U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

33–610PS 2008

THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

FISCAL YEAR 2008 RESEARCH AND

DEVELOPMENT BUDGET PROPOSAL

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND

ENVIRONMENT

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND

TECHNOLOGY

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

MARCH 7, 2007

Serial No. 110–7

Printed for the use of the Committee on Science and Technology

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.science.house.gov

(II)

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

HON. BART GORDON, Tennessee, Chairman

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas

LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California

MARK UDALL, Colorado

DAVID WU, Oregon

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington

BRAD MILLER, North Carolina

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois

NICK LAMPSON, Texas

GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona

JERRY MCNERNEY, California

PAUL KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania

DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon

STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey

MICHAEL M. HONDA, California

JIM MATHESON, Utah

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas

BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri

CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana

BARON P. HILL, Indiana

HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona

CHARLES A. WILSON, Ohio

RALPH M. HALL, Texas

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER JR.,

Wisconsin

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas

DANA ROHRABACHER, California

KEN CALVERT, California

ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois

W. TODD AKIN, Missouri

JO BONNER, Alabama

TOM FEENEY, Florida

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas

BOB INGLIS, South Carolina

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida

PHIL GINGREY, Georgia

BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California

ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska

VACANCY

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT

HON. NICK LAMPSON, Texas, Chairman

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois

LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois

GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona

JERRY MCNERNEY, California

MARK UDALL, Colorado

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington

PAUL KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania

BART GORDON, Tennessee

BOB INGLIS, South Carolina

ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois

W. TODD AKIN, Missouri

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida

RALPH M. HALL, Texas

JEAN FRUCI Democratic Staff Director

CHRIS KING Democratic Professional Staff Member

SHIMERE WILLIAMS Democratic Professional Staff Member

ELAINE PAULIONIS Democratic Professional Staff Member

STACEY STEEP Research Assistant

(III)

C O N T E N T S

March 7, 2007

Page

Witness List ............................................................................................................. 2

Hearing Charter ...................................................................................................... 3

Opening Statements

Statement by Representative Nick Lampson, Chairman, Subcommittee on

Energy and Environment, Committee on Science and Technology, U.S.

House of Representatives .................................................................................... 10

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 11

Statement by Representative Bob Inglis, Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ............................................................... 12

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 13

Prepared Statement by Representative Jerry F. Costello, Member, Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ............................................................... 14

Witnesses:

Dr. Raymond L. Orbach, Under Secretary for Science, U.S. Department of

Energy

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 15

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 16

Biography .......................................................................................................... 33

Mr. Dennis R. Spurgeon, Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy, U.S. Department of Energy

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 34

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 36

Biography .......................................................................................................... 40

Mr. Alexander Karsner, Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, U.S. Department of Energy

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 41

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 43

Biography .......................................................................................................... 51

Mr. Kevin M. Kolevar, Director, Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy

Reliability, U.S. Department of Energy

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 51

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 53

Biography .......................................................................................................... 56

Mr. Thomas D. Shope, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fossil Energy, U.S. Department of Energy

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 56

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 58

Biography .......................................................................................................... 62

Discussion

The Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) ............................................. 62

Efficiency Standards Concerns ........................................................................... 63

Bioenergy Research Centers ............................................................................... 65

The Ultra-Deepwater and Unconventional Onshore Research and Development Program ................................................................................................... 66

The American Competitiveness Initiative .......................................................... 69

Page

IV

Nuclear Power ...................................................................................................... 70

Energy Storage ..................................................................................................... 71

Geothermal Energy Research .............................................................................. 72

Ethanol Potential and Sustainability ................................................................. 73

More on Nuclear Power ....................................................................................... 73

Power Plant Siting ............................................................................................... 74

Energy Conservation ............................................................................................ 75

Electro-Magnetic Pulse (EMP) Preparedness .................................................... 75

Potential Coal Supply .......................................................................................... 75

The International Linear Collider ...................................................................... 76

More on the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) ............................... 77

The Rare Isotope Beam ....................................................................................... 78

Solar Energy ......................................................................................................... 78

