress
we do, in fact, coordinate with OMB in advance of submission of
that material.
Chairman Lampson. The answer is no. Right?
Mr. Isakowitz. Well, on this matter we do coordinate with
OMB.
Chairman Lampson. Okay. The answer is no. Why would OMB
insert itself in the annual plan review process at all?
Mr. Isakowitz. Because on matters dealing with how money is
going to be spent in various areas, we do coordinate, you know,
within the Administration to ensure that there is consistency,
and we are not over-promising or obligating the Administration
in future years.
Chairman Lampson. Section 999 provides for the
establishment and operation of a technical committee that among
other duties will ensure that the research activities of NETL
and RPSE are not duplicative. Has a technical committee been
established? And what are the roles of the DOE and RPSE on that
committee?
Mr. Isakowitz. Frankly, sir, I am not aware of that
committee. I would have to get you an answer back for the
record.
[The information follows:]
Insert for the Record
The technical committee required by Section 999(H) has been
established. Most of the members have been confirmed and additional
members are being sought in order to provide full coverage of all the
technical areas in the program. Planning and organization continue with
an expectation that the committee will review NETL's complementary R&D
program in June 2008. DOE and NETL staff are not members of the
technical committee. NETL staff may be considered ex officio members
with roles to inform the committee about its research, to engage in
dialogue, and to respond to committee recommendations, as appropriate.
A RPSEA representative is participating on the committee in order to
provide information on RPSEA's activities and to participate in the
committee's discussions on the complementary nature of RPSEA and NETL
research.
Chairman Lampson. Could there not be a greater degree of
communication between NETL and RPSE and perhaps even including
establishing a small NETL office near RPSE, and perhaps I
should say I don't think that NETL has collaborated with RPSE
on this matter. Would you want to make any comment on it?
Mr. Isakowitz. Sir, we are happy to sit down with you and
your staff as to how you feel there are better ways we can work
between the various organizations. We think we are trying our
best with regards to reaching out to the various organizations
and getting their input so, in fact, we do have a good program.
Chairman Lampson. I think instead of us sitting down with
it, the law said a specific statement of--and even appropriated
the money. It just seems to me that the Executive Branch has a
responsibility of following the law. Maybe instead of us
sitting down and discussing it, that we need to revisit what
Congress said or you all need to revisit what Congress said in
the laws it had passed and the President signed.
That being said, I am going to stop at this point and yield
to the Ranking Member for his five minutes of questions.
Mr. Inglis.
Mr. Inglis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Isakowitz. Am I pronouncing that right?
Mr. Isakowitz. Isakowitz.
Mr. Inglis. Isakowitz. Okay.
Mr. Isakowitz. Yeah. It is a tough one.
Breaking Dependence on Oil Through Alternative Energy
Mr. Inglis. Thank you for being here and a question for you
is, I see the budget proposal has cuts for hydrogen, solar, and
nuclear infrastructure. I think it has an increase for the
biomass program. Other than that biomass program can you
highlight any significant lines that might indicate long-term
investments to breaking our dependence on oil?
Mr. Isakowitz. Yeah. I think it is important to look at it,
you know, certainly in its totality. You know, with regards to
the overall renewable budget, it is true that there are some
areas that are going up and some areas that are going down. We
have set out very aggressive paths with regard to implementing
a lot of the technologies, you know, in the various areas. You
do mention in the case of biomass, that is an area that is
going up. We propose increases in wind and geothermal and
building technologies, and there are good reasons why you see
changes in some of the other areas.
I think it is also important to note that when one views
the renewable budget, that we have another program that is
important for the Department of Energy, our Loan Guarantee
Program, that is also an effective means by which we can help
to bring a lot of these research efforts out of the
laboratories and working with industry to actually see them
implemented with regards to industry in the marketplace.
Mr. Inglis. Those are--that is helpful to know about, so
you are highlighting biomass, wind, geothermal, and building
technology. Those are----
Mr. Isakowitz. Uh-huh.
Mr. Inglis.--key areas to focus on. What was the rationale
for reducing hydrogen, solar, and nuclear?
Mr. Isakowitz. As you had mentioned in your opening
comments, the President did commit to spend $1.2 billion over
five years, from 2004 to 2008, in a Hydrogen Initiative. That
having been said, the Department of Energy does not view the
end of that five-year period being the 2009 budget as in any
way a sunset for that activity. I think instead we view it as a
maturing of that activity, where we have learned a lot in terms
of things that are going well and things that need more work.
I think if you look at the overall funding for hydrogen
across the Department, the funding does drop from the '08
enacted by about $13 million, and a lot of that is coming out
of the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
The other thing you need to keep in mind is we have
significant increases in the Office of Science. In fact, we
have a $24 million increase in hydrogen in the 2009 budget. I
believe that reflects that things that we have learned and
opportunities that we see that require longer term, more
fundamental research to ensure the success of the initiative.
Also, I would add that we have tried to within the funding
with EERE to make sure we focus on those things that meet the
date of 2015 in terms of addressing critical path technologies.
Mr. Inglis. Of course, the $24 million increase in
hydrogen, for example, in the Office of Science, that is nice.
It didn't compare very favorably to $1.2 billion.
Mr. Isakowitz. Yeah, and again, when I talk $24 million,
that is just going from '08 to '09, $1.2 billion is a grand
total across five years of the project. So for example, in '09
we are proposing $266 million, which a sizable portion of that
is from the Office of Science.
Mr. Inglis. Two-hundred and sixty-six million for----
Mr. Isakowitz. Overall for hydrogen across the Department
of Energy.
Mr. Inglis. For '09?
Mr. Isakowitz. For '09.
Mr. Inglis. Okay. And what is the impact of earmarks on
that, the money that has been spent in that $1.2 billion?
Mr. Isakowitz. I can't speak specifically with regards to
the earmarks within the Hydrogen Initiative. I can speak more
broadly with regards to the Department of Energy. You know, we
have seen a very worrisome growth the number of earmarks across
the Department and a lot of our critical areas. In fact, if we
look at the level of earmarks between 2002 and 2008, we have
had a total of $3.8 billion in earmarks within the Department
of Energy. And when you consider all the things we have talked
about, $1.2 billion for a Hydrogen Initiative, that is a
substantial amount of money, and that is an area of increasing
concern for the Department in order for it to accomplish its
mission.
Mr. Inglis. What I have heard, and tell me if you agree
with this, is that the earmarks, especially in hydrogen for
demonstration projects let us say that really don't demonstrate
a whole lot except maybe the ability of a Member of Congress to
bring home some bacon, really have eroded some of the punch
that could have been delivered in hydrogen. Is that correct?
Mr. Isakowitz. Yeah. I think what we had proposed, I
believe, is a very tight but highly-prioritized budget with
regards to hydrogen, and we do think to the extent that other
things are crowding that out, that we are having a less-than-
optimal budget. Yes.
Mr. Inglis. And Mr. Bienenstock, did you have some comments
you wanted to add about that, about the earmarks especially?
Dr. Bienenstock. Well, there is no question that the $124
million of earmarks in the Office of Science budget had an
enormous impact. I wouldn't have been speaking about these
other matters if that money had gone to the Office of Science,
and I assure you that within the academic community I am
working to get the universities to show more discipline in
their requests through the Association of American Universities
and the Council on Government Relations.
Mr. Inglis. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My time is
up.
Chairman Lampson. Ms. Giffords, you are recognized for five
minutes.
Solar Research and Development Funding
Ms. Giffords. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to thank
the panelists for being here today.
I come from a very sunny state, the State of Arizona, so
most of my questions are going to be on solar energy. The
President's request for solar research and development funding
have not only failed to increase during the recent years but
they have also failed to keep pace with inflation. This is
inspite of the case that solar energy is growing stronger with
each passing year, not just in the southwest, but in states
across the country and countries across the world.
And solar is increasingly becoming a viable solution to
some of the greatest challenges our nation faces in terms of
our dependency on foreign energy, in cases of global warming
and climate change and U.S. competitiveness as well. It also is
becoming more competitive in terms of a cost standpoint with
coal-fired electricity.
So I would like to ask Mr. Isakowitz specifically why the
President is not committed to spending more resources on solar
energy when this opportunity is presenting itself?
Mr. Isakowitz. We fully agree with you over the importance
of solar energy with regards to a national strategy on energy.
I think it is important to view our investments in the research
part of solar energy as part of a bigger investment that is
being made nationwide, and when we often look at our
investments, we look at where the technologies are, and in
fact, what is industry investing in these areas. I think solar
is one of the areas that we are seeing an increasing amount of
industry and private sector investment going in that area. So
we tried to be much more pinpointing in terms of the
investments we make within solar.
We do have a Solar America Initiative, which is very
important which continues on track in terms of achieving its
goals. I mentioned earlier that we have a loan guarantee
program of which right now we are negotiating with two firms
that are trying to bring online some very innovative ideas on,
one for concentrating solar power at a rather large scale, and
another one where we are working on some innovative ideas with
regard to thin film technologies on photovoltaic. And those
efforts are actually quite considerable, and if you look at the
volume of the dollars we are talking about there, they
certainly surpass just the research part of it.
So in addressing it we have to consider all those things,
the research dollars, what we can do in the loan program, what
the private sector is doing, but we feel that the investments
we are making are adequate to meet those needs.
Ms. Giffords. You mentioned concentrated solar power. I am
curious, does the CSP budget contain an increased funding for
thermal energy storage? And if so, what amount?
Mr. Isakowitz. I would have to get back to you on that one.
I don't have that at my fingertips.
[The information follows:]
Insert for the Record
Out of the approximately $30 million appropriated for Concentrating
Solar Power (CSP) in FY 2008, $10 million is being directed at thermal
energy storage, for R&D at the national labs and in preparation for an
upcoming solicitation this fiscal year directed at thermal energy
storage at both universities and private industry. Although the overall
FY 2009 budget request for CSP is $19 million, DOE hopes to provide
funding for thermal storage at the FY 2008 funding level.
Solar Workforce Training
Ms. Giffords. If you would. And the other issue that I
wanted to bring up is this workforce training, where this
Congress has had a chance to authorize workforce training
because that is something that we hear from the installers in
the field, and we hear from people around the country. They are
interested in solar, but we do not have enough qualified,
trained installers.
Again, Congress moved forward to authorize this training,
and it has not been put in the President's budget. So could you
please address that?
Mr. Isakowitz. Yes. I mean, I think this is something that
is true across the board, whether you are talking the nuclear,
solar, or the various other different technologies, and we
recognize this is a critical area. I believe it was in the
America COMPETES Act that call for investment in this area and
identified some amount of funding that should be set aside to
address that, and we are in the process now of doing a crosscut
to make sure that we are making adequate investments in this
area.
That having been said, we also recognize that our national
labs are a great attraction to students coming out of school
and an opportunity to do research. So in more recent years we
have tried to get more aggressive out at our national labs
working with faculty and students to try to encourage them to
pursue critical careers in these needed skills.
Solar Power Goals
Ms. Giffords. A couple questions I have. The wind program
in DOE's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy has
articulated a specific goal of wind power providing 20 percent
of the electricity in the United States. I want to know whether
or not there is a comparable goal for solar.
Mr. Isakowitz. There is a goal, and I will probably have to
get back for the record on that one, but I think the goal that
they have primarily set is that by, I believe the date was
2015, they tried to have solar to be cost competitive against
the other technologies that are out there.
Insert for the Record
Contributing 20 percent of electricity from wind is not a goal, but
rather a recognition of the potential for wind energy in the United
States. The specific DOE goals for solar energy are for PV to be cost-
competitive in residential and commercial markets by 2015 and for CSP
to be cost-competitive in intermediate power markets by 2015 and
baseload power markets by 2020.
Ms. Giffords. If you could get back to me on that. And one
last question. Mr. Bartlett had been working with us on his
interest in solar technology, and in terms of an amendment
offered by Representative Bartlett on solar lighting and also
solar air conditioning, I notice that the President had failed
to include that in the funding. And I was just curious why the
President has not taken, again, those initiatives brought
forward by Congress into consideration.
Mr. Isakowitz. As in with every type budget, you know,
there is a lot of exciting opportunities of things we can fund,
and oftentimes in a tight budget we just have to set some
priorities.
Ms. Giffords. I know, but Mr. Bartlett has been here a very
long time and is one of our smartest Members on the Committee,
so you know, if you could please bring back that consideration
to the President, I would appreciate that.
Thank you.
Chairman Lampson. Thank you, Ms. Giffords.
And I recognize Dr. Bartlett for five minutes.
Long-term Energy Security Interests
Mr. Bartlett. Thank you very much.
Dr. Bienenstock, your concern about the decrease in basic
research and R&D funding is very appropriate. Cutting funds in
those areas is the exact equivalent of the farmer eating his
seed corn.
I represent a rural area. I have a lot of farmers. Not one
of them is dumb enough to eat their seed corn, and I think that
they are quite surprised that our government is dumb enough to
eat its seed corn in this area. So thank you very much for your
concern and your counsel.
Mr. Gaffigan, you note that fossil fuels are finite. You
made that statement. Help me understand how our long-term
interests are served if, in fact, these fossil fuels are finite
and our present objective is to go out and find the remaining
reserves as quickly as we possibly can and consume them as
quickly as we possibly can. How is that in our long-term
security interests?
Mr. Gaffigan. Thank you. And I would say we have invested
in this infrastructure. You know, we have bought into fossil
fuels and it so hard to change off that course because they
have been relatively cheap, relatively inexpensive, and it is
very hard to change course--it is kind of a dramatic change
unless there is some realization that we are going to address
the environmental impacts--try to establish some type of
mandates or standards that say that that dependence on fossil
fuels is a bad idea. Again, that is a policy decision. But I
think ultimately it is hard to get off of an investment we have
made in fossil fuels. And I think to some extent fossil fuels
are still going to be part of our picture going forward.
Everyone I have talked to says it is going to be part of it.
Mr. Bartlett. It will be a part of it. We are kind of like
as the President observed, the cocaine addict that just has to
have another fix. We are hooked on oil, addicted to it. He is
exactly right.
U.S. Interest in Hydrogen
Mr. Isakowitz, why are we interested in hydrogen?
Mr. Isakowitz. I think hydrogen, like fusion research, I
think represents those sort of holy grails out there that if we
are successful in these areas of----
Mr. Bartlett. If we are successful in what areas?
Mr. Isakowitz. In the areas like hydrogen. If we can move
towards an economy that can support----
Mr. Bartlett. Then why are we interested in hydrogen?
Mr. Isakowitz. Well, because it reduces our dependency on
other forms of energy such as----
Mr. Bartlett. How is it going to do that? How is it going
to do that since hydrogen is not an energy source? We always
will use less--more energy producing hydrogen than we get out
of it. So the more hydrogen you use, the less usable energy you
have, unless we have some improvements in fuel cells. Is that
not correct? That the only justifiable reason for a heavy
investment in hydrogen is if we have fuel cells for which it is
a great candidate. Because burning it in the reciprocating
engine doesn't make a whole lot of sense because you could have
burned the thing you were making the hydrogen from in the
reciprocating engine and gotten more energy from it because the
second law of thermodynamics assures that. Does it not?
Mr. Isakowitz. I defer to your expertise on this matter,
sir, but I will just suffice it to say that the Department does
recognize that there--it is an important issue with regards to
how you go about producing the hydrogen. That is why as part of
our, for example, in our nuclear program, we have efforts to
look at how, through the conduct of nuclear energy, we can find
more affordable ways from which to produce the hydrogen that
can, in fact, support a hydrogen economy.
Mr. Bartlett. If we have a big increase in the nuclear
electricity generation, the hydrogen makes some sense, because
think of it, sir, in terms of a battery. It is a convenient way
to carry energy from one place to another. It is not an energy
source. It is not a silver bullet. It will not solve our
problem.
There is an enormous amount of irrational exuberance in
this whole area. There was a lot on hydrogen. Today the
irrational exuberance is on biomass and cellulosic ethanol. I
would encourage you to pull up and read a speech given 51 years
ago, the 14th day of May, by Hyman Rickover, the father of our
nuclear submarine, and he wisely warns that you probably
shouldn't be burning your food. We learned that with our silly
expansion of corn ethanol which doubled the price of corn,
raised the price of wheat and soybeans worldwide, and created
what one U.N. official said was a crime against humanity.
He also warned that you probably shouldn't be burning the
biomass. It will go back to increase the detilt of your soils
and then assure their fertility.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Lampson. Thank you.
Mr. Bartlett. I yield back.
Chairman Lampson. And I recognize Mr. Lipinski for five
minutes.
Reprogramming Request for High Energy Physics Laboratories
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank the
witnesses for their testimony and good to see you again, Dr.
Bienenstock. I was out there at Stanford last year, and I also
toured SLAC, and I have great concerns about the cuts to high
energy physics and the impact that that has not only on SLAC
but on Fermi in my home State of Illinois.
All the cuts, the layoffs that are taking place at both
Fermi and SLAC are, you know, very troubling. The impact that
this is going to have on the United States' position in terms
of high energy physics obviously, you know, I know as a former
academic that if you cut off the funding, people are going to
leave. First, you are not going to get interest in students
coming in and studying that in the future, but you are also,
you are going to have all these scientists leave our country,
go elsewhere.