Appendix: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions

Dr. Raymond L. Orbach, Under Secretary for Science, U.S. Department of

Energy ................................................................................................................... 82

Mr. Dennis R. Spurgeon, Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy, U.S. Department of Energy .............................................................................................. 89

Mr. Alexander Karsner, Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, U.S. Department of Energy ........................................................... 95

Mr. Kevin M. Kolevar, Director, Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy

Reliability, U.S. Department of Energy ............................................................. 104

Mr. Thomas D. Shope, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fossil Energy, U.S. Department of Energy ....................................................................... 107

(1)

THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY FISCAL YEAR

2008 RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT BUDGET PROPOSAL

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 7, 2007

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT, COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, Washington, DC.

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:37 a.m., in Room

2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Nick Lampson

[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.

2

3

HEARING CHARTER

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

The Department of Energy

Fiscal Year 2008 Research and

Development Budget Proposal

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 7, 2007

9:30 A.M.–11:30 A.M. 2318 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING

Purpose

On Wednesday, March 7, 2007 the Energy and Environment Subcommittee of the

House Science and Technology Committee will hold a hearing on the Department

of Energy’s (DOE) fiscal year 2008 Budget Request for research and development

programs.

Witnesses

Dr. Ray Orbach is the Under Secretary for Science at DOE, where he has directed

the Office of Science since 2002. Prior to joining the Department, Dr. Orbach served

as Chancellor of the University of California at Riverside.

Mr. Dennis Spurgeon is the Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy at DOE. Mr.

Spurgeon was recently designated as the Acting Under Secretary for Energy, taking

the place of David Garman.

Mr. Alexander Karsner is the Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy at DOE. Previously, Mr. Karsner served in the private sector as an

international infrastructure developer and entrepreneur in a wide range of energy

technology fields.

Mr. Kevin Kolevar is the Director of the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy

Reliability at DOE. Prior to his appointment Mr. Kolevar served as Chief of Staff

to then-Deputy of Energy Kyle McSlarrow.

Mr. Thomas D. Shope is the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fossil Energy. Mr. Shope is testifying in place of Assistant Secretary Jeffrey Jarrett who recently announced his resignation.

The $7.2 billion request for DOE civilian energy R&D funding in FY08 is divided

among the five offices represented at this hearing. The Office of Science (SC) funds

basic research at universities and 10 national laboratories, and is the single largest

federal supporter of physical sciences research. The other four offices focus on applied research and technology development in the fields of Energy Efficiency and ReVerDate 11-MAY-2000 08:14 Jan 17, 2008 Jkt 033610 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\E&E07\030707\33610 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
4

newable Energy, Fossil Energy, Nuclear Energy, and Electricity Delivery. Appearing

for the first time in the President’s budget is the Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee Program which would provide loan guarantees for advanced technology

projects that avoid, reduce, or sequester air pollutants or anthropogenic emissions

of greenhouse gases, and have a reasonable prospect of repaying the principal and

interest on their debt obligations.

OFFICE OF SCIENCE (Witness—Dr. Ray Orbach)

As part of the President’s American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI), the FY 2008 budget request for the DOE Office of Science is $4.4 billion. This represents an increase of approximately $600 million, or 16 percent over the FY 2007 enacted level.

However, this falls $189 million short of the funding levels authorized in Title IX

of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. It is important to note that the FY 2007 Joint Funding Resolution (H.J. Res. 20) appropriated $3.8 billion for the Office of Science,

roughly $200 million more than the 2006 enacted amount, but far short of the $4.1

billion requested for 2007. The resolution requires that DOE report back to the Congress within 30 days on how the additional $200 million will be spent within the

Office of Science. Otherwise no direction is given as to increases or decreases for

specific programs, making program comparisons between years difficult for the purposes of this analysis.

The FY 2008 request for Basic Energy Sciences (BES) is $1.5 billion, an increase of $388 million, or 35 percent above the FY06 enacted. As the largest program with within the Office of Science, BES conducts research primarily in the

areas of materials sciences and engineering. In FY 2008 BES will support approximately 10,000 researchers in synchrotron light source and neutron scattering facilities, as well as $279 million for the construction and operation of five Nanoscale

Science Research Centers.