And we have great hopes for the International Linear
Collider at Fermilab, and certainly I don't see--unless
something is done right now, I just don't see that moving
forward as high energy physics really is left in a lurch here
in the United States.
I want to ask Mr. Isakowitz if there are any plans that the
Administration has for submitting a reprogram request or
supplemental request to address the 2008 funding shortfall in
high energy physics.
Mr. Isakowitz. With regard to high energy physics, we are
not planning to send up a reprogramming in that area. We have
sent up with regards to ITER, because that is a program that is
an important international program that has been zeroed out. We
are deeply concerned and with regards to our international
commitments on that effort and our obligations. The
reprogramming that we sent up does not offset what was lost in
the '08 appropriations but will provide us with the funding
needed to at least keep the project office open so that we can
continue to work with our international partners on this
important effort.
And we are, hopefully we will achieve that reprogramming
soon so, in fact, we can keep the office open, which I think we
have funding currently only through the end of March.
Mr. Lipinski. I think ITER is also a very important
program. It is good to hear that, but Dr. Bienenstock, what
impact do you think this is going to have on high energy
physics in the United States?
Dr. Bienenstock. Oh, as I stressed in my testimony I think
it is a disaster for high energy physics and more than that. We
are going to see a loss of accelerator physicists, and you
think of accelerator physicists primarily for high energy
physics, but they are the people who have made possible the new
Spallation Neutron Source at Oak Ridge. They are the people who
originally made possible the synchrotron facilities like the
one that I operated that was originally a high energy physics
accelerator and then became a synchrotron facility.
We will need them for the next generations of the X-ray-
free electron lasers based on what is going on at SLAC, and I
fear that they will disperse to Europe and elsewhere, and we
will lose enormous capability where we were world leaders.
FutureGen Concerns
Mr. Lipinski. And I share your great concern about that.
One other issue I wanted to address was FutureGen. I am
very unhappy with the decision that was made on FutureGen. In
March of 2007, DOE signed these cooperative agreements with
industry to build FutureGen, and then the announcement being
made essentially that, you know, DOE was reneging on the
commitment that it had made. And right now it doesn't look
like--it is not that there is money being saved even, but my
great concern is I think FutureGen and what we are trying to do
with FutureGen is very critical to our energy needs and the
environmental concerns that we have now with global warming.
But, you know, why should anyone believe DOE is a worthy
partner when they see DOE back out of FutureGen like this?
Mr. Isakowitz. I assume that is directed to me.
Mr. Lipinski. Yes.
Mr. Isakowitz. First, to be clear, the Department is
completely and fully committed to the FutureGen and the goals
of the FutureGen, and we fully, as you have articulated,
recognize the importance of being able to demonstrate carbon
capture and sequestration at a large scale as being critical
for the industry.
That having been said, the Department often is faced with
the situation that although committed to a goal, must also
watch out for the taxpayer. And the feeling was that under the
current arrangement that there was a better way to go forward
than the arrangement that we had driven by two factors. One is
the significant cost growth that we have seen in the program,
and the concern that even though we had a number now that was a
lot bigger than we started with, we started with $900, now it
is $1.8 billion, we were concerned that that number would
continue to grow.
Second factor to keep in mind was a significant change in
the marketplace itself. When we started this program, a lot of
effort with regards to IGCC, Integrated Gasification and
Combined Cycle plans, was more of a research effort. Today it
is not just a research effort. We actually have the private
sector making important investments in this area. In fact,
under our loan program we had two companies that have come in,
in fact, we are in negotiations with now, with regards to
pursuing an IGCC plant.
And we are seeing increasing numbers of other companies
wanting to pursue it in this uncertain regulatory environment
that we see in a number of states.
So the critical component for us has been the CCS, the
carbon capture and sequestration. So what we have tried to
establish is a program that allows us to potentially award more
than one site to demonstrate this in a variety of areas and to
get it out in the commercial marketplace, potentially faster
than we otherwise would have done when we were treating it as a
research program.
So it was really driven by these two factors. One was the
concern that we wouldn't be able to control costs in its
current configuration, and second, we saw a major change in the
marketplace.
Mr. Lipinski. I know my time is up, but I just wonder about
how the DOE can go and choose a site and then so quickly all of
a sudden say, okay, after all that we really are not moving
forward with this after the site is chosen, the announcement is
made. I have great concerns about that, but I know that my time
is up and----
Chairman Lampson. The gentleman's time has expired, and we
do want to move on because we have got votes that we are going
to run out to, and I recognize Ms. Biggert for five minutes.
Maintaining America's Competitive Advantage
Ms. Biggert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to thank the Department of Energy for
remaining committed to the American Competitiveness Initiative
and the spirit of the America COMPETES Act in the Fiscal Year
2009 budget request.
Despite the failure by this Congress to fully fund related
R&D programs in each of the last two years, and I know that the
DOE was particularly hit hard by the Fiscal Year 2008 Omnibus,
and as a prior speaker said, we have been hit by the fallout in
the suburbs of Chicago with the premature shutdown and reduced
operation of the user facility at Argonne and the furloughs and
layoffs at Fermilab, which I am so upset about.
But I would like to look at just broader first of all. One
half of the growth of the GDP since World War II has been
attributed to science and technology innovation. And we are not
competing as a country, and we are losing ground to so many
other countries and the ability for us to be able to compete
economically is based on this physical research and
development.
And we are sitting here talking about all these little
things, but we are not as a nation really looking to push this.
Our committee needs to do this, and we have been doing this on
a bipartisan basis, but I think we really have to--our
Committee and our Congress has to follow through on our
commitment to increase the funding for basic research. We have
asked for doubling and now it has gone down. We have seen from
both Dr. Bienenstock's charts and Dr. Gaffigan's charts that we
are not making any progress practically at all.
And, you know, we are all singing on the same page, but we
are not in key, and if we don't find a way to make this a
priority, we talk about it, we have got an R&D caucus, we have
got all kinds of things where we talk about this. And I really
thought that our Members were all on the same sheet, and yet
then we find the appropriators cutting in the Omnibus bill or
the leadership, however that happened.
It is making such a mistake, and we see, you know, we are
talking about ethanol, but if we don't progress on our nuclear
energy and our reprocessing, it takes a long time to do that,
and we have to use every means and alternative energy to
proceed. And we just keep backsliding.
So that said, one of the questions is, you know, what are
the consequences to American businesses in reducing the
operation of DOE's user facilities by 20 to 25 percent? You
know, at Argonne that is going to happen. And have the, have
businesses raised concerns about this? And does American
industry have the option of taking their research overseas? And
what is the likelihood that these industrial users will ever
bring back the research to the U.S. if that is true, if maybe
Mr. Isakowitz, you could--I don't have much time. We are going
to vote. If you could answer that briefly.
Mr. Isakowitz. Yes. I think you raised two very important
points. Our funding in the Office of Science I think it is
interesting that it is under an initiative with the title, the
American Competitiveness Initiative. I think too often people
associate funding in basic research as not necessarily tied to
the economy and the competitiveness. We do. We take it very
seriously.
In fact, in our '09 budget proposal we have identified a
number of areas where areas in basic research teamed up with
our applied side of the house to make funding in a number of
areas such as energy storage, carbon capture, dealing with
advanced plasma technologies, as a way to insure that the basic
research we do, in fact, is inspired to ultimately make its way
into the marketplace.
Funding for Rare Isotope Beams
Ms. Biggert. And I have just got one more statement, and I
am going to run out of time, so I will cut you off.
I commend the DOE again for issuing the funding opportunity
announcements for the construction and operation of a facility
for the rare isotope beams. We call it kind of a real light,
but now it is called FRIB I guess is the new name, but this is
welcome progress and a project that has been identified as
critical to maintaining the U.S. leadership in nuclear physics
and nuclear science.
So this project isn't new. It has been on the drawing
board, but I hope that you will commit to sticking to the
timetable of this project, and I don't think that the
Department has had a very good track record when it comes to,
you know, to these projects and the commitment, whether we are
talking about RFPs for REA in 2005, or FutureGen. So I hope
that you will prevent this project from slipping any further.
And with that I would just like to thank Dr. Bienenstock
for bringing up the Fermi and Argonne and all of those projects
that are so important, and I hope that we all will, you know,
continue to really push for this research and development.
Thank you all for being here.
Chairman Lampson. Thank you, Ms. Biggert.
Ms. Biggert. Yield back.
Chairman Lampson. I want to thank all of you for appearing
before the Subcommittee this afternoon. I will apologize for
the way that we started our session out. Those of you who are
not from the government, it was the government's fault. All of
us.
Under the rules of the Committee, the record will be held
open for two weeks for Members to submit additional statements
and any questions that they might have for the witnesses. We
will submit our additional questions. We will not come back
following the votes.
We thank you all very much. This hearing is now adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:00 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
Appendix 1:
----------
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Steve Isakowitz, Chief Financial Officer, Department of
Energy
Questions submitted by Chairman Nick Lampson
Q1. The America COMPETES bill established an Advanced Research
Projects Agency for Energy, or ARPA-E. Has there been an organized
effort within the DOE to gather views on how a tool like ARPA-E can be
utilized for energy research? If so, how would you characterize the
findings of this effort?
A1. Yes, the Under Secretary for Science requested a review, which
determined that many of the goals of ARPA-E have largely been met by
ongoing energy research efforts within the Department.
Q2. The Industrial Technologies Program at DOE has had a long and
successful history of conducting collaborative research with industry
to improve the efficiency and emissions of industry. Yet, the
Administration has repeatedly cut this program, leaving it at one third
the level of funding it had as recently as 2000.
Q2a. Given the proven successes of the ITP, and the enormous potential
for energy savings and emissions reductions, why does the Department
continue to propose cuts to this program?
A2a. The Department recognizes the significant opportunity for
improving energy efficiency within industry. The Department requests
$62.1 million in FY 2009 for ITP, nearly a 35 percent increase over the
FY 2008 request, reflecting the important role of ITP in the
Department's portfolio.
Q2b. If industry was really capable of doing this research on its own,
would record high energy prices, global competition, and tougher
emissions regulations not already be enough incentive to do it?
A2b. Rising energy costs caused by higher global oil prices and growing
global competition are challenges faced by industries around the world,
including in the U.S. The Industrial Technologies Program is working
with industry in cost-sharing partnerships to develop real-world energy
solutions to help industry improve its efficiency.
Q3. A large fraction of the DOE federal workforce has been there for
decades. Yet, there does not appear to be a significant effort to make
it easier to bring in top talent and pass on institutional knowledge
before these folks retire in the next few years.
a. Does the Administration have any plans to address this
issue?
b. Is the Administration conducting a wholesale review of
recruiting and hiring practices to ensure a free-flowing
pipeline of top talent into federal research agencies?
A3. The Department is cognizant of the importance of succession
planning and has implemented initiatives to ensure a sustainable
workforce throughout the ``retirement tsunami'' which is anticipated as
the baby boomers enter the retirement era. As part of the Human Capital
Initiative of the President's Management Agenda the Department has
focused on improving several succession planning strategies to keep in
step with, or ahead of, attrition in both the SES and the GS ranks.
In 2006, a strategy was implemented to streamline the hiring
processes throughout the Department with results reported to the senior
managers. Since the inception of this strategy, hiring times have
improved dramatically. Currently, our non-SES hires are completed in 38
days, well below the OPM standard of 45 days, and our n SES hiring time
has improved by 64.4 percent over hiring in 2006.
Replacement percentages have likewise improved and kept abreast of
attrition in 2006 and, in fact, well ahead of attrition in 2007, as
illustrated below:
These statistics are an indication of our continued improvement in
human capital management, with practices in place to monitor both SES
and non-SES hiring on a monthly basis. In addition, annual Workforce
Plans and quarterly updates are prepared throughout the Department
which set goals and track results of a variety of human capital
initiatives, including succession planning and projecting workforce
requirements for the future.
The Department is continually monitoring trends in attrition and
retirements and incorporates those projections into Workforce Planning.
In addition to progress in the hiring process, the Department has
identified mission critical occupations and conducts a systematic
evaluation of current strengths/gaps in these areas, projecting needs
for the next five years. The Department is currently implementing an
automated Workforce Planning Model to streamline this process and
provide even more accurate forecasts.
The Department places high emphasis on maintaining a sustainable
and talented workforce, and senior management will continue to monitor
progress.
The Department has also implemented professional development
programs to enhance learning and knowledge sharing. Strategies to reach
this goal are being implemented corporately throughout the Department.
These strategies include: the Mentoring Program, Senior Executive
Service Career Development Program, and development programs for entry
and mid-level employees. Collectively, these programs support an
adequate workforce pipeline, effective strategic recruitment
activities, and successful continuity and succession planning
throughout the Department.
The Department of Energy is working with groups such as the
Partnership for Public Service to find best strategies to recruit from
colleges and universities and is also serving on many pilot projects in
an effort to find better approaches and solutions to the dilemma of an
aging workforce and mass retirements in the near future.
Q4. Can you provide an assessment of the impact that cuts in the
recent Omnibus to the ITER and International Linear Collider R&D
budgets are having on our international research collaborations
overall? How have our domestic fusion and high energy physics research
communities been impacted?
A4. The FY 2008 appropriations reduced U.S. credibility as a partner in
international scientific collaborations in general; and especially so
with ITER, since there is a formal agreement among the seven partners
to build it and it is currently under construction. I expect many
future science projects will require international collaboration and
cost sharing due to their cost and scope. If the U.S. is perceived as
an unreliable partner, it may limit our ability to participate in
world-class scientific collaborations in the future. The unwillingness
to deliver on U.S. financial commitments to ITER and wavering support
for International Linear Collider (ILC) R&D could have profound
international impacts. It is possible that there could be retaliation
from international partners in ongoing efforts such as the
International Space Station, the Large Hadron Collider, and the Global
Nuclear Energy Partnership.
The reduction to the funding for ILC R&D severely limited all
international collaborations and domestic programs in this research
area. Because most of the funds had already been costed at the time of
the appropriation, almost all U.S. ILC R&D programs were halted and the
workforce shifted to other programs, furloughed or released. The
international community adjusted by revising and extending its plan for
ILC R&D by several years. A more limited role is now planned for the
U.S., with efforts focused on those areas in which the U.S. has unique
capabilities. The United States' leadership role in the international
ILC R&D effort has been significantly diminished.
The FY 2008 funding shortfall for the U.S. Contributions to ITER
Project has had only a modest impact on the overall U.S. fusion
community because most of the people lost from the U.S. ITER Project
team were able to be transferred onto other programs in their home
institutions (Oak Ridge, Savannah River, and Sandia National
Laboratories, and Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory). Several staff
from the Magnet Group at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
however, may eventually lose their jobs.
Q5. A late addition to this budget regarding the Office of Science was
the creation of ``Energy Frontier Research Centers,'' which will focus
on important applications-oriented research including electrical energy
storage, solar energy, and carbon sequestration. However, there was
little description on how they will function and none on how much
they'll cost. Would you please provide more details on this?
A5. The Energy Frontier Research Centers (EFRCs) are a funding
mechanism, modeled after NSF's Physics Frontier Centers, used to
attract the very best scientists and engineers to address our country's
energy needs. The EFRC program will provide substantial, long-term
support for 20 to 30 groups of multiple investigators in a dynamic
research environment necessary to inspire, train, and support
scientists of the future who will have an appreciation for global
energy challenges. EFRC awards are each expected to be in the $2 to $5
million range annually for a five-year period, resulting in an initial
overall EFRC effort of approximately $100 million in FY 2009, pending
appropriations. This additional commitment of funds and duration-of-
effort will permit an EFRC to achieve a critical mass of researchers
and students having a diverse range of experience, skills, and talents.
The magnitude of the funding, and the five-year minimum commitments are
important aspects of the program.
The EFRCs will address energy and science grand in a broad range of
research areas that have been defined through a series of more than one
dozen workshops conducted over the past five years. Included in this
series were workshops devoted to identifying critical basic research
needs in: solar energy utilization, the hydrogen economy,
superconductivity, solid state lighting, advanced nuclear energy
systems, clean and efficient combustion of transportation fuels,
geosciences for energy systems, electrical energy storage, materials
under extreme environments, and catalysis for energy applications. EFRC
proposals are being solicited through a Funding Opportunity
Announcement (FOA) on Grants.gov, which opened on April 4, 2008 and
closes on October 1, 2008 (RE: http://www.grants.gov/search/
search.do?oppId=1738&mode=VIEW). This solicitation provides an open
competition among all researchers for the very best ideas to address
the fundamental questions of how nature works and to help solve some of
our most critical real-world challenges. The selection of awards in
will depend on the quality of the proposals received and the peer
review outcomes of the FOA competition. The EFRCs will address key
scientific issues that limit transformational advances needed for
future energy technologies.
Q6. The DOE Office of Science is the steward for several very large-
scale experimental and scientific facilities around the country, some
of which can cost hundreds of millions or more to build, and tens of
millions in annual operational costs. But, these facilities are often
used for non-energy research by other agencies such as NIH, DOD, NSF,
and private industry.