The budget would provide $340 million for the Advanced Scientific and Computing Research (ASCR), an increase of $112 million, or 49 percent over the FY06

appropriations. This includes funding to continue upgrading the Leadership Class

Facility (LCF) at Oak Ridge National Lab to peta-scale operations, making it the

world’s largest civilian high performance computing system.

Biological and Environmental Research (BER) would receive $532 million, a

decrease of approximately $32 million from FY06 enacted levels. This decrease reflects the omission of several congressionally directed projects in the BER budget.

In addition to the role of BER in areas such as genomics and climate change research, the FY08 request supports the startup of three bioenergy research centers

to investigate biological processes for developing and deploying large scale, environmentally sound biotechnologies to produce ethanol from cellulosic biomass (plant

materials).

The FY08 funding request for High Energy Physics (HEP) is $ 782.2 million,

which is $84 million or 12 percent more than the FY 2006 enacted level, but only

a one percent increase over the FY 2007 request. This program funds fundamental

5

research in elementary particle physics and accelerator science and technology. Approximately $80 million is requested for R&D leading to the International Linear

Collider (ILC), a project which could cost over $7 billion and may be sited in the

U.S.

Fusion Energy Sciences (FES) receives $428 million, a substantial increase of

$147 million, or 52 percent above the FY 2006 enacted. Of this amount, $160 million

would be dedicated to support the U.S. role in the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER).

Also of note, Nuclear Physics (NP) receives $471.3 million, an increase of $113.5

million, or 31.7 percent, over the FY06 enacted amount. The request for Science

Laboratories Infrastructure is approximately $80 million.

APPLIED ENERGY TECHNOLOGY PROGRAMS

While the total budget for energy R&D has risen in recent years it is still a fraction of the robust levels seen when the Nation responded to the energy crisis of the

late 1970’s. According to the U.S. Government Accountability Office the Department

of Energy’s budget authority for energy R&D fell 85 percent from 1978 to 2005 (inflation adjusted). Within the applied programs funding varied greatly according to

Administration and Congressional priorities as the chart below indicates.

Despite heavy investments in wind, solar and geothermal energy, the large bulk

of the Nation’s renewable energy portfolio comes from hydropower and still comprises only six percent of total electricity generation. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) projects that U.S. electricity generation will grow from 3,900 billion kilowatt hours in 2005 to 5,500 billion kilowatt hours in 2030. Coal will make

up most of this growth and continue to provide the largest part of U.S. electricity

generation for the foreseeable future. It is expected that, short of a very aggressive

resurgence in nuclear capacity, new nuclear plants will only serve to replace aging

existing plants in terms of overall electricity market share.

6

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) (Witness—Alexander

Karsner)

EERE is requesting $1.2 billion for FY08, a 6.3 percent increase over the FY06

appropriated level. However, the request is significantly less than the amount appropriated for FY07 in the joint funding resolution passed on February 15, 2007,

which increased appropriate funds more than $300 million over the FY06 level to

approximately $1.5 billion. As a result, the FY08 request actually represents a $237

million cut from the FY07 appropriated amount. As with the Office of Science, it

is not yet known how the Assistant Secretary for EERE will allocate the additional

$300 million. These allocations must be determined no later than 30 days after the

date of passage of the joint funding resolution. Since these allocations are yet to be

determined, the rest of this analysis is based on a comparison of the FY08 request

and the FY06 appropriated amount.

Funding for priority programs continues to come at the expense of other lowerprofile programs where significant technological gains can still be made. The FY08

request contains large cuts for Weatherization Programs, the Industrial Technologies Program, and the Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP),

despite a Presidential call for increasing efficiency in all three of these areas. The

Vehicle Technologies Program also suffers a slight decrease. The FY 2008 request

also proposes to eliminate two important renewable energy R&D programs—Geothermal Technologies and Hydropower Technologies.

Biomass and Biorefinery Systems would receive $179 million, almost a 100

percent increase over FY06 funding. This large increase is intended to address the

President’s goal of making cellulosic ethanol cost-competitive with corn-derived ethanol by 2012, and also enabling a supply of 35 billion gallons of alternative fuels

annually in accordance with the Twenty in Ten initiative—a reduction of U.S. gasoline usage by 20 percent in the next ten years—as outlined in the 2007 State of the

Union address. While the general goal of increasing the Nation’s supply of alternative fuels is widely supported, there is some concern, expressed both by parties

within DOE and in the renewable fuels community, that the level of commercial

scale investment is too much too soon, given that the science of unlocking cellulosic

ethanol is still uncertain. Some argue that some of that funding would be better

spent in the short-term investments to decrease our overall energy demand, such

as technologies to increase vehicle fuel efficiency.

Solar energy would receive $148 million, an increase of 81 percent over FY06

appropriations. This funding supports the President’s Solar America Initiative (SAI),

which seeks to make electricity from photovoltaic cells cost competitive by 2015.

Wind energy is slated for $40 million, essentially even with FY06 levels.

As in the 2007 budget request, the Administration would eliminate R&D in Geothermal Power technologies. However, a comprehensive study released in January

7

by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology found that the large amounts of heat

stored in the Earth’s crust could supply a substantial portion of the United States’

future electricity requirements with minimal environmental impact and probably at

competitive prices. The primary obstacle to commercial development of this resource

was identified as lack of federal R&D support.

Hydropower R&D would also be eliminated, a category that includes funding for

ocean energy R&D (e.g., wave, tides, currents, etc.) despite explicit authorization in

EPACT 2005 for R&D in these technologies. According to the Office of EERE, in the

Pacific Northwest alone, it is feasible that wave energy could produce 40–70 kilowatts (kW) per meter (3.3 feet) of coastline, yet the President’s budget requests no

funds for R&D into this vast, clean, and renewable resource.

The Administration continues the inconsistent treatment of Energy Efficiency programs. In addition to the Federal Energy Management Program and the Weatherization program several cuts are made throughout the budget. Despite mounting

concerns about the role vehicles play in the country’s reliance on foreign oil the

FY08 request for Vehicle Technologies R&D would be reduced by $2.2 million

over FY06, which includes funding for technologies for plug-in hybrid vehicles, lightweight vehicle materials, and engine technologies. The Industrial Technologies

program, which aims to reduce the energy intensity of the U.S. economy by improving the energy efficiency of the Nation’s industrial sector, would decrease by $9.9

million, a decrease of almost 18 percent. However, Building Technologies would

rise by $18.3 million compared to the FY06 level, a 27 percent increase. While attempting to pursue a balanced approach to developing clean energy technologies, the

EERE budget seems to exhibit a pattern of defunding valuable programs to fund

a few presidential priority projects, often with long-time horizons and uncertain payoffs.

Office of Nuclear Energy (Witness—Dennis Spurgeon)

Nuclear Energy (NE) receives $568 million for research and development, with a

large portion of that dedicated to the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP).

For the Nuclear office, this represents an increase of $347 million (157 percent)

above the FY 2006 Congressionally appropriated amount.

The Administration unveiled the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) in

2006 as a plan to develop advanced, proliferation-resistant nuclear fuel cycle technologies that would maximize the energy extracted from nuclear fuels and minimize

nuclear waste. GNEP has been very controversial in Congress, with little support

in the House where only token funding has been approved. For instance, the Administration requested approximately $250 million in FY 2007 for GNEP (through the

Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative—AFCI) but GNEP will likely only receive roughly

$80 million for FY 2007 under the joint funding resolution. Nonetheless, the President’s FY 2008 request for GNEP is $395 million.

Chief among the concerns about GNEP is the cost of implementing the program

(up to $40 billion) and then deploying a fleet of the required technologies on a commercial scale (more than $200 billion), and whether such a program warrants the

costs. There are also issues with premature selection of technologies before the completion of a full system-wide analysis of what would be required. Many are concerned that DOE has not adequately demonstrated an ability to carry out large

scale construction and operation of such a project without major cost and schedule

overruns.