Q6a. Given the President's Science Advisor's calls to diversify
funding sources for research, is the current scheme adequate for the
dual goals of encouraging diverse, productive use of these facilities
and covering significant operational costs?
A6a. In the Office of Science, we employ a steward-partner model for
operating large user facilities for the Nation and find this model
provides stability and continuity of operations while promoting the use
of the facilities by a broad group of stakeholders for the advancement
of science and innovation. Under this model, as the steward the Office
of Science funds the core facility aspects (such as an accelerator
complex for a synchrotron light source) while simultaneously
encouraging our partners to use and invest in supporting facility
aspects (such as instruments, beamlines, and upgrades of a light
source).
The National Academy of Sciences endorsed this steward-partner
model in a 1999 report, Cooperative Stewardship: Managing the Nation's
Multi-disciplinary User Facilities with Synchrotron Radiation,
Neutrons, and High Magnetic Fields. The report noted if core operations
and maintenance of a facility become dependent on dispersed funding,
the entire facility operation may be threatened by the reduction or
withdrawal of support by a single component.
The Office of Science explores partnerships of all kinds:
interagency; international; Federal-State; and government-private
sector. For example, the Office of Science and the National Institutes
of Health equally funded the upgrade of the Stanford Synchrotron
Radiation Laboratory. We are pursuing the Joint Dark Energy Missions
jointly with NASA. Non-DOE domestic and foreign funding sources have
invested in instruments at some of our newest facilities, such as the
Spallation Neutron Source at Oak Ridge National Laboratory. And the
Office of Science forged international partnerships for some of the
largest facilities such as the Large Hadron Collider and ITER. These
types of partnerships leverage investments from diverse sources, enable
stable facility operations, and encourage diverse, productive facility
use.
Q6b. Is there a requirement of ``total cost recovery'' if a private
company wishes to retain intellectual property rights for work
conducted on these facilities, and do you have a sense on whether this
has prevented a significant number of American companies from making
good use of them?
A6b. The Department's policy is to provide access to the facilities
without charge to all qualified researchers, including those from the
private sector, whose intention is to publish in the open literature.
Researchers with proprietary interests may seek enhanced intellectual
property rights, which include the right to keep research results
secret. Researchers desiring such enhanced intellectual property rights
are charged user fees at rates designed to recover the full cost of
providing the service of operating our scientific user facilities.
Private companies retain ownership of new inventions they make as
users, regardless of whether they provide ``total cost recovery.'' The
vast majority of users does not seek enhanced rights and gain access to
the facilities without charge after their proposals have passed peer
review.
We believe this cost recovery policy encourages American companies
to use our facilities. Many industrial users of our facilities publish
in the open literature and use the facility without charge, and the
full-cost recovery policy for proprietary research gives researchers a
mechanism to retain enhanced intellectual property rights for work at
the facilities.
Charging user fees for non-proprietary work would discourage
industrial use of facilities. Significant industrial contributions to
beam line fabrication, instrumentation, and user support would diminish
or cease, thus denying the Department's leveraged use of these non-
federal investments for federal as well as non-federal use.
Q7. The nuclear R&D programs received a significant proposed increase
from $458 million in fiscal year 2008 to $629 million in the fiscal
year 2009 request. A big part of that increase is in the Advanced Fuel
Cycle Initiative which includes the Administrations Global Nuclear
Energy Partnership program.
a. Given that the National Academies October 2007 report
recommended that the GNEP program not go forward, but instead
should be replaced by less aggressive fuel cycle research, what
achievements can you share with us regarding GNEP that warrant
such a significant increase in funding?
A7. No response given.
Q8. Under a cooperative agreement the U.S. and Russia are jointly
developing a Gas Turbine Module Helium Reactor for the disposition of
excessive weapons-grade plutonium. This fiscal year this joint U.S./
Russian program has been moved from the National Nuclear Security
Administration to the Office of Nuclear Energy.
a. Could you please describe what the Office of Nuclear Energy
is doing to ensure that this program continues uninterrupted?
A8. No response given.
Q9. Given that a significantly expanded marine and hydrokinetic energy
R&D program was authorized in the energy bill passed just a few months
ago, please explain why the Administration cut this funding by 70
percent to just $3 million in its proposed FY09 budget.
A9. Funds provided by Congress in FY 2008 to conduct resource and
technology assessments are sufficient to carry out these activities
well into FY 2009. The $3 million request for FY 2009 will be
sufficient to continue critical activities during the remainder of the
fiscal year.
Q10. Section 999 provides for the establishment and operation of a
technical committee that, among other duties, will ensure that the
research activities of NETL and RPSEA are not duplicative.
a. Has a technical committee been established and what are the
roles of the DOE and RPSEA on that committee?
b. Should there not be a greater degree of communication
between NETL and RPSEA, perhaps even including establishing a
small NETL office near RPSEA?
A10. No response given.
Q11. Does the FY09 budget for concentrating solar power include
increased funding for research in thermal energy storage?
A11. Out of the approximately $30 million appropriated for
Concentrating Solar Power (CSP) in FY 2008, $10 million is being
directed at thermal energy storage, for R&D at the national labs and in
preparation for an upcoming solicitation this fiscal year directed at
thermal energy storage at both universities and private industry.
Within the FY 2009 budget request for CSP, DOE will continue to fund
thermal storage R&D activities.
Q12. The wind program in DOE's Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy has articulated a specific goal of wind power
providing 20 percent of the electricity in the United States. Is there
a comparable goal for solar?
A12. Contributing 20 percent of electricity from wind is not a goal,
but rather a recognition of the potential for wind energy in the United
States. The specific DOE goals for solar energy are for PV to be cost-
competitive in residential and commercial markets by 2015 and for CSP
to be cost-competitive in intermediate power markets by 2015 and
baseload power markets by 2020.
Questions submitted by Representative Daniel Lipinski
Q13. When Congress restored funding to many programs the President
proposed to cut or eliminate in the FY 2008 omnibus appropriations
bill, there was not enough money to fund the ACI. DOE's High Energy
Physics program, which funds Fermilab, was cut by eight percent below
the FY 2007 level--a real cut with real consequences. On February 1st,
Fermilab began unpaid rolling furloughs of its 1900 scientists,
engineers, technicians and support staff. On February 5, Fermilab began
the process of laying off 200 people from the lab given the budget for
FY 2008 and outlook into FY 2009. We are losing the best and brightest
scientists and sending a chilling message to our university students
choosing a career path when we need more scientists.
What is the Administration doing internally to help minimize the
impacts of the final FY 2008 appropriations bill on Fermilab?
A13. Specified reductions for the HEP program in the FY 2008
appropriations bill were directed at initiatives that supported a
significant number of staff members at Fermilab and the Stanford Linear
Accelerator Center (SLAC). The magnitude of the reductions, and the
fact that they occurred a quarter into the fiscal year, necessitated
reductions in staff and curtailment of planned facility operations. The
Office of Science worked with Fermilab and SLAC management to mount a
scientifically productive program while retaining the most critically
needed staff. Funding was allocated to optimize scientific output by
running a curtailed four month program at the B-Factory at SLAC and the
full scheduled program of the Tevatron Collider and neutrino beams at
Fermilab in FY 2008. This allowed the students, post-docs, and
researchers in the international collaborations at these two facilities
to obtain important scientific results without negatively impacting
their careers. Although reductions in staff were unavoidable, this plan
reduced the number that were required, by reducing the payroll burden
through the use of the ``rolling furloughs'' at Fermilab. These
furloughs allow for the retention of many highly skilled staff, who
would otherwise have to be laid off, and indicate the value and
importance of these staff to Fermilab and the Office of Science.
Q14. Dr. Orbach, High Energy Physics is an international field with
great collaboration. The field will soon be focused on the Large Hadron
Collider coming into operation in Switzerland and operations at the
Tevatron at Fermilab will wind down by the end of the decade.
The future for Fermilab belongs in new projects, which must be
accelerated, including the NOvA neutrino program done jointly with
Fermilab and the State of Minnesota and a new project (project X) which
will pave the way to develop the technology for the proposed
International Linear Collider. The FY 2008 omnibus appropriations bill
essentially halted investment in future projects at Fermilab.
Does the Administration expect to submit a reprogramming request
or a supplemental request to address the FY 2008 funding shortfall for
High Energy Physics? What can we do together to reduce the serious
impacts on Fermilab and our other research laboratories and facilities?
A14. There has been no administration decision to request supplemental
FY 2008 funding within the Office of Science. In light of significant
FY 2008 impacts throughout the Office of Science, and standing
Congressional guidance on reprogrammings that they should not be used
to change program allocations specifically limited by Congress, no
reprogramming into High Energy Physics from other Office of Science
funding is planned. We have worked to optimize activities within the
overall allocation for High Energy Physics consistent with the
limitations imposed by the FY 2008 omnibus appropriations bill. We urge
your support of the FY 2009 request, which, among other priorities,
strongly supports Fermilab and other Office of Science facilities.
Q15. Does the Administration have any flexibility internally to keep
the research teams on these new projects at Fermilab together and
working toward these new initiatives? What is the Administration's
commitment to these future programs for Fermilab in the FY 2009 budget?
A15. The NOvA project management team has been kept together, using FY
2007 carryover funds, to prepare a new project schedule that fits the
funding profile developed for the FY 2009 budget. While these funds
should be sufficient to complete the technical, cost, and schedule
baseline required for approval of DOE Critical Decision 2, progress
beyond CD-2 cannot be made within the FY 2008 funding allocation. While
some R&D activities have continued on future initiatives such as
``Project X,'' the significant reduction in developing infrastructure
for testing superconducting RF accelerator structures, important for
this project, has limited progress.
The FY 2009 Budget Request supports the fabrication of NOvA and
provides sufficient funding for superconducting RF and general
accelerator development R&D to make significant progress towards a
future neutrino accelerator program at Fermilab.
Q16. It is widely recognized that there is great urgency in proving
the viability of near-zero emission coal-fueled power including carbon
capture and sequestration. Your alternative plan throws away nearly
five years of excellent work and builds in an extra three years of
delay (based on your official announcement). How do justify such
delays?
A16. No response given.
Q17. In March of 2007, DOE signed a cooperative agreement with
industry to build FutureGen. That's a contract. DOE reviewed the
project cost estimate before signing the agreement, and the costs have
not changed a single dollar since you signed the agreement. By choosing
to restructure, DOE is essentially reneging on its commitment. Why
should anybody believe DOE is a worthy partner?
A17. No response given.
Q18. By attempting to reinvent FutureGen, DOE is telling companies
that operate on six continents to take your money and go home--we were
just kidding. Industry was contributing approximately $400 million
dollars with zero expectation of profit. The project was global
flagship and numerous foreign governments were interested in becoming
involved. DOE's proposal conveys to them ``we are switching horses,''
and we are not reliable partners.
The very same week DOE proposed killing FutureGen, the Bush
Administration at the Meeting of Major Economies was trying to convince
other countries that international collaboration on climate technology
is important. How do you explain this seeming contradiction? I think
DOE is in the process of embarrassing us in front of the world and
undermining our ability to build future partnerships.
A18. No response given.
Q19. DOE has asserted it wants to control costs, yet your new proposal
is advertised as having the same or higher costs. The DOE fact sheet
suggests $1.313 in appropriations will be required by the new plan.
When asked by a reporter what guarantees your department can provide
that costs of the alternative plan won't skyrocket, no guarantees could
be offered. What is your real motivation for attempting to terminate
FutureGen? It doesn't seem to be cost.
A19. No response given.
Q20. The department has extensive detail on FutureGen costs, as
currently configured. What detail do you have on the proposed cost of
$1.313 for your alternative plan?
A20. No response given.
Questions submitted by Representative Roscoe Bartlett
Q21. In order for the United States to expand the use of commercial
nuclear power, an expansion which I strongly support, it will be
necessary to increase the number of trained and certified nuclear
engineers and technicians. That is why I was extremely disappointed
when the Department of Energy chose two years ago to propose
termination of the existing University program within the Office of
Nuclear Energy. While the department continued providing applied R&D
funding to universities through its GNEP program, the lack of basic
stewardship support and organizational accountability has had a
tangibly negative impact on nuclear engineering programs and research
reactors around the United States, including at the University of
Maryland, College Park.
In its FY 2009 budget submission, the department has apparently
rethought the need to be a steward of the U.S. University-based nuclear
education enterprise. The FY 2009 budget again recommends elimination
of funding for the University Reactor Infrastructure and Education
Assistance program. However, it also includes directions to the Office
of Nuclear Energy, through its Energy Research Initiative process, to
designate at least 20 percent of the R&D appropriated funds for
purposes of supporting R&D activities at university research
institutions through competitive awards focused on advancing nuclear
energy technology.
The budget justifications also highlight the department's
intention to support investigator-initiated basic research, fellowships
and young faculty awards, and infrastructure and equipment upgrades for
University-based research reactors and laboratories.
a. Who within the Office of Nuclear Energy will be responsible
for management of DOE-funded R&D activities at university
research institutions?
b. How does the department intend to allocate these funds?
c. Will there be University-specific solicitations?
d. Will these solicitations be peer-reviewed?
e. How much of the 20 percent will be dedicated to mission-
specific applied R&D?
A21. No response given.
Appendix 2:
----------
Additional Material for the Record
Statement of Clarence H. ``Bud'' Albright, Jr.
Under Secretary
U.S. Department of Energy
Chairman Lampson and Ranking Member Inglis, and Chairman Gordon and
Ranking Member Hall, and Members of the Committee, I am pleased to be
before you today presenting the President's fiscal year (FY) 2009
budget proposal for the Department of Energy's applied science research
and development programs. The strength and prosperity of America's
economy is built on the security of our nation and the reliability of
energy sources. Since 2001, the Administration has committed $183
billion through the Department of Energy (DOE) to help drive America's
economic growth, provide for our national security, and address the
energy challenges that face our nation. The FY 2009 budget was
developed to continue to meet these goals and does so in part through
funding applied science and energy research and development.
With a request of $3.2 billion, a 24 percent annual increase of
$623 million above the FY 2008 enacted $2.5 billion appropriation, the
President's Advanced Energy Initiative (AEI) will continue to support
clean energy technology breakthroughs that will help improve our energy
security through diversification and help to reduce our dependence on
foreign oil. The FY 2009 budget for AEI includes funding to promote the
licensing of new nuclear power plants as well as research on an
advanced nuclear fuel cycle. Also, the AEI's diverse energy portfolio
includes investment in making solar power cost-competitive with
conventional sources of electricity by 2015 and supports a robust
vehicle technology program that includes developing lithium-ion
batteries, plug-in hybrids, and drive-train electrification.
The Department is also requesting funds to improve our conventional
sources of energy. We are partnering with industry to commercialize
coal gasification and carbon sequestration processes and systems, and
we are working to modernize the electricity delivery system, enhance
the security and reliability of America's energy infrastructure, and to
facilitate recovery from disruptions to energy supply.
It is important to remember that scientific breakthroughs and
innovative solutions to our energy challenges cannot simply be
mandated, produced and bought. They must be cultivated from a rich
array of interdisciplinary knowledge. The scientists and engineers at
the Department's applied science and energy laboratories and programs
have this knowledge, and their work to discover tomorrow's efficient
and clean and secure technologies, and the science that produce them,
must be understood unique capability that is unparalleled. Funding
these laboratories and the programs they work with at the President's
request is vitally important if we are to overcome America's energy
challenges.
The 2009 AEI Budget includes:
$588 million for the Coal Research Initiative, R&D
focused on coal gasification and carbon sequestration processes
and systems, including $156 million for the restructured
FutureGen program to demonstrate these technologies;
$543 million for the GNEP and Nuclear Power 2010
initiatives to demonstrate advanced fuel cycle technologies, to
expand the domestic use of nuclear power, and to provide for
safe, environmentally responsible global nuclear energy systems
that support nonproliferation objectives;
$225 million for biomass science and technology R&D
to help enable cellulosic ethanol to become practical and
competitive;
$156 million for solar science and technology R&D to
accelerate development of cost-effective photovoltaic
materials;
$146 million for R&D on hydrogen fuel cells and
affordable hydrogen-powered cars;
$103 million for R&D of hybrid electric systems
including $49 million for high-energy, high-power batteries for
hybrid-electric and ``plug-in'' hybrid vehicles;
$53 million for wind energy research to help improve
the efficiency and lower the costs of wind technologies for use
in low-speed wind environments;
$30 million for geothermal research.
APPLIED SCIENCE ENERGY PROGRAMS
A. OFFICE OF NUCLEAR ENERGY (NE)
The Office of Nuclear Energy leads the government's efforts to
develop, in cooperation with industry, new nuclear energy generation
technologies to meet energy and climate goals; develop advanced,
nuclear fuel cycle technologies that maximize energy from nuclear fuel
and strengthen the nuclear nonproliferation regime; and maintain and
enhance the national nuclear infrastructure. A key mission of DOE's
nuclear energy research and development program is to lead in the
planning, conducting, and deploying the next generation of nuclear
technologies.
The President's commitment to nuclear power stems from its role as
one of the most feasible near-term options for producing significant
amounts of carbon-free, baseload electricity. The expansion of nuclear
power will play a key role in our decisions to find viable solutions to
address the challenges posed by greenhouse gas emissions, climate
change, and energy security.
It is significant to note that this Administration has increased
its funding request for nuclear energy in every year, and in total, the
FY 2009 request represents a 330 percent increase in funding for
nuclear energy since President Bush took office seven years ago. In FY
2009, a total of $1.4 billion is requested for nuclear energy
activities, an increase of $385 million over the FY 2008 appropriation,
including $487 million for the Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility.
Today, 104 nuclear reactors produce nearly 20 percent of our total
electricity--this 20 percent share represents over 70 percent of all
non-carbon emitting electricity production. In the United States,
seventeen utility companies are projected to build thirty-one new
reactors, when completed, these new nuclear power plants will provide
over 41 GWe of electricity, enough to power 30 million homes.
Worldwide, 31 countries operate 439 reactors totaling 372 GWe of
electricity capacity. Thirty-four new nuclear power plants are under
construction worldwide, and when completed will add an estimated 28 GWe
of new electricity. This new construction is taking place or being
considered in every major region in the world including Africa, Asia
and the Indian subcontinent, Europe, the Middle East, South America,
and North America. Nuclear power's ongoing expansion around the world
that requires us to address the used fuel and proliferation challenges
that confront the global use of nuclear energy. To ensure that the
United States plays a significant role in global nuclear energy policy
we must foster domestic actions that support a significant role for
nuclear power in our energy future, a robust nuclear research and
development program, and a cutting-edge nuclear technology
infrastructure and international actions that support reliable nuclear
fuel services to countries that forego the development and deployment
of enrichment and reprocessing technologies. To meet these challenges,
the President initiated the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP).
The domestic component of GNEP promotes the accelerated development and
deployment of advanced fuel cycle technologies, while the international
component encourages cooperation among nations that share the common
vision of the necessity of the expansion of nuclear energy for peaceful
purposes worldwide in a safe and secure manner.
We have made progress in every one of our program areas, but much
remains to be done. Our FY 2009 budget request moves us in the right
direction, allowing the Department and the Office of Nuclear Energy to
take the lead in spurring the nuclear renaissance in the United States.
I would now like to take the time to highlight our program areas and
their corresponding budget requests. 1Nuclear Power 2010
A key component of our work and one of our most successful programs
at the Department of Energy is the Nuclear Power 2010 program or NP
2010. This program was initiated by President Bush in 2002 and has
produced significant results toward its goal of reducing the technical,
regulatory, and institutional barriers to the deployment of new nuclear
power plants. DOE and the President have increased our commitment to
cross the finish line by nearly doubling its 2009 budget, calling on
Congress to provide $241.6 million for NP 2010 to help ensure this
important program can complete its work.
NP 2010 supports industry through cost-sharing near-term technology
development and regulatory demonstration activities focused on enabling
an industry decision to build a new nuclear plant by 2010.
Of the six Construction and Operation License (COL) applications
that have been submitted to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC),
five COL applications have been officially accepted for review by the
NRC. And of these five, two applications--TVA's application for two
Westinghouse AP1000 reactors at the Bellefonte site in Alabama, and
Dominion Energy's application for a General Electric-Hitachi Economic
Simplified Boiling Water Reactor at the North Anna site in Virginia--
were developed through the NP 2010 cost-share program. In total, the
NRC expects to receive twenty COL applications for thirty-one new
reactors by seventeen different utility companies. Of these 20 COL
applications, eight will reference either the Bellefonte or North Anna
license applications. This simplification in the licensing process is
expected to reduce the license application and review time these
reference COLAs by up to 50 percent.
Three early site permits have been approved for Exelon's Clinton
site in Illinois, Entergy's Grand Gulf site in Mississippi, and the
North Anna site, all a part of the NP 2010 cost share program, and a
fourth ESP permit is pending. In addition, two new reactor design
certifications have been approved by the NRC, the ABWR and the AP1000,
and DOE is continuing with on-going first-of-a-kind design finalization
activities for the standardized AP1000 and ESBWR designs, including:
preparation of engineering analyses and calculations, design criteria
documents, and total cost and schedule estimates necessary for an
industry purchase of a new nuclear plant.
The NP 2010 program will continue to develop generic application
preparation guidance for fifteen COL applications expected in 2008 to
help resolve regulatory issues that could potentially delay or derail
NRC approval.
Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative and GNEP
President Bush announced the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership
(GNEP) as part of his Advanced Energy Initiative in February 2006. The
Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative (AFCI) is the domestic technology
development and deployment component of GNEP. The AFCI program aims to
develop and demonstrate advanced fuel cycle technologies for recycling
used reactor fuel to develop an integrated used fuel recycling plan,
and support on-going research efforts with the goal of reducing the
amount of material that needs disposal in a geologic repository and
maximizing our use of energy resources.
In effort to further this important work, our budget request
includes $301.5 million in Fiscal Year 2009 funding for AFCI. This
request supports research and development activities that will advance
the economic and sustained production of nuclear energy while reducing
waste and satisfying requirements for a controlled nuclear materials
management system that helps strengthen the nuclear nonproliferation
regime. The request also supports on-going international activities to
establish a framework for ensuring reliable international fuel services
and the availability of grid-appropriate reactors, and the continued
utilization of industry for schedule, cost, and technology developments
for eventual recycling facility deployment.
Long-term goals of AFCI/GNEP include the partitioning of used fuel
and recycling of long-lived radioactive isotopes for destruction
through transmutation in liquid metal-cooled fast neutron spectrum
reactors for actinide consumption and nuclear resource sustainability.
AFCI/GNEP funding also provides support for a large number of
universities involved in fuel cycle research and development, which
both ensures that the U.S. has the intellectual capital needed to
sustain our nuclear fuel cycle for the future and provides the
important research needed for today's fuel cycle activities. Recycling
used nuclear fuel rather than permanently disposing of it in a
repository would result not only in utilizing more of the energy, but
would also reduce the amount of high-level waste that needs disposal in
a repository, thereby greatly enhancing the potential capacity of any
geological repository. This increased efficiency in the fuel supply
could ensure that even with the expansion of nuclear energy, the
potential capacity of any geological repository would be greatly
enhanced.
Generation IV
The Generation IV program is focused on very high temperature
reactor technologies for use in a Next Generation Nuclear Power Plant
(NGNP) to produce electricity, process heat, and hydrogen. Generation
IV also is readying technologies that will further improve the
economics and safety performance of existing Light-Water Reactor and
advanced Generation IV reactor concepts.
The FY 2009 budget request includes $70 million for the Generation
IV program. 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 I 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.
Additionally, this request supports component and material aging
and degradation research and development that will provide the basis
for extending the operating license period for existing nuclear
reactors beyond 60 years, and will also enable the design of advanced
reactor concept plants with longer operating life spans.
Hydrogen Initiative
Nuclear energy has the potential to produce large quantities of
hydrogen efficiently without producing greenhouse gases and could play
a significant role in hydrogen production for transportation and
industrial sectors. Considerable progress in hydrogen combustion
engines and fuel cells is bringing hydrogen-powered transportation
close to reality. The goal of the Nuclear Hydrogen Initiative (NHI) is
to demonstrate hydrogen production technology at increasingly larger
scales through the use of nuclear energy that would be technically and
economically suited for commercial deployment in concert with a nuclear
power plant.
$16.6 million dollars has been requested for the NHI to continue
hydrogen production systems operation and testing, evaluation of
process improvements, and assessment of long-term process stability,
operability, and component durability. Furthermore, results from the
integrated laboratory-scale experiments will be analyzed to identify
cost drivers with an end goal of supporting a hydrogen technology
selection by 2011.
Nuclear Facilities
The Department of Energy supports nuclear science and technology
through one of the world's most comprehensive research infrastructures.
The Office of Nuclear Energy has requested $222 million dollars to
maintain and operate infrastructure at Idaho National Laboratory (INL),
Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), Brookhaven National Laboratory
(BNL), and Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL). $104.7 million is
dedicated to Idaho National Laboratory's facilities management. INL
conducts science and technology research across a wide range of
disciplines, INL's core missions include: development of advanced, next
generation fuel cycle and reactor technologies; promotion of nuclear
technology education, and applying technical skills to enhance our
nation's security.
Additionally, $38.7 million is requested to maintain a wide range
of nuclear and radiological facilities and their associated
infrastructures in an operational, safe, secure, and environmentally
compliant manner at LANL, BNL, and ORNL. This infrastructure supports
national priorities, including the provision of radioisotope power
systems for national security uses and space exploration.
Other Defense Activities
Included in the Office of Nuclear Energy Fiscal Year 2009 request,
under Other Defensive activities, is $487 million for activities
associated with the continued construction of the Mixed Oxide Fuel
Fabrication Facility and $78.8 million for site-wide safeguards and
security activities at the Idaho National Laboratory to protect the
assets and infrastructure 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.
University Funding
Our FY 2009 budget request continues our commitment to fostering
the expansion of nuclear engineering programs at our universities and
research institutions. Specifically, the budget request for the Office
of Nuclear Energy explicitly states that we ``will continue to support
R&D activities at universities and research institutions through
competitive awards focused on advancing nuclear energy technologies,''
and we have committed to ``designate 20 percent of funds appropriated
to its R&D programs for work to be performed at university and research
institutions.'' These funds will support basic research and mission-
specific applied R&D activities, as well as human capitol development
activities, such as fellowships and infrastructure and equipment
upgrades for university-based research reactors and laboratories. At
the level set forth in the President's Budget Request for FY 2009, 20
percent provides almost $77 million for this work. This commitment of
20 percent of appropriated funds will serve as a catalyst for success
in achieving the objectives of the President's American Competitiveness
Initiative and the America COMPETES Act.
It is critical to note that the growth of nuclear power is only
possible if we continue to develop a responsible path for disposing of
spent nuclear fuel. Therefore, $494.7 million is requested in FY 2009
for the continued development of the geologic waste repository at Yucca
Mountain, Nevada, and to support the defense of the License Application
that we will submit in 2008 to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for
authorization to construct the repository.
B. OFFICE OF ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY (EE)
The Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE)
conducts research, development, and deployment activities in
partnership with industry to advance a diverse supply of energy
efficiency and clean power technologies and practices. The FY 2009
budget request continues to support research on alternatives that can
help decrease our nation's dependence on foreign oil and accelerate
development of clean electricity supply options.
EERE's FY 2009 request of $1.255 billion, approximately $19 million
higher than the FY 2008 request, provides a balanced and diverse
portfolio of solutions to address the energy and environmental
challenges facing us today. The request will enable EERE to research
and develop renewable energy technologies to that can help increase the
amount of clean energy produced in the U.S.; advance energy efficiency
technologies and practices to sustainably decouple energy demand from
economic growth; and promote deployment of these clean energy
technologies.
EERE's overall budget request reflects the funding needed to meet
our energy challenges head on. Advanced fuels and vehicles, renewable
power, efficiency in buildings and industry, and technology deployment
comprise EERE's portfolio and multi-pronged approach to energy
solutions.
BIOMASS PROGRAM
In FY 2009, the Department is requesting $225 million for the
Biomass Program, an increase of $26.8 million from the FY 2008
appropriation. The Biomass Program's funding supports the Biofuels
Initiative that was launched in 2006 as part of AEI and is designed to
achieve cost competitive cellulosic ethanol by 2012. The funding also
supports the President's ``Twenty-in-Ten'' initiative, announced in the
2007 State of the Union, to reduce gasoline consumption by 20 percent
by 2017.
The Biomass Program's funding request for technology development
and demonstration supports timely achievement of the goal of cost-
competitiveness by 2012. The Biomass Program is focused on: Feedstock
Infrastructure to reduce the cost of feedstock logistics; Platforms R&D
for efficiently converting feedstocks into cost competitive commodity
liquid biofuels; and Utilization of Platform Outputs to demonstrate and
validate integrated technologies that achieve commercially acceptable
performance and cost targets through public-private partnerships. The
Program Biomass strategy is to accelerate development of the next
generation of feedstocks and conversion technology options for
validation and demonstration in integrated biorefineries at commercial
and 10 percent of commercial scale. This strategy balances the
program's research, development, and deployment (RD&D) portfolio by
encouraging technology transfer while maintaining core R&D funding for
next generation technologies. The Biomass Program will continue to
emphasize cellulosic ethanol and expand the focus on other renewable
biofuels, such as biobutanol and green diesel.
VEHICLE TECHNOLOGIES PROGRAM
The FY 2009 Vehicle Technologies (VT) Program's request is $221.1
million, an $8 million increase over the FY 2008 appropriation.
The Vehicle Technologies Program activities focus on advanced,
high-efficiency vehicle technologies, including combustion engines and
enabling fuels, hybrid vehicle systems (including plug-in hybrids),
high-power and high-energy batteries, advanced lightweight materials,
and power electronics. These technologies are critical to near-term oil
savings when used in advanced combustion hybrid and plug-in hybrid
electric vehicles (PHEVs). In FY 2009, emphasis will increase R&D for
PHEVs, such as high energy storage batteries.
The VT Program continues to place increasing emphasis on
accelerating RD&D on lithium-ion batteries, plug-in hybrids (including
plug-in hybrid vehicle demonstrations), and drive-train electrification
to diversify and make our nation's vehicles more efficient to reduce
petroleum dependency. For more traditional vehicles, the program
conducts research and development on improving advanced combustion
engine systems and fuels and on reducing vehicle parasitic losses. The
Vehicle Technologies budget is modified in the FY 2009 request by
transferring three activities from the Hydrogen Technology Program:
Education; Technology Validation; and Safety and Codes and Standards.
These activity areas have congruent objectives with other efforts
within the VT Program, and combining them within one program enables
management efficiencies.
The VT Program will continue FY 2008 efforts to evaluate the impact
of intermediate ethanol blended gasoline (i.e., greater than E10) in
conventional (i.e., non-FFV) vehicles and to improve the efficiency of
engines operating on ethanol blends. Late model and legacy vehicles
will be tested for emissions, performance, and materials impacts. These
efforts help support existing mandates and the President's 20 in 10
plan.
HYDROGEN TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM
The Hydrogen Technology Program's FY 2009 budget request is $146.2
million, $64.8 million less than the FY 2008 appropriation, due in part
to the movement of the three activities mentioned above to the Vehicle
Technologies Program. In 2009, the program will focus on remaining
critical path barriers to the technology readiness goals for 2015.
Substantial increases are included for hydrogen storage and fuel cell
R&D. To provide for those increases, funding for hydrogen production
from renewables has been eliminated, and systems analyses continues at
a somewhat reduced funding levels.
The Hydrogen Program continues to research and develop critical
hydrogen technologies that enable near-term commercialization pathways.
Hydrogen Storage is one of the most technically challenging barriers to
the widespread advancement of hydrogen and fuel cell technologies in
the transportation sector. Our portfolio continues to identify new
materials for on-board storage having the potential for greater than 50
percent improvement in capacity than those available prior to 2004.
Much needs to be done to enable these materials to operate at practical
temperatures and pressures.
In 2009, the Hydrogen Program will significantly increase
investment in applied R&D of novel materials and breakthrough concepts
with potential to meet on-board storage system performance targets. All
storage R&D funding will be conducted through competitively selected
Centers of Excellence and independent projects. The overarching goal is
lightweight, low-cost, low-pressure, and efficient on-board vehicular
storage systems to achieve a driving range of greater than 300 miles,
without impacting vehicular cargo or passenger space to be competitive
with today's vehicles.
To address the critical barriers of fuel cell cost and durability,
the FY 2009 request significantly increases funding for Fuel Stack
Components R&D. Our R&D efforts have made progress in this area and
will continue to work toward our stated goals. One notable achievement
has been the development of a membrane with 5,000 hours lifetime--a
giant leap toward the 2010 goal of 5,000 hours durability in an
automotive fuel cell system.
The Hydrogen Program's fuel cell R&D will continue to pursue a
number of technological advancements. Proton-conducting membranes that
are low-cost, durable, and operable at a low relative humidity will be
developed. Non-precious metal and alloy catalysts will be identified
and developed to further lower the cost of fuel cell systems. Gas flow
through the flow fields will be modeled and measured while fuel cells
are in operation to ensure optimal gas and water distribution over the
catalyst and membrane surface. And fuel cells for distributed energy
generation will continue to be developed with an emphasis on system
integration, cost reduction and efficiency improvements. The Department
will also continue its participation in the International Partnership
for Hydrogen Economy (IPHE)--collaborating on R&D of materials for both
fuel cells and storage, and working on such projects as the evaluation
of fuel cell-related test protocols from different countries, as well
as hydrogen pathway and infrastructure analyses.
SOLAR ENERGY PROGRAM
The FY 2009 budget request for the Solar Energy Program is $156.1
million, $12.3 million less than the FY 2008 appropriation. Through the
President's Solar America Initiative (SAI), announced in the 2006 State
of the Union, the Solar Program will accelerate market competitiveness
of solar photovoltaic technologies by conducting R&D to support less
expensive, more efficient, and highly reliable solar systems. Targeting
improved performance and reliability with reduced cost, the Solar
Program focuses its RD&D activities in two technology areas:
photovoltaics (PV) and concentrating solar power (CSP).