Finally, the Nuclear Power 2010 program also would receive a considerable boost

with an FY08 request of $114 million, which is almost double the FY06 appropriation. The increase is intended to continue activities in new reactor designs and liVerDate 11-MAY-2000 08:14 Jan 17, 2008 Jkt 033610 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\E&E07\030707\33610 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
8

censing applications with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to support an industry decision to build a new power plant by 2009.

Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability (Witness—Kevin

Kolevar)

The Office of Electricity is requesting $115 million for FY08, a 27 percent reduction from the FY06 appropriation. Of the total for this office the Administration proposes $86 million for R&D, a $46.5 decrease from FY06 Appropriations. This continues a downward trend of cutting R&D to improve the reliability, efficiency and

security of the Nations electrical grid system, improve access to the grid, and decrease price volatility in electricity delivery.

Many of the EDER programs are being regrouped and consolidated under a new

account called Visualization and Controls. This includes Transmission Reliability

R&D, Energy Storage R&D, GridWise, and GridWorks. This regrouping hides the

fact that most of these programs are being cut significantly.

Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee Program (LGP)

The FY 2008 budget proposes $8.4 million to fund the Office of Loan Guarantees,

which will administer the Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee Program (LGP),

a $1.4 million increase above the FY 2007 enacted amount. The program was established in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to provide loan guarantees for renewable energy, energy efficiency, clean coal, advanced nuclear, and other innovative energy

projects. The FY 2008 budget request assumes a loan volume of $9 billion for such

projects. Of this, $4 billion is set aside for large electric power generation projects

such as advanced nuclear and coal gasification with carbon sequestration. An additional $4 billion is set aside to promote biofuels and clean transportation fuels, and

$1 billion for new technologies in electricity transmission and renewable power systems.

9

Fossil Energy R&D (Witness—Thomas Shope)

Fossil Energy R&D would receive $567 million in FY 2008, a decrease of almost

$14 million or 2.5 percent compared to FY 2007 appropriations. Funding increases

would go exclusively to coal R&D, including the Clean Coal Power Initiative

which aims to develop technologies that will increase efficiency of coal-fired power

plants, reduce mercury and NOΧ emissions, and prove carbon capture and sequestration technologies. The FutureGen project, to demonstrate near-zero atmospheric

emissions electricity production, sees a substantial increase to $108 million, 500 percent above the FY06 appropriated amounts. However, Fuels and Power Systems,

which includes R&D on advanced coal technologies and carbon sequestration, actually decreases to $184 million, 24 percent less than the FY06 appropriated amount.

While the carbon sequestration program received a small increase, the request

proposes conducting demos in only three or four sites across the country as opposed

to doing a large scale demonstration in each of the seven regional sequestration

partnerships. Many in the industry believe that, while federal investments have increased in recent years, funding for this program and the Clean Coal Power Initiative may be woefully inadequate to address the scale of challenges facing coal as

it continues to provide approximately half of the Nation’s electricity. Potentially

forthcoming greenhouse gas regulations may adversely affect the coal industry and

some other sectors of the economy. Yet it is not clear that technologies are available

to cost effectively reduce carbon dioxide emissions from the use of coal, and sequester carbon dioxide on the scales required for a national greenhouse gas reduction

program.

The FY 2008 budget once again proposes to eliminate all oil and gas R&D, including $50 million in direct spending (mandated in the Energy Policy Act of 2005) for

unconventional onshore and ultra-deepwater offshore natural gas exploration technologies that would go largely to smaller independent oil and gas producers.

10

Chairman LAMPSON. This hearing will come to order. Good morning to everyone.

I want to welcome you all to today’s hearing, entitled ‘‘The Department of Energy Fiscal Year 2008 Research and Development

Budget Proposal.’’

We changed the timing of this meeting this morning because of

a presentation for the Joint Houses at 11:00, and we wanted to

make sure that we had adequate time for you to get your presentations in, and hopefully, adequate number of questions.

I will proceed with my opening statement, and ask unanimous

consent that when the Ranking Member comes in, that we interrupt what proceedings are going on, if it is appropriate, to have his

opening remarks. Seeing no objection, that will stand.