The Solar Program's goal in the area of photovoltaics is to develop
and deploy highly reliable PV systems that are cost-competitive with
electricity from conventional resources. The Solar Program focuses on
improving the performance of cells, modules, and systems; reducing the
manufacturing cost of cells, modules, plant components, and systems;
reducing the installation, interconnection, and certification costs for
residential, commercial, and utility systems; and increasing system
operating lifetime and reliability. To lower costs more rapidly and
improve performance, the Solar Program is focusing on PV technology
pathways that have the greatest potential to reach cost competitiveness
by 2015. Industry-led partnerships, known as ``Technology Pathway
Partnerships,'' will be continued in FY 2009 to help address the issues
of cost, performance, and reliability associated with each pathway.
The Program's CSP focus is to develop concentrating solar
technologies. A solicitation issued in FY 2007 resulted in 12 industry
contract awards focused on establishing a U.S. manufacturing capability
of low cost trough components and the technical feasibility of low cost
thermal storage. In FY 2008, funds will be provided for Phase I of
these contracts with the more promising contracts moving into Phase II
in FY 2009. One of the most important advantages of CSP is its ability
to thermally store power for later use. The development of advanced
thermal energy storage technologies in FY 2009 will be expanded to
include single heat transfer fluid systems that eliminate the need for
multiple heat exchangers and thereby increase system efficiency and
reduce cost. For distributed applications, research in FY 2009 will
continue on improving the reliability of dish systems through the
operation and testing of multiple units as well as improving the
manufacturability of dish systems.
WIND ENERGY PROGRAM
The Wind Energy Program's FY 2009 request is $52.5 million, an
increase of $3.0 million from the FY 2008 appropriation. The Wind
Energy Program supports the AEI objective to maximize wind energy
resource utilization in the United States by leading the Nation's R&D
efforts to improve wind energy generation technology and address
barriers to the use of wind energy in coordination with stakeholders.
The Wind Program's R&D efforts will focus on improving the performance
of turbines, blades, and related components.
The Wind Program believes that wind energy is at a transitional
point, particularly for large land-based wind systems. The program is
concentrating on reducing technological barriers that undermine the
growth potential of wind energy in the U.S. by focusing on improving
cost, performance, and reliability of large scale land-based
technology.
In addition, the Wind Program is facilitating wind energy's rapid
market expansion by anticipating and addressing potential regulatory,
transmission and manufacturing barriers; and investigating wind
energy's application to other areas, including distributed and
community owned wind projects.
In 2009 the Wind Program will also work on grid integration to help
maximize wind energy resource utilization, thereby beginning to address
a barrier to increasing the domestic wind energy supply while also
enhancing system reliability.
WATER POWER PROGRAM
The Water Power Program's budget request of $3.0 million will
support initial R&D activities, and follows an initial congressional
appropriation of $9.9 million in FY 2008. The program needs to evaluate
the results of its FY 2008 R&D projects and technology assessments
(which will continue into FY 2009) before considering further applied
research efforts. The mission of the Water Power Program is to research
and develop innovative and effective technologies capable of harnessing
hydrokinetic energy resources, including ocean wave and current energy.
The program will focus on conducting technology characterizations
to identify manufacturers, performance limits and issues, known
environmental impacts, and other relevant technical and market
variables. In addition, the program will engage with key collaborative
international activities.
GEOTHERMAL TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM
The FY 2009 request for the Geothermal Technology Program is $30
million, which is an increase of $10.2 million from the FY 2008
appropriation. The Geothermal Program focuses on the innovative
technology of Enhanced Geothermal Systems (EGS) which are engineered
reservoirs created to produce energy from geothermal resources. EGS is
a new pathway for producing geothermal energy by drilling wells into
hot rock, fracturing the rock between the wells, and circulating a
fluid through the fractured rock to extract the heat. While EGS
reservoirs have been designed, built, and tested in various countries,
a number of technical hurdles remain to be overcome, the most important
involving creation of EGS reservoirs with viable production rates and
lifetimes. The Department's approach will to concentrate initially on
reservoir-related technological issues. This strategy involves research
as well as work with cost-sharing partners at existing geothermal
fields to develop, test, and perfect the tools needed to fracture hot,
impermeable rock and efficiently circulate fluids.
BUILDING TECHNOLOGIES PROGRAM
The Building Technologies (BT) Program's FY 2009 request is $123.8
million, an increase of $14.8 million from the FY 2008 appropriation.
The BT Program develops technologies, techniques, and tools for making
residential and commercial buildings more energy efficient and cost
competitive. The Program's funding supports a portfolio of activities
that includes solid state lighting (SSL), improved energy efficiency of
other building components and equipment, and their effective
integration using whole building system design techniques that will
enable the design of net Zero Energy Buildings. The BT Program also
includes the development of building codes and appliance standards and
successful education and market introduction programs, including ENERGY
STAR and EnergySmart Schools.
The Residential and Commercial Buildings integration components of
the BT Program aim to transform the carbon footprint of the built
environment through Zero Energy Buildings. The residential-focused
Building America subprogram focuses on reducing total energy use in a
new home by 60 to 70 percent. During FY 2009, research for production-
ready new residential buildings that are 40 percent more efficient will
continue for three climate zones, with completion in two. The BT
Program's activities in the commercial sector are focused on alliances
of leading market companies with national portfolios of buildings.
The Emerging Technologies subprogram seeks to develop cost-
effective technologies for residential and commercial buildings that
enable reductions in building energy use. Solid State Lighting will
develop technologies that can help reduce commercial building lighting
electricity consumption. Space Conditioning and Refrigeration R&D will
continue work on HVAC design concepts. Other highlights include highly
insulating windows and building integrated solar heating and cooling
systems.
The Equipment Standards and Analysis subprogram develops minimum
energy efficiency standards that are technologically feasible and
economically justified as required by law. Federal energy conservation
standards that have gone into effect since 1988 are projected to save a
cumulative total of 75 quadrillion Btus (quads) of energy by the year
2045 (in 2007, total annual U.S. consumption of primary energy was
about 103 quads). Between FY 2005 and FY 2007, the Department
identified and carried out significant enhancements to rule-making
activities. The Department has made a commitment to clear the backlog
of delayed actions that accumulated during prior years, while
simultaneously implementing two new requirements of the Energy Policy
Act of 2005 (EPACT). The Energy Independence and Security Act
significantly increased the number of efficiency standards and test
procedures DOE must develop. 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. Energy
conservation standards for 10 products were initiated in FY 2006 and
2007 that will continue in FY 2009. In FY 2008, efficiency standards
rule-makings were initiated on four additional products. In FY 2008,
DOE is proceeding simultaneously on rule-makings for 15 products and 10
test procedures. In FY 2009, four more standards and test procedures
for seven more products will be added.
The Technology Validation and Market Introduction subprogram funds
activities that validate and promote clean, efficient, and domestic
energy technologies. Expanding the ENERGY STAR program to include solid
state lighting, water heaters, photovoltaics, fuel cells, micro-wind
turbines, combined heat and power, and other advanced technologies, as
well as targeting the civic infrastructure (e.g., schools, hospitals,
libraries, municipal facilities), are central activities that the BT
Program carries out to invest in Energy Smart solutions. DOE will
continue to work with the Environmental Protection Agency on the
development and implementation of Energy Star and other efforts to
minimize duplication and maximize efficiency. In addition to these
efforts, the BT Program focuses on outreach efforts to help move
specific technologies--such as solid-state lighting and high-
performance windows--toward commercial applications. These efforts
include design and rating tools, durability and product lifetime data,
testing procedures, demonstrations, retailer education, and training on
proper installation.
INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGIES PROGRAM
The Industrial Technologies (IT) Program seeks to reduce the energy
intensity (energy demand per unit of industrial output) of the U.S.
industrial sector through coordinated research and development,
validation, and technical assistance activities. The program works to
increase dissemination of energy efficiency technologies and operating
practices. The FY 2009 Budget request for the IT Program is $62.1
million, which is $2.3 million less than the FY 2008 appropriation.
Internal funding shifts reflect a continued strategy to emphasize more
effective ways to increase energy efficiency among energy intensive
industries. The shift toward more crosscutting and higher impact R&D
activities will allow the IT Program to develop advanced, energy-
efficient technologies to serve a broader set of industries.
The IT Program will continue to support the Secretary of Energy's
``Easy Ways to Save Energy'' campaign through the Save Energy Now (SEN)
industrial energy savings assessments at the Nation's most energy-
intensive industrial facilities. This has been a very successful
activity, having reached its 24-month goal of conducting 450
assessments from 2006 through 2007.
Building on this success, the IT Program will expand partnerships
with leading corporations across major manufacturing supply chain and
deliver DOE plant assessments, tools, and technologies to enable
dramatic energy efficient improvements.
C. OFFICE OF FOSSIL ENERGY (FE)
The Office of Fossil Energy (FE) conducts research, development and
demonstration activities in partnership with industry to enhance U.S.
economic, environmental and energy security by using conventional
hydrocarbon sources of fuel. To further this mission, the Office is
developing technological capabilities that could dramatically reduce
carbon emissions to achieve near-zero atmospheric emissions power
production. FE's budget request of $1.127 billion for FY 2009 is an
increase of $223 million over the FY 2008 appropriation, of which $754
million supports research and development and $373 million supports
petroleum reserves.
The Department's energy portfolio recognizes the abundance of coal
as a domestic energy resource and remains committed to research and
development to promote its clean and efficient use. Since coal in the
United States accounts for 25 percent of the world's coal resources,
the FY 2009 request focuses on carbon capture and storage.
FOSSIL ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
The Department's Fossil Energy Research and Development (FERD)
program is directed at electric power generation from 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.
FERD supports many Presidential initiatives and priorities
including the Coal Research Initiative, Hydrogen Fuel Initiative, and
FutureGen. FERD also supports the Climate Change Technology Program,
which is a priority for the Department.
FUTUREGEN
FutureGen promotes advanced, full-scale integration of integrated
gasification combined cycle (IGCC) and carbon capture and storage
technology to produce electric power from coal while capturing and
sequestering carbon dioxide (CO2), resulting in near-zero
atmospheric emissions coal energy systems. The Department is
restructuring FutureGen in a way that accelerates the commercial
demonstration and deployment of carbon capture and storage
technologies.
The new approach proposes multiple 300-600 Megawatt (MW)
commercial-scale demonstration clean coal power plants--as opposed to a
single, 275 MW R&D facility--each producing electricity and capturing
and safely sequestering at least an estimated annual one million metric
tons of CO2. In the FY 2009 budget proposal, FutureGen
receives an $81.7 million funding increase over the FY 2008
appropriation.
CLEAN COAL POWER INITIATIVE
The Clean Coal Power Initiative (CCPI) is a cooperative, cost-
shared program between the government and industry to demonstrate
advanced coal-based power generation technologies. CCPI is now focused
on projects to help accelerate development and deployment of coal
technologies that could economically capture carbon dioxide, including
increasing the efficiency and reliability of carbon capture
technologies. CCPI allows the Nation's power generators, equipment
manufacturers, and coal producers to help identify the most critical
barriers to coal use and the most promising advanced technologies to
use coal cleanly, affordably, and with higher efficiencies that reduce
carbon intensity.
The CCPI budget request for FY 2009 is $85 million, a $15.6 million
increase over the FY 2008 appropriation. In FY 2009 will complete the
third round of project solicitations, proposal evaluations, and project
selections of advanced technology systems that capture carbon dioxide
for sequestration or beneficial reuse.
CARBON SEQUESTRATION
The FY 2009 budget request of $149 million for carbon
sequestration, one of the key components of the Fuel and Power Systems
program, is an increase of $30 million over the $119 million provided
in the FY 2008 appropriation.
The increase should help develop economical ways to separate and
permanently store (sequester) greenhouse gas emissions from the
combustion of fossil fuels. The technologies will help existing and
future fossil fuel power generating facilities by reducing the cost of
electricity impacts and also providing protocols for carbon capture and
storage demonstrations to capture, transport, store, and monitor the
CO2 injected in geologic formations.
The increase will support site selection and characterization,
regulatory permits, community outreach, and completion of site
operations plan for large-scale, geologic, carbon storage tests. It
will also fund large-scale injections and remaining infrastructure
development.
HYDROGEN
The budget request of $10 million in FY 2009 for hydrogen from
coal--a clean fuel for future advanced power technologies such as fuel
cells and transportation systems--is down nearly $15 million from the
FY 2008 appropriation. The decrease is due to the elimination of
integrated coal-biomass processing for carbon emissions research (which
is generally advanced through the gasification program), elimination of
substitute natural gas and coal-to-liquids production research (which
are mature industries and do not provide the high-return investment
that FE focuses on), and a right-sizing of the effort level for early
engineering and design studies on hydrogen production modules in near-
zero atmospheric emissions coal plants.
GASIFICATION TECHNOLOGY
The Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) budget request
for FY 2009 is $69 million, a $15.5 million increase over the FY 2008
appropriation. The IGCC program develops advanced gasification-based
technologies aimed at reducing the cost of coal-based IGCC plants,
improving thermal efficiency, and achieving near-zero atmospheric
emissions of all pollutants. These technologies will be an integral
part of the carbon capture and storage demonstration projects.
FUEL CELLS
Flexible fuel cell systems that can operate in central coal-based
power systems and with applications for electric utility, industrial
and commercial/residential markets, receive a funding request of $60
million in FY 2009--a $4.5 million increase over the FY 2008
appropriation of $55.5 million. This activity enables the generation of
highly efficient, cost-effective electricity from domestic coal with
near-zero atmospheric emissions of carbon and air pollutants in central
station applications. The technology also provides the technology base
to permit grid-independent distributed generation applications.
OIL AND NATURAL GAS TECHNOLOGY
Oil and gas R&D activities are more appropriate for the private-
sector industry to perform. Consistent with the budget requests for
Fiscal years 2006, 2007 and 2008, the Petroleum-Oil Technology and
Natural Gas Technologies research and development programs are being
terminated in FY 2009.
The Ultra-Deepwater and Unconventional Gas and Other Petroleum
Research Fund was created by the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Public Law
109-58) as a mandatory program beginning in FY 2007. The program is
funded from mandatory federal revenues from oil and gas leases.
Consistent with the Fiscal Year 2007 and 2008 budget requests, the FY
2009 budget proposes to repeal the program through a legislative
proposal.
D. OFFICE OF ELECTRICITY DELIVERY AND ENERGY RELIABILITY (OE)
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'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 FY 2009 budget includes $134 million for OE in FY
2009, which is a decrease of $4.6 million from the FY 2008
appropriation. This includes $14.1 million for Operations and Analysis
activities (an increase of $2.7 million from the FY 2008
appropriation), and $19.7 million for Program Direction (an increase of
$2.1 million from the FY 2008 appropriation).
ELECTRICITY DELIVERY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
In FY 2009, the Department is requesting $100.2 million for
Research and Development activities, a decrease of $9.3 million from
the FY 2008 appropriation. Effort is focused in four critical areas:
High Temperature Superconductivity; Visualization & Controls; Renewable
& Distributed Systems Integration; and Energy Storage & Power
Electronics.
Our High Temperature Superconductivity activities continue 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. The FY 2009 funding request for High
Temperature Superconductivity is $28.2 million, an increase of $0.3
million from the FY 2008 appropriation.
Enhanced security for control systems used by the transmission grid
is critical to the development of a more 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.
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 queuing, 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
FY 2009 funding request for Visualization & Controls is $25.3 million,
an increase of $0.2 million from the FY 2008 appropriation.
The Energy Storage & Power Electronics activities support the
development of new and improved energy storage devices and systems at
utility scale, which will be incorporated in DOE's Basic Energy Science
basic research results. The Department will also work to achieve
substantial improvements in seeking lifetime, reliability, energy
density, and cost of energy storage devices. Through this, highly
leveraged prototype testing and utility demonstration projects will be
expanded with State energy office participation focusing on areas of
greatest utility need. The increase will also serve to focus on
enhanced research in Power Electronics to improve material and device
properties needed for transmission-level applications. The FY 2009
funding request for the Energy Storage and Power Electronics program is
$13.4 million, an increase of $6.7 million from the FY 2008
appropriation.
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 FY 2009 funding request
for Energy Storage & Power Electronics is $13.4 million, an increase of
$6.7 million from the FY 2008 appropriation.
The Renewable and Distributed Systems Integration activities will
develop and demonstrate Smart Grid technologies for an integrated and
intelligent electric transmission and distribution network in
accordance with the Energy Independence and Security Act; will
demonstrate distributed energy systems as a resource to decrease peak
electric load demand, increase asset utilization, and defer electric
system upgrades; and in coordination with EERE, will develop renewable
energy grid integration technologies and methods to facilitate
increased deployment of renewables and other clean energy sources. The
FY 2009 funding request for Renewable & Distributed Systems Integration
is $33.3 million, an increase of $7.8 million from the FY 2008
appropriation.
CONCLUSION
I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you to present the
Department of Energy's FY 2009 budget proposal for the applied energy
programs' research and development efforts. I will be happy to take any
questions that Members of the Subcommittee may have.
Statement of Dr. Raymond L. Orbach
Under Secretary for Science
U.S. Department of Energy
Thank you Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Inglis, and Members of the
Committee. I am pleased to appear before your committee for what I
expect to be my final budget presentation for the Department of
Energy's Office of Science. I would like to thank the Committee for
your strong support for the Office of Science during my tenure. This
support has enabled the Office of Science to make investments in basic
research and advanced research capabilities that have and will continue
to improve U.S. global competitiveness, energy security, the
environment, and our fundamental understanding of the universe around
us.
Our nation continues to face significant challenges in energy
security and in our ability to maintain the scientific leadership and
innovation that assures our continued economic security. These
challenges are addressed by the President in his American
Competitiveness Initiative and Advanced Energy Initiative announced in
2006. The President's budget request for FY 2009 is a strong
demonstration of his continued commitment to these important
initiatives. The Congress has also spoken and expressed strong,
bipartisan support for an aggressive innovation and energy security
agenda in passing the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct) and in
following up with both the America COMPETES Act and the Energy
Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA).
EPAct and the COMPETES Act both recognize the pivotal role of the
Office of Science in securing the advantages that basic research as
well as science, math, and engineering education can bring to the
Nation. EISA's provisions are intended to reduce America's dependence
on oil, improve efficiency, and cut emissions. But we will not meet the
targets with solely incremental improvements in current technologies.
We need the breakthroughs that will result only from transformational
basic research.
Here are a few examples. EISA mandates the use of at least 36
billion gallons of biofuels by 2022. Without transformational
breakthroughs in deriving fuels from plant cellulose materials, we
reduce our chances of reaching these aggressive goals. Even though
conventional approaches, such as sugar-based and corn-based ethanol,
can be modestly energy positive--although this is still debated--they
consume large quantities of food and feed grain. Increasing use of
these feedstocks raises environmental concerns associated with land use
changes and impacts on atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide.
Biofuels derived from cellulose, and in particular feedstock crops such
as switchgrass that can be grown on marginal land with minimal water
and nutrient requirements, can provide the basis for a sustainable
biofuels economy in the U.S. while benefiting the American farmer.
Breakthroughs in science are essential for the development of more
efficient and cost-effective processes for deriving fuels from
cellulose and for developing dedicated feedstock crops. The approaches
to cellulosic ethanol deployed in many pilot and demonstration
bioethanol plants across the United States rely on niche feedstocks and
conversion technologies that are not yet cost competitive. New
scientific discoveries will enable revolutionary gains in production
efficiencies and cost reduction.
The transformational basic research undertaken by the Office of
Science's Bioenergy Research Centers is one way the Department is
addressing the difficulties of cost-effective bioethanol production
with minimal environmental footprint, by using plant and microbial
genomics and other novel approaches.
EISA also mandates a national fuel economy standard of at least 35
miles per gallon by 2020--an increase in fuel economy of some 40
percent that will save billions of gallons of fuel. Automobile
manufacturers will need to employ numerous conventional and advanced
engine and vehicle technologies to reach this goal. Office of Science
basic research will be critical in the development of cost effective
advanced engine and vehicle technologies through research in areas such
as high-strength, low-weight materials; electrical energy storage;
hydrogen production, use, and storage; fuel cell materials; catalysts,
combustion processes, and materials under extreme environments.
In FY 2009 the Office of Science will initiate Energy Frontier
Research Centers. They will pursue innovative basic research to
accelerate the scientific breakthroughs needed to create advanced
energy technologies for the 21st century. These Centers will pursue
fundamental basic research areas mentioned above as well as solar
energy utilization; geosciences related to long-term storage of nuclear
waste and carbon dioxide; advanced nuclear energy systems; solid state
lighting; and superconductivity.
The Office of Science seeks to engage the Nation's intellectual and
creative talent to address scientific grand challenges. These are the
necessary transformational discoveries which will fundamentally alter
our approaches to energy production and use, and they will come from
the next generation of scientists, mathematicians, and engineers--many
trained through Office of Science-funded research and using world-
leadership scientific research facilities we build and operate for the
scientific community.
The Office of Science is accelerating the pace of discovery and
innovation to address the Nation's energy needs through our multi-
faceted research portfolio. Your confidence in the Office of Science is
based on a number of demonstrated successes in our mission areas, and
your support for the Office of Science has enabled us to assess the
basic research needs and engage the scientific community to respond
aggressively. We routinely assess and update these research
opportunities and priorities with an eye to our mission and with an ear
to the research community, whether at a national laboratory, a
university, or in industry. Since we build and operate large-scale,
long-term, and, by necessity, cost-effective scientific research
facilities, and because our mission is so important, we take these
assessments seriously. We cannot afford to go in a wrong direction; we
need the most complete and robust analysis of scientific opportunity,
mission need, cost, and benefit.
A large part of this assessment effort in recent years has been
accomplished through a series of Basic Research Needs workshops and
other workshops led by our science programs in partnership with the
Department's technology programs. These workshops have brought together
subject experts with diverse views from the broader basic and applied
research community to discuss and identify areas of focus for DOE's
basic research efforts. These efforts have enabled the Office of
Science to stay informed of research needs and new opportunity areas,
as well as scientific and technological roadblocks, and have enabled us
to create a prioritized and comprehensive research portfolio within our
available funding.
While these workshops are critical to building and balancing our
research portfolio, we also have a number of planning and advisory
resources at our disposal to inform our long-term research portfolio
planning. The National Academy of Sciences, our Federal Advisory
Committees, informal and formal communication with the international
scientific community, OSTP, OMB, the Congress, and our in-house Office
of Science personnel all play important roles. Our programs are strong
because our research portfolio and facilities are internally and
externally assessed regularly and because our research and facilities
are awarded through a competitive merit review process.
We have established effective processes for assessing basic
research needs, and we have also developed the capacity to respond
quickly with highly leveraged investments in scientific facilities and
research at the national laboratories and universities. This informed,
rapid response provides the world-class research results that will help
solve some of our most intractable energy supply and environmental
challenges, while keeping our nation's scientific enterprise and
industry at the forefront.
I think the best way to bring my statement into sharp focus is to
discuss some examples of how your investments in the Office of Science
have brought quick and remarkable results, and what we plan to do with
the funding requested for FY 2009 to enhance the U.S. scientific and
innovation enterprise and ensure the best possible return to the
taxpayer.
Perhaps the best example of this aggressive and nimble approach is
the response by the Office of Science to the challenge of High
Performance Computing (HPC). In 2002 the Japanese announced the Earth
Simulator, a high performance computer for open science which combined
unprecedented performance and efficiency. Congress responded by
dramatically increasing HPC funding, and making the Office of Science
the lead in an effort to surpass the Earth Simulator. I am pleased to
report that your confidence in us has already resulted in the U.S.
attaining world leadership in open scientific computing-by the end of
this year we will achieve peak capacity of one petaflop at our
Leadership Computing Facility in Oak Ridge. This exceptional capability
is helping us model such phenomena as turbulent flows related to
combustion and to model and simulate complex climate processes that
will inform decision-makers on climate change, mitigation, and
adaptation.
The benefits of Office of Science HPC capabilities extend well
beyond DOE. We provide access to these resources to other federal
agencies, universities, laboratories, and industry. We have been
involved in modeling and simulation runs as diverse as determining
hurricane effects to save lives, and modeling aircraft engines and
airframes to improve energy efficiency and reduce time-to-market. We
use the Innovative and Novel Computational Impact on Theory and
Experiment (INCITE) program to openly compete access to these world-
leading HPC resources. The Office of Science created INCITE for the
purpose of bringing the capabilities of terascale computing to the
community in order to transform the conduct of science and bring
scientific simulation through computational modeling to parity with
theory and experiment as a scientific tool. As a result, HPC modeling
and simulation is now seen as a potent tool in the scientific toolbox;
one that will potentially save lives, increases our energy and national
security, and propels us to a competitive edge.
Another accomplishment of the past year is the successful
competition and award of three Bioenergy Research Centers. These
Centers will each take different approaches to discovering
fundamentally new solutions and solving critical roadblocks on the path
to energy security--how will we meet the new requirement to produce 36
million gallons of biofuels by 2022 from renewable plant sources that
don't compete with the food supply? In authorizing and funding the
Bioenergy Research Centers, Congress expressed its confidence in the
ability of the Office of Science to tap the talent of our national
laboratories and universities to tackle our fuels challenge, and these
Centers are up and running well.
U.S. leadership in science and technology depends on the continued
availability of the most advanced scientific tools and facilities for
our researchers. The suite of research capabilities built and operated
by the Office of Science are still the envy of the world. And over the
past several years, with your support, we have delivered new facilities
and have achieved remarkable technical milestones with existing
facilities, enabling the U.S. to work at the cutting-edge of many
scientific disciplines. The Spallation Neutron Source, which came on
line in 2006, is the world's forefront neutron scattering facility
providing more neutrons, by a factor of ten, than any other neutron
source in the world for research of materials and biological complexes.
The Linac Coherent Light Source currently under construction will
produce x-rays 10 billion times more intense than any existing x-ray
source in the world when it comes on line in FY 2010. It will have the
capabilities for structural studies of nanoscale particles and single
molecules and for probing chemical reactions in real time. All five
Office of Science Nanoscale Science Research Centers are now in
operation, providing unparalleled resources to the scientific community
for synthesis, fabrication, and analysis of nanoparticles and
nanomaterials. The Tevatron at Fermilab currently remains the world's
most powerful particle collider for high energy physics. New records
for performance in peak luminosity were achieved in 2006, enabling the
observation of the rare single top quark and bringing researchers
closer to understanding the basic constituents of matter and the laws
of nature at high energies.
On October 24, 2007, the international ITER Agreement went into
force. The ITER experiment will demonstrate for the first time that a
reactor can create and sustain a burning plasma. The implications of
this research are far-reaching. The world faces a series of tough
choices in meeting our energy needs over the next century. While no
silver bullet may exist, fusion appears to be the closest. Fusion
energy provides the real possibility of abundant, economical, and
environmentally benign energy, starting around mid-century. Our
investments today will have huge pay-offs for our children and
grandchildren. We are part of an international consortium that is
sharing the cost and the risk of the project and will have full access
to all experimental research data.
The Office of Science is aggressively pursuing a range of research
areas that will provide answers critical to our future energy security,
as the material that follows will show--and we also continue to plan
for the future, seeking to identify opportunities within available
resources and to update our priorities appropriately. An example of
this is the `Facilities for the Future of Science: A 20-Year Outlook'
report, which was released in November 2003 and updated last year. The
Outlook contained a prioritized list of facilities to underpin our
major research thrusts over the next 20 years and beyond. These
facilities are designed to be world class and adaptable to evolving
basic research needs to ensure that U.S. taxpayers get the most value
for their money. These facilities also allow researchers access to the
full array of physical and biological science large-scale resources,
creating an all-important balance and `unity' of science within the
Office of Science. I ask the Members during this appropriations cycle
especially to consider the lasting value of the basic energy research
done in the Office of Science to our nation's well-being and economic
prowess.
The information that follows is an in-depth examination of the
funding and activities of the Office of Science for FY 2009.
The following programs are supported in the FY 2009 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.
BASIC AND APPLIED RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT COORDINATION
The Office of Science continues to coordinate basic research
efforts in several areas with the Department's applied technology
offices through collaborative processes established over the last
several years. These areas include biofuels derived from biomass, solar
energy, hydrogen, solid-state lighting and other building technologies,
the Advanced Fuel Cycle, Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems, vehicle
technologies, and improving efficiencies in industrial processes. The
Department's July 2006 report to Congress, DOE Strategic Research
Portfolio Analysis and Coordination Plan, identified 21 additional
areas of opportunity for coordination that have great potential to
increase mission success. The Office of Science supports basic research
that underpins nearly all 21 areas; and six areas are highlighted in
the FY 2009 Office of Science budget request for enhanced R&D
coordination: Advanced Mathematics for Optimization of Complex Systems,
Control Theory, and Risk Assessment; Electrical Energy Storage; Carbon
Dioxide Capture and Storage; Characterization of Radioactive Waste;
Predicting High Level Waste System Performance over Extreme Time
Horizons; and High Energy Density Laboratory Plasmas. The Office of
Science has sponsored scientific workshops corresponding to these focus
areas in collaboration with related DOE applied technology program
offices. The workshop reports identified high priority basic research
areas necessary for improved understanding and revolutionary
breakthroughs.
Advanced Mathematics for Optimization of Complex Systems, Control
Theory, and Risk Assessment: The Advanced Scientific Computing Research
(ASCR) program supports basic research in advanced mathematics for
optimization of complex systems, control theory, and risk assessment. A
recommendation from the workshop focused on this subject indicated
additional research emphasis in advanced mathematics could benefit the
optimization of fossil fuel power generation; the nuclear fuel life
cycle; and power grid control. Such research could increase the
likelihood for success in DOE strategic initiatives including
integrated gasification combined cycle coal-fired power plants and
modernization of the electric power grid.
Electrical Energy Storage: About 15 percent of the Basic Energy
Sciences (BES) program funding requested to support basic research in
electrical energy storage (EES) is targeted for a formally coordinated
program with DOE applied technology program offices. The workshop
report on this focus area noted that revolutionary breakthroughs in EES
have been singled out as perhaps the most crucial need for this
nation's secure energy future. The report concluded that the
breakthroughs required for tomorrow's energy storage needs can be
realized with fundamental research to understand the underlying
processes involved in EES. The knowledge gained will in turn enable the
development of novel EES concepts that incorporate revolutionary new
materials and chemical processes. Such research will accelerate
advances in developing novel battery concepts for hybrid and electric
cars and will also help facilitate successful utilization and
integration of intermittent renewable power sources such as solar,
wind, and wave energy into the utility sector, making these energy
sources competitive for base-load supply.
Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage: BES, ASCR and the Biological
and Environmental Research (BER) program support basic research in
carbon dioxide capture and storage. The storage portion of this R&D
coordination focus area was a subject of a BES workshop on Basic
Research Needs for Geosciences in February 2007 that focused on the
research challenges posed by carbon dioxide storage in deep porous
saline geological formations. The workshop report noted that the
chemical and geological processes involved in the storage of carbon
dioxide are highly complex and would require an interdisciplinary
approach strongly coupling experiments with theory, modeling, and
computation bridging multiple length and time scales. The BES effort
supports fundamental research to understand the underlying chemical,
geochemical, and geophysical processes involved in sub-surface
sequestration sites. The BER research effort focuses on understanding,
modeling, and predicting the processes that control the fate of carbon
dioxide injected into geologic formations, sub-surface carbon storage,
and the role of microbes and plants in carbon sequestration in both
marine and terrestrial environments. These aspects of this focus area
were also the subject of additional SC workshops that identified basic
research areas in carbon dioxide capture and storage that could benefit
the optimization of fossil fuel power generation and the development of
carbon neutral fuels. The ASCR research effort supports two Scientific
Discovery through Accelerated Computing (SciDAC) partnerships with BER
to advance modeling of subsurface reactive transport of contaminants;
an area that has been identified as directly relevant to carbon
sequestration research efforts.
Characterization of Radioactive Waste: BES, BER, and the Nuclear
Physics (NP) program support research in radioactive waste
characterization. This R&D coordination focus area was the subject of
six Office of Science workshops, including three BES workshops. The
workshop reports noted that the materials and chemical processes
involved in radioactive waste disposal are highly complex and their
characterization requires an interdisciplinary approach that strongly
couples experiments with theory, modeling, and computation bridging
multiple length and time scales. The BES effort will focus on research
relating to the underlying physical and chemical processes that occur
under the conditions of radioactive waste storage, including extremes
of temperature, pressure, radiation flux, and multiple complex phases.
The BER research effort addresses processes that control the mobility
of radiological waste in the environment. The NP research effort is
focused on characterization of radioactive waste through the advanced
fuel cycle activities. The NP program areas are structured as
scientific disciplines with goals to understand the nuclear cross
sections important for advanced fuel cycle reprocessing. A small
portion of on-going research is relevant to the issues involved with
radioactive waste and related advanced fuel cycles. The knowledge
gained from this research will lead to enhanced understandings of
radioactive waste characterization, which would make nuclear power a
far more attractive component in primary energy usage.
Predicting High Level Waste System Performance over Extreme Time
Horizons: BES supports basic research in predicting high-level waste
system performance over extreme time horizons. This R&D coordination
focus area was a subject of a BES workshop on Basic Research Needs for
Geosciences in February 2007, which focused on research challenges
posed by geological repositories for high level waste. The workshop
report identified major research priorities in the areas of
computational thermodynamics of complex fluids and solids,
nanoparticulate and colloid physics and chemistry, biogeochemistry in
extreme and perturbed environments, highly reactive subsurface
materials and environments, and simulation of complex multi-scale
systems for ultra-long times.
High Energy Density Laboratory Plasmas: The Fusion Energy Sciences
(FES) program supports basic reach in high energy density laboratory
plasmas. In May 2007, Office of Science and the National Nuclear
Security Administration (NNSA) jointly sponsored a workshop to update
the high energy density laboratory plasmas (HEDLP) scientific research
agenda. Three scientific themes emerged from the workshop: enabling the
grand challenge of fusion energy by high energy density laboratory
plasmas; creating, probing, and controlling new states of high energy
densities; and catching reactions in the act by ultra-fast dynamics. In
FY 2009, the FES request expands existing HEDLP research in response to
the research opportunities identified in the workshop.
OFFICE OF SCIENCE LABORATORY APPRAISALS
In 2006, the Office of Science 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 evaluates the contractor's
performance against eight Performance Goals (three Science and
Technology Goals and five Management and Operations 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 2007 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 2008 Appropriation--$1,269.9 Million; FY 2009 Request--$1,568.2
Million
The Basic Energy Sciences (BES) program supports research that
advances the core disciplines of basic energy sciences--materials
sciences, chemistry, geosciences, and physical biosciences. The
scientific discoveries at the frontiers of these disciplines impact
energy resources, production, conservation, efficiency, and the
mitigation of adverse impacts of energy production and use--discoveries
that will help accelerate progress toward long-term energy security,
economic growth, and a sustainable environment. Research in materials
sciences will lead to the development of materials that improve
efficiency, economy, environmental acceptability, and safety of energy
generation, conversion, transmission, storage, and use. Research in
chemistry will lead to the development of advances such as efficient
combustion systems with reduced emissions 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 results in advanced monitoring and
measurement techniques for reservoir definition and understanding the
dynamics of complex fluids through porous and fractured subsurface
rock. Research into the molecular and biochemical nature of
photosynthesis aids the development of solar photo-energy conversion.
In FY 2009, BES will support expanded efforts in innovative basic
research to accelerate scientific breakthroughs needed to create
advanced energy technologies for the 21st century. Central to this
effort is the initiation of Energy Frontier Research Centers that will
pursue fundamental basic research areas such as solar energy
utilization; catalysis for energy; electrical energy storage;
geosciences related to long-term storage of nuclear waste and carbon
dioxide; advanced nuclear energy systems; hydrogen production, storage,
and use; solid state lighting; superconductivity; combustion of 21st
century transportation fuels; and materials under extreme environments.
The Office of Science seeks to engage the Nation's intellectual and
creative talent to address the scientific grand challenges associated
with determining how nature works and to lead the scientific community
into a new era of science--where we are able to direct and control
matter at the quantum, atomic, and molecular levels and harness this
new knowledge and capability for some of our most critical real-world
challenges. BES anticipates making awards to 20 to 30 Energy Frontier
Centers in FY 2009, each supported at two to five million dollars per
year for an initial period of five years.
BES also provides the Nation's researchers with world-class
research facilities, including a reactor- and two accelerator-based
neutron sources, four operating light sources plus two additional next-
generation light sources under construction in FY 2009, five nanoscale
science research centers, and three electron beam micro-
characterization centers. These facilities provide important
capabilities for fabricating, characterizing, and transforming
materials of all kinds from metals, alloys, and ceramics to fragile
bio-inspired and biological materials. 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 2009, BES scientific user facilities will be scheduled to
operate an optimal number of hours.
The Spallation Neutron Source (SNS)--a next-generation,
accelerator-based, short-pulse neutron source--completed its first full
year of commissioning and operations in FY 2007. In FY 2009,
fabrication and commissioning of SNS instruments will continue, funded
by BES and other sources including non-DOE sources. Two Major Items of
Equipment are funded in FY 2009 that will allow the fabrication of nine
additional instruments for the SNS, thus nearly completing the initial
suite of 24 instruments that can be accommodated in the high-power
target station. SNS and the High Flux Isotope Reactor at Oak Ridge
National Laboratory together provide capabilities unavailable anywhere
else in the world for study of the position and motion of atoms in
materials.
All five Nanoscale Science Research Centers will be fully
operational in FY 2009: 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 and Los Alamos National Laboratories, and the Center for
Functional Nanomaterials at Brookhaven National Laboratory. In FY 2009,
funding for research at the nanoscale increases for activities spanning
materials sciences, chemistry, geosciences, and physical biosciences.
The Linac Coherent Light Source (LCLS) at the Stanford Linear
Accelerator Center (SLAC) will continue construction in FY 2009. Full
support of the operation of the SLAC linac is provided by BES in FY
2009, completing the transition of linac funding from the High Energy
Physics program to BES. The LCLS project will 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 attoseconds--
the timescale of electronic and atomic motions. The LCLS will be the
first such facility in the world for groundbreaking research in the
physical and life sciences. Funding is provided separately for design
and fabrication of instruments for the facility. Construction of the
Photon Ultra-fast Laser Science and Engineering (PULSE) building
renovation continues in FY 2009. 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 is provided for PED, R&D, and initiation of construction of
the National Synchrotron Light Source-II (NSLS-II). NSLS-II will be a
new synchrotron light source, highly optimized to deliver ultra-high
brightness and flux with exceptional beam stability. This will 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 will open new regimes of
scientific discovery and investigation.
ADVANCED SCIENTIFIC COMPUTING RESEARCH
FY 2008 Appropriation--$351.2 Million; FY 2009 Request--$368.8 Million
The Advanced Scientific Computing Research (ASCR) program is
expanding the capability of world-class scientific research by
advancing fundamental mathematics and computer science research that
enables simulation and prediction of complex physical, chemical, and
biological systems; providing the forefront computational capabilities
needed by researchers to enable them to extend the frontiers of
science; and delivering the fundamental networking research and
facilities that link scientists across the Nation to the Department-
sponsored computing and experimental facilities. ASCR supports
fundamental research and integrates the results of these efforts into
tools and software that can be used by scientists in other disciplines.
The applied mathematics research activity enables scientists to
accurately model physical and natural systems, and provides the
algorithms computers require to manipulate that representation of the
world effectively. Computer science research provides the link between
the mathematics and the actual computer systems. Scientific discovery
results from simulations conducted on advanced computers. High
performance networks and network research provide the capability to
move the millions of gigabytes of data that SC's experimental and
computational tools generate to the scientists' desktops. All of these
elements supported by ASCR advance the frontiers of simulation and
scientific discovery. ASCR and its predecessors have been leaders in
the computational sciences for several decades and its activities are
essential for research programs across SC and the Department.
In FY 2009, increases in core research in Applied Mathematics and
Computer Science will be targeted on long-term research needs,
including support for a new joint Applied Mathematics-Computer Science
Institute to focus on the challenges of computing at extreme scales
that blur the boundaries between these disciplines, a new effort in the
mathematics of large data sets, areas of long-term research most
relevant to meeting the challenges of computing at extreme scales, and
risk assessment in complex systems. ASCR will also support a new basic
research effort in cyber security for open science in FY 2009.
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 scientific breakthroughs that would be
impossible using theoretical or laboratory studies alone, and fully
realizing the potential of emerging terascale and petascale for
advancing scientific discovery. The research and development activities
supported under SciDAC extend key results from applied mathematics and
computer science research to develop integrated software tools that
computational scientists can use in high performance scientific
applications. SciDAC enables new areas of science to take advantage of
computation and simulation through Scientific Application Partnerships;
Centers for Enabling Technologies at universities and national
laboratories; and university-led SciDAC Institutes that complement the
activities of the Centers and provide training for the next generation
of computational scientists.
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. The National Energy Research
Scientific Computing Center (NERSC) provides the core scientific
computing capacity needed by the research community and complements the
capabilities of the Leadership Computing Facilities (LCFs). NERSC
serves over 2,500 users working on about 900 projects. The NERSC Cray
XT-4 system will provide 100-150 teraflops of peak computing capacity
in FY 2009. In FY 2009, the Oak Ridge National Laboratory LCF will
continue to provide world-leading high-performance sustained capability
to researchers with the acquisition of a one petaflop Cray Baker system
by the end of 2008, which 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 within the LCF resources will be realized with the high
performance IBM Blue Gene/P system at Argonne National Laboratory,
which will achieve a peak capability of 250-500 teraflops in FY 2008.
The Argonne LCF will bring enhanced capability to accelerate scientific
understanding in areas such as molecular dynamics, catalysis, protein/
DNA complexes, and aging of material. Access by the scientific
community, including industry, to the LCF and NERSC resources will
continue through the Innovative and Novel Computational Impact on
Theory and Experiment (INCITE) program. INCITE is not only engaging
universities and the national laboratories to advance SC's mission
through simulation in areas like systems biology, chemical catalysis,
climate modeling, and accelerator R&D, but also enabling industry to
dramatically reduce the time for product and technology development.
Beginning in FY 2009, the ASCR computing facilities will develop and
implement a unified approach to supporting and maintaining software,
languages, and tools that are critical to continued effective
utilization of the machines.
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 the next generation of
flexible optical telecommunications hardware, gives SC the possibility
of exploiting these technologies to provide scientific data where
needed at speeds commensurate with the new data volumes. Investments in
the Energy Science Network (ESnet) 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 2009, ESnet, in
partnership with Internet2, will continue to implement a next
generation optical network structure for U.S. science and deliver 40-60
gigabits per second to SC laboratories.
Advancing high performance computing, computation, and advanced
networking 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
development of a Federal Plan for Advanced Networking R&D.
BIOLOGICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH
FY 2008 Appropriation--$544.4 Million; FY 2009 Request--$568.5 Million
Biological and Environmental Research (BER) supports basic research
in genomics and systems biology of microbes and plants aimed at
harnessing their capabilities for energy and environmental solutions;
environmental measurement and the development of models to predict
climate over decades to centuries; research to understand contaminant
fate and transport and to develop science-based methods for the
cleaning up environmental contaminants; molecular, cellular, and
tissue-based low dose radiation research to provide regulators with a
stronger scientific basis for developing future radiation protection
standards; and advanced research in radiochemistry and imaging
instrumentation. Results from this fundamental research will have broad
impacts on our energy future, our environment, and our health.
In FY 2009, BER continues to support the Genomics: GTL research
program. This program pursues systems biology approach that spans 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. 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. Development of a
global biotechnology-based energy infrastructure requires substantial
fundamental scientific understanding that enables 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
or through novel production strategies, such as engineered systems
based on processes found in natural biological systems. Such strategies
might include, for example, defined mixed microbial communities or
consolidated biological processes. Within the GTL program, BER supports
basic research aimed at developing the understanding needed to advance
biotechnology-based strategies not only for new methods of producing
renewable, carbon-neutral bioenergy compounds, but also for
understanding how the capabilities of microbes can be applied to
environmental remediation and carbon sequestration.
To accelerate the scientific breakthroughs necessary to develop
novel, efficient, and cost-effective methods for producing biofuels
from plant materials, BER awarded three new Bioenergy Research Centers
in FY 2007. FY 2009 will be their second full year of operations. The
three centers--the Joint BioEnergy Institute at Lawrence Berkeley
National Laboratory, the Great Lakes Bioenergy Research Center at the
University of Wisconsin at Madison, and the BioEnergy Science Center at
Oak Ridge National Laboratory--consist of diverse teams of researchers
from universities, national laboratories, and industry; and conduct
comprehensive, multi-disciplinary research programs focused on systems
biology on microbes and plants. The Centers serve as catalysts for
innovation and the development of transformational science for
bioenergy solutions, and their research activities complement research
funded within the broader GTL program.
An ability to predict long-range and regional climate, including
the effects of energy-related emissions of greenhouse gases and
aerosols on future climate, enables effective planning for future needs
in energy, agriculture, and land and water use. Likewise, 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. DOE, in conjunction with its
interagency partners under the U.S. Climate Change Science Program
(CCSP), continues to focus climate change research in CCSP priority
areas. These areas include abrupt climate change, advanced climate
modeling, critical climate processes (including effects of clouds,
aerosols, and water vapor on the atmospheric radiation balance), carbon
cycling, atmospheric composition (with a focus on greenhouse gas
concentrations and the effects of aerosols), the effects of climate
change on important terrestrial ecosystems, and the development and
evaluation of tools for assessing environmental costs and benefits of
climate change and the different potential options for mitigation and
adaptation to such change.
BER's Climate Change Research program enables both scientifically
based predictions and assessments of the potential effects of
greenhouse gases and aerosol emissions on climate and the environment,
and the development of approaches for enhancing carbon sequestration in
terrestrial ecosystems. Research supported by the climate program is
focused on understanding the physical, chemical, and biological
processes affecting the Earth's atmosphere, land, and oceans, and how
these processes may be affected by changes in radiative forcing of
climate resulting from carbon dioxide and aerosol emissions from energy
production and use. BER support for climate modeling increases in FY
2009 to leverage the Department's leadership class computing facilities
to improve both resolution and model physics, including modeling ice
sheets, in a fully coupled climate model simulating historic climate
and projecting future potential climate change at regional to global
scales. BER also continues to support research on abrupt climate change
and continues SciDAC partnership efforts with ASCR.
Research on climate forcing under the Atmospheric Radiation
Measurement (ARM) program will continue to focus on resolving the
largest sources of scientific uncertainty in climate change
prediction--the effects of clouds and aerosols. ARM research supports
individual investigators at universities and research teams at DOE
laboratories. Continued support is provided for the ARM Climate
Research Facility (ACRF) which consists of three stationary facilities,
an ARM Mobile Facility, and the ARM Aerial Vehicles Program. The ACRF
provides the data collection infrastructure needed for studies
investigating atmospheric processes and properties and for the
development and evaluation of climate process models. BER also
continues to support AmeriFlux in FY 2009, which is a network of
research sites where the net exchange of carbon dioxide, energy, and
water between the atmosphere and major terrestrial ecosystems in North
America is continuously measured. The AmeriFlux Network research sites
provide extensive measurements of terrestrial carbon sink properties,
including biological and soil processes, which provide insight into
carbon cycling and inform the development of climate models. BER
supports 20 of the approximately 70 sites in the network. The remaining
AmeriFlux sites are funded by other federal agencies. BER also supports
research on ecosystem function and response to understand the potential
effects of climate change anticipated during the coming 50100 years on
the health of important terrestrial ecosystems in the United States.
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. Research
emphasis within BER's environmental remediation sciences research 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 2009, BER
will support three field research sites which provide opportunities to
validate laboratory findings under field conditions. The resulting
knowledge and technology will assist DOE's environmental clean-up and
stewardship missions. Support for the William R. Wiley Environmental
Molecular Sciences Laboratory at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
in FY 2009 maintains operations at full capacity.
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 to
cellular processes in microbes and plants--can be understood and
improved using radiotracers and advanced imaging instruments. BER
research continues on the biological effects of low dose radiation and
for radiochemistry and imaging technologies. Building on DOE
capabilities in physics, chemistry, engineering, biology, and
computation, BER supports fundamental imaging research and maintains
core infrastructure for imaging research and the development of new
technologies. Funding is provided for Ethical, Legal, and Societal
Issues (ELSI) associated with activities applicable to the Office of
Science, including research on the ecological and environmental impacts
of nanoparticles resulting from nanotechnology applied to energy
technologies.
HIGH ENERGY PHYSICS
FY 2008 Appropriation--$689.3 Million; FY 2009 Request--$805.0 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 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. HEP uses 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. The research facilities and basic research supported by
HEP advance our knowledge not only in high energy physics, but
increasingly in other fields as 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 2009, HEP places a high priority on the operations, upgrades,
and infrastructure of the two major HEP user facilities, the Tevatron
Collider and the Neutrinos at the Main Injector (NuMI) beam line at
Fermilab. After a very successful eight-year run, operation of the SLAC
B-factory is completed in FY 2008. Funding is provided in FY 2009 to
support significant analysis of data collected at the B-factory and for
safe ramp-down of the facility. With completion of the scientific
missions of the B-factory and Tevatron Collider by the end of this
decade, the longer-term HEP program continues support for the
development of new cutting-edge facilities in targeted areas like
neutrino physics that will establish a U.S. leadership role in these
areas in the next decade; when the centerpiece of the world HEP program
will be at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN (the European
Organization for Nuclear Research).
As the LHC accelerator nears its turn-on date in 2008, support of
an effective role for U.S. research groups in LHC discoveries will
continue to be a high priority of the HEP program. In FY 2009, HEP
increases funding for university and laboratory based research to
support U.S. researchers participating in the physics discoveries
enabled by the LHC and continues to provide support for operations and
maintenance of the U.S.-built systems that are part of the LHC
detectors. R&D for possible future upgrades to the LHC accelerator and
detectors will also be pursued. A U.S. leadership role in the
discoveries enabled by the LHC will require effective integration of
U.S. researchers in the LHC detector calibration and data analysis
efforts, and implementation and optimization of the U.S. data handling
and computing capabilities needed for full participation in the LHC
research program.
Support for International Linear Collider (ILC) R&D continues, but
the U.S. role in the global R&D effort is reduced, resulting in a more
focused but still robust program that emphasizes technical areas where
the U.S. has unique or world-leading capabilities. The request
positions the U.S. to play a significant role in the ILC, if
governments decide to proceed with the project. In other accelerator
technology R&D areas, funding is increasing to begin implementation of
a strategic plan for technology R&D. Specific areas targeted for
increased support are short-term R&D focused on development of high-
intensity proton sources; mid-term R&D directed at development of
superconducting radio frequency structures, in view of their potential
for a wide range of applications; and long-term R&D on advanced
accelerator technologies with the potential to provide transformational
changes. The latter effort includes fabrication of a new test facility
for advanced particle acceleration concepts.
With Tevatron improvements completed, much of the accelerator
development effort at Fermilab in FY 2009 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 ramps up in FY 2009 and will
utilize the NuMI beam. This project includes improvements to the proton
source to increase the intensity of the NuMI beam. Meanwhile,
fabrication continues for the Reactor Neutrino Detector at Daya Bay,
China and two small neutrino experiments, the Main Injector Experiment
n-A (MINERnA) in the Main Injector Neutrino Oscillation Search (MINOS)
near detector hall at Fermilab and the Tokai-to-Kamioka (T2K)
experiment using the Japanese JPARC neutrino beam.
The HEP Non-Accelerator Physics subprogram supports fundamental
research for U.S. leadership in the study of those topics in particle
physics that cannot be investigated completely with accelerators, or
are best studied by other means. Some of the non-accelerator-based
particle sources used in this research are neutrinos from the sun,
galactic supernovae, terrestrial nuclear reactors, and cosmic rays
striking the Earth's atmosphere. Experimental facilities and research
utilizing these particle physics techniques are often located at remote
sites, such as deep underground laboratories, on mountain tops, or in
space, either as satellites or as instruments attached to International
Space Station. In FY 2009, HEP, in partnership with NASA, will operate
the Large Area Telescope (LAT) scheduled to be launched from the
Kennedy Space Center in mid-2008. The LAT, a primary instrument on
NASA's Gamma Ray Large Area Space Telescope (GLAST) mission, will
observe and provide insights into understanding the highest energy
gamma rays observed in nature. This activity complements the ground-
based VERITAS Telescope Array supported by HEP, which studies the
astrophysical sources of high energy gamma rays.
HEP continues the fabrication of the Dark Energy Survey (DES)
project in FY 2009, which will provide the next step in determining the
nature of dark energy. HEP continues support for R&D 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 High Energy Physics Advisory
Committee/Nuclear Sciences Advisory Committee sub-panel review. HEP
supports concept studies for a Joint Dark Energy Mission (JDEM), a
joint DOE and NASA space-based satellite, leading to a mission concept
selection in 2009 and a planned FY 2010 fabrication start. Support for
R&D on other near-term and next-generation ground- and space-based dark
energy concepts continues in FY 2009. 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.
HEP also supports major thrusts in theoretical physics,
astrophysics, and particle physics grid technology, including
activities supported through the SciDAC program in FY 2009, as well as
proposals in accelerator modeling and design. 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 2008 Appropriation--$432.7 Million; FY 2009 Request--$510.1 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, 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 is central to the development of
various technologies relevant to nuclear energy, nuclear medicine, and
national security. 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,
including those relevant to the Department's missions in energy,
nuclear-related national security, and environmental quality.
Key aspects of the NP research agenda include understanding how
quarks and gluons combine to form nucleons (protons and neutrons), 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 gained 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 FY 2009, NP will support the operations of four National User
Facilities and research at universities and national laboratories, and
make investments in new capabilities to address compelling scientific
opportunities and to maintain U.S. competitiveness in global nuclear
physics efforts. 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 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 2009. The NP program, in partnership
with NASA, will continue construction of an Electron Beam Ion Source to
provide RHIC with more cost-effective and reliable operations than the
current Tandem Van de Graaff accelerator, as well as new research
capabilities. 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 minimum viscosity)
discovered at RHIC.
Operations of the Continuous Electron Beam Accelerator Facility
(CEBAF) at Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility (TJNAF) in FY
2009 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
2009, the accelerator will provide beams simultaneously to all three
experimental halls and funding is provided for the initiation of
construction of 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
Argonne National Laboratory and the Holifield Radioactive Ion Beam
Facility (HRIBF) at Oak Ridge National Laboratory will be supported in
FY 2009 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. Fabrication continues
for the GRETINA gamma-ray detector array, which 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 Spallation Neutron Source 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
2009 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 2009 to continue
U.S. participation in the fabrication of an Italian-led neutrino-less
double beta decay experiment, the Cryogenic Underground Observatory for
Rare Events (CUORE). 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 double beta decay will determine if
the neutrino is its own antiparticle and provide information about the
mass of the neutrino.
In 2008, NP plans to conduct a design solicitation and make a site
selection for a Facility for Rare Isotope Beams (FRIB). This U.S.
facility will enable world-leading research opportunities in nuclear
structure, nuclear astrophysics, and fundamental studies, and will
complement the programs of high capability radioactive ion beam
facilities elsewhere in the world. Following a site selection, funds
are provided in FY 2009 for R&D and to begin conceptual design
activities for FRIB.
Theoretical research is important in all program areas, and NP
supports the nuclear data program, which collects, evaluates, and
disseminates nuclear physics data. NP increases support in FY 2009 for
basic research in the characterization of radioactive waste through
advanced fuel cycle activities. NP also continues to support SciDAC
efforts in nuclear astrophysics, grid computing, Lattice Gauge (QCD)
theory, low energy nuclear structure and nuclear reaction theory, and
advanced accelerator design.
Beginning in FY 2009, NP assumes responsibilities for research,
development, and production of stable and radioactive isotopes
previously under the DOE Office of Nuclear Energy. A major objective of
this subprogram within NP, entitled Isotope Production and
Applications, is to improve the availability and reliability of
research isotopes at predictable prices needed for medical, national
security, and industrial applications. A portfolio of research isotopes
will be established with guidance from scientific advisory committees,
in consultation with BER, the National Institutes of Health, and all
segments of the research community and other federal agencies
interested in using stable and radioactive isotopes.
FUSION ENERGY SCIENCES
FY 2008 Appropriation--$286.5 Million; FY 2009 Request--$493.1 Million
The Fusion Energy Sciences (FES) program advances the theoretical
and experimental understanding of plasma and fusion science needed to
develop fusion energy. Advances in plasma physics and associated
technologies will bring the U.S. closer to making fusion energy a part
of the Nation's energy solution. To enable fundamental research into
the nature of fusion plasmas, FES supports the operation of a set of
unique and diversified domestic experimental facilities and close
collaborations with international partners on specialized facilities
abroad. Results from these facilities provide the data to test our
theoretical understanding of fusion plasmas and extend our computer
models?ultimately leading to improved predictive capabilities for
fusion plasmas. The FES research program, including experiments on
major facilities, theory, and computer modeling activities, will
emphasize burning plasma research to prepare for the ITER scientific
program. FES leads U.S. participation in ITER, an experiment to study
and demonstrate the scientific and technical feasibility of fusion
power.
A defining feature of the FES program is its emphasis on developing
the underlying science of potential fusion energy systems. This effort
consists of campaigns to develop the requisite understanding of several
critical issues, including integrated burning plasma properties;
macroscopic equilibrium and stability of plasmas; multi-scale transport
of energy and particles; plasma boundary interfaces between a hot
plasma and the surrounding material surfaces; interaction of
electromagnetic waves with plasma electrons and ions; high energy
density implosion physics; and fusion engineering science. In FY 2009,
the FES program will begin to identify critical scientific issues and
missions for the next stage in the U.S. fusion research program during
the ITER era, which will keep it at the forefront of fusion and plasma
sciences in the future.
Through its participation in the international ITER project, the
magnetic fusion energy sciences program will begin to explore the
burning plasma regime. The achievement of a burning plasma regime in
ITER, wherein much more fusion energy is released than is used to heat
the plasma fuel, will provide a fundamental demonstration of the
viability of magnetic fusion as a potential new energy source. Our
participation in the international ITER project began in FY 2006
through the U.S. Contributions to ITER Major Item of Equipment project.
In FY 2008, U.S. ITER project activities are minimized because of
significantly reduced funding relative to requested levels. The extent
of the resulting cost and schedule impacts is still being assessed.
With full funding in FY 2009, as requested, the U.S. Contributions to
the ITER project will resume activities to provide for the U.S. ``in-
kind'' hardware contributions, U.S. personnel to work at the ITER site,
and funds for the U.S. share of common expenses such as infrastructure,
hardware assembly, installation, and contingency.
In FY 2009, FES continues to support the operation of three major
experimental facilities that provide scientists with the means to test
and extend our theoretical understanding and computer models for fusion
science: the DIII-D tokamak at General Atomics in San Diego,
California, the Alcator C-Mod tokamak at the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and the National Spherical
Torus Experiment at Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory (PPPL) in
Princeton, New Jersey. Experiments on these major facilities, along
with theory and computer modeling activities, will support final design
decisions for ITER and assist in developing operating scenarios for the
ITER research program.
Funding is currently provided for continued fabrication of the
National Compact Stellarator Experiment (NCSX) at PPPL; however, a
final decision on the project's future will be made in FY 2008, since
the project's cost and schedule have changed significantly since the
initial project baseline was established. Several reviews of NCSX were
conducted by the Office of Science and Princeton University in 2007
including a scientific and programmatic review by the Fusion Energy
Sciences Advisory Committee which concluded that the NCSX should be
completed to maintain U.S. interests in this field. These reviews plus
upcoming technical, cost, and schedule reviews by DOE will provide the
necessary input to allow the Department to make the decision either to
re-baseline the project or to cancel it.
FES will initiate detailed planning for a Fusion Simulation Project
(FSP) in FY 2009, taking advantage of the many recent improvements in
computational and computing capabilities, as well as a significant
amount of preparatory work that has already been done by FES's SciDAC
activities. The FSP will be directed at developing a world-leading
predictive integrated plasma simulation capability that can be applied
to burning plasmas of the type that will be necessary for fusion energy
producing power plants. As such, the FSP will represent the embodiment
of the goal of developing the knowledge base for a fusion energy
system. The FSP is expected to be completed by FY 2024, but there will
also be key deliverables targeted at the end of five and ten years.
FES increases support for efforts in the area of high energy
density laboratory plasmas (HEDLP) as part of the HEDLP Joint Program
with the National Nuclear Security Administration. In FY 2009, a
rolling series of competitive solicitations will be started to identify
initiatives to be supported under the HEDLP Joint Program that are
consistent with the missions of both FES and NNSA. These solicitations
will cover a number of exciting HEDLP research areas such as inertial
fusion energy sciences, warm dense matter, and magnetized high energy
density plasmas, including plasma jets, laser-plasma interactions,
compressible hydrodynamics, and laboratory astrophysics.
WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT FOR TEACHERS AND SCIENTISTS
FY 2008 Appropriation--$8.0 Million; FY 2009 Request--$13.6 Million
The Department of Energy has played a role in training America's
scientists and engineers for more than 60 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 the development of
a highly skilled scientific and technical workforce. The Workforce
Development for Teachers and Scientists (WDTS) program helps to ensure
that DOE and the Nation have a sustained pipeline of highly trained
scientists, mathematicians, and engineers in the workforce. That
workforce includes DOE federal employees, the DOE national
laboratories, and more broadly, the university and private sector
institutions that perform the science and technology required for DOE
to achieve its goals in energy, environment, national security, and
basic discovery. WDTS accomplishes its mission primarily by providing
hands-on science and technology learning experiences to the Nation's
students and educators of science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics (STEM). 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 supports experiential learning opportunities that compliment
classroom curriculum 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 STEM; and (3) encourage
and reward middle and high school students across the Nation to 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 2009, WDTS activities are implemented through three new
subprograms: Student Programs, Educator Programs, and Program
Administration and Evaluation. Student Programs provide experiential
learning opportunities to enhance student understanding of science and
to increase their interest in pursuing STEM careers. Included within
this subprogram in FY 2009 are Science Undergraduate Laboratory
Internship (SULI), Community College Institute (CCI), Pre-Service
Teachers (PST), and the National Science Bowl (NSB).
The DOE National Science Bowl is a nationally recognized,
prestigious academic event for high school and middle school students.
It has attained its level of recognition and participation through a
grass-roots design, which encourages the voluntary participation of
professional scientists, engineers, and educators from across the
Nation. Students answer questions in scientific topics, including
astronomy, biology, chemistry, mathematics, and physics, in a highly
competitive, ``Jeopardy-style'' format. Since 1991, more than 150,000
students have participated in the regional and national competitions.
The 2008 NSB High School Finals will be held in Washington, DC from May
1-6, 2008, and the Middle School Finals will be held in Golden, CO from
June 19-22, 2008--you are all welcome to attend these exciting events.
The WDTS Educator Programs make the world-class intellectual and
physical assets of the Department available to the U.S. education
community. Included within this newly restructured subprogram in FY
2009 are DOE Academies Creating Teacher Scientists (ACTS), Faculty and
Student Teams (FaST), and the Albert Einstein Distinguished Educator
Fellowship.
The WDTS Program Administration and Evaluation activities leverage
resources and partnerships with other federal agencies, industry,
academic institutions, and professional associations to build expertise
in workforce development. These activities also include developing and
deploying rigorous evaluation methods for all WDTS programs; developing
longitudinal workforce studies that track students and educators who
participate in DOE programs; and improving outreach efforts to
communicate to the broader public the role the Department plays in STEM
education and the opportunities provided to students and educators.
SCIENCE LABORATORIES INFRASTRUCTURE
FY 2008 Appropriation--$66.9 Million; FY 2009 Request--$110.3 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 Argonne National Laboratory (ANL), Brookhaven
National Laboratory (BNL), and Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL).
In FY 2009, SLI proposes to initiate an Infrastructure
Modernization Initiative. The goal of this initiative is to, by FY
2019, have facilities and infrastructure at the SC laboratories that:
Offer a safer, healthier, and more secure work
environment for employees and visitors;
Ensure laboratory infrastructure will support world-
class science;
Meet or exceed DOE sustainability goals and are more
efficient to operate and maintain; and
Support worker productivity and facilitate effective
interaction with colleagues.
Increases in construction funding proposed in FY 2009 will fund
three new projects under the proposed SC Infrastructure Modernization
Initiative. These are the Interdisciplinary Science Building, Phase I
project at Brookhaven National Laboratory; the Seismic Life-Safety,
Modernization, and Replacement of General Purpose Buildings, Phase II
project, at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory; and the
Technology and Engineering Development Facility project at the Thomas
Jefferson National Accelerator Facility. Also included under this
Initiative is one project started in FY 2008, the Modernization of
Laboratory Facilities project at Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
Additional on-going line-item construction projects include the
Physical Sciences Facility at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and
additional renovations and upgrades at the Brookhaven and Lawrence
Berkeley National Laboratories.
SCIENCE PROGRAM DIRECTION
FY 2008 Appropriation--$177.8 Million; FY 2009 Request--$203.9 Million
Science Program Direction (SCPD) enables a skilled and highly-
motivated federal workforce to manage and support basic energy-related
and science-related research disciplines, diversely supported through
research programs, projects, and facilities under the Office of
Science's leadership. This budget request addresses the overall
corporate strategy and eliminates the previous subprograms of Program
Direction and Field Operations.
The headquarters federal staff is responsible for Office of
Science-wide issues, operational policy, scientific program
development, and management functions supporting a broad spectrum of
scientific disciplines and program offices. Additionally, support is
included for management of workforce program direction and
infrastructure through policy, technical and administrative support
staff responsible for budget and planning; general administration;
information technology; infrastructure management; construction
management; Safeguards and Security; and Environment, Safety, and
Health within the framework set by the Department. Additionally,
Program Direction includes funding for the Office of Scientific and
Technical Information, which collects, preserves, and disseminates DOE
research and development information for use by DOE, the scientific
community, academia, U.S. industry, and the public to expand the
knowledge base of science and technology.
Field personnel are responsible and directly accountable for
implementing the SC program within the framework established by
headquarters policy and guidance. Site Office personnel are responsible
for the day-to-day oversight of Management and Operating contractor
performance supporting Office of Science laboratories and facilities.
In addition, the Integrated Support Center, operated in partnership by
the Chicago and Oak Ridge Operations office personnel, provides best-
in-class business, administrative, and specialized technical support
across the entire Office of Science enterprise and to other DOE
programs. In FY 2009, Program Direction funding increases by 14.7
percent from the FY 2008 appropriated level. Most of the increase will
support an additional 42 FTEs, to manage the increase in the SC
research investment and the Committee of Visitors recommendations for
all of the SC basic research programs.
SAFEGUARDS AND SECURITY
FY 2008 Appropriation--$75.9 Million; FY 2009 Request--$80.6 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 2009 S&S budget includes funding necessary to protect
people, property, and information. In FY 2009, increased funding is
provided for cyber security to respond to significantly increased risks
and government-wide requirements by the Federal Information Security
Management Act (FISMA) in this area and in security systems to replace
and upgrade aging and obsolete systems.
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 global
competitiveness. On behalf of DOE, I am pleased to present this FY 2009
budget request for the Office of Science.
This concludes my testimony. I would be pleased to answer any
questions you might have.