I would like to extend a warm welcome to all five witnesses.

Thank you for being here today, and testifying before the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment. The focus of our inquiry

today is the President’s 2008 budget request for research and development programs in the Department of Energy.

Now, I know I don’t have to remind anyone in this room just how

high energy prices and costs for action to mitigate climate change

have propelled energy to the forefront of public debate in the last

few years. Our nation’s energy challenges are momentous and incredibly diverse, and I am pleased to see that the President’s budget request for fiscal year 2008 takes a number of important steps,

and even some grand leaps in pursuit of technological solutions to

these challenges.

However, one can’t help but notice serious gaps in R&D funding

for certain programs. While resources are lavished on some high

profile research areas, other valuable programs are left to languish.

In a time of intense challenge, it is important that we keep all possibilities on the table. For instance, in the President’s budget, hydrogen, solar, and cellulosic ethanol are beneficiaries of major funding increases. This is encouraging, but this encouraging trend is

offset by large cuts and flat funding of equally valuable programs

in areas such as geothermal, hydropower, ocean wave power, advanced grid technologies, and even oil and gas research.

Furthermore, the Administration continues its trend of slashing

funds for valuable energy efficiency programs, that help states, low

income consumers, industries, vehicle manufacturers, and even the

Federal Government use energy more efficiently. Efficiency must

be regarded as another valuable source of energy. After all, the

cheapest, cleanest, most secure, and most domestic energy is the

energy you never have to produce at all. Enormous opportunities

exist to increase the efficiency, intelligence, and security of the Nation’s electricity grid without simply erecting more towers and

stringing more wire. However, the Nation has not deployed these

technologies widely yet, and research and development funding in

many of these related programs has been cut in this budget request.

The Administration requests a very aggressive increase in funding for nuclear energy, primarily to fund the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, GNEP. Carbon-free nuclear energy may very well

play a vital role in addressing our climate crisis, and it is clear that

issues of waste disposal have to be resolved, but the Department

11

must convince this Congress and the public that the billions it will

cost to implement the program and deploy a fleet of these technologies is warranted, and conduct full systems analysis for GNEP.

I am particularly disappointed to see that for the second year in

a row, the Administration insists on ignoring EPAct 2005 by failing

to carry out vital research and development into ultra-deepwater

and unconventional drilling technologies. This illustrates a fundamental misunderstanding both of what the program is intended to

do and the need to expand domestic resources of fossil fuels.

I would like to acknowledge the special role of the Office of

Science within DOE. Although sometimes overlooked in the greater

energy debate, the Office of Science, as the leading federal sponsor

of research in the physical sciences, plays a critical part in our nation’s scientific and technological competitiveness.

The Office of Science has a longstanding role as steward of large,

world-class scientific research facilities. However, construction and

operation of facilities has come at the expense of funding for actual

research at these facilities. I am glad to see Dr. Orbach plans to

put this back on track.

Furthermore, as the Department pursues plans for additional

large-scale scientific facilities, demonstrable measures should be

taken to assure due diligence in the areas of cost estimates and design. This gives everyone a higher level of comfort when multi-billion dollar research machines, such as the ILC, are proposed to

Congress.

The fiscal year 2008 request makes a commitment to the Office

of Science that is essential to maintaining our economic competitiveness, drawing a new generation into the physical sciences, and

successfully meeting future challenges, whether they be energy-related or otherwise.

In the end, it is encouraging that the President’s Fiscal Year

2008 budget request for DOE R&D programs takes a solid step forward. However, it is important that that step forward benefit all

worthwhile programs, not just a few high-profile, exciting ones.

Today’s witnesses find themselves at the crossroads of intense

political pressures, and the technological cutting edge, and probably spend much of their time trying to reconcile the two, never an

easy task. Again, we thank them all, and look forward to hearing

their testimony today.

And at this time, I will call on Ranking Member Mr. Inglis for

his opening statement.

[The prepared statement of Chairman Lampson follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN NICK LAMPSON

I would like to extend a warm welcome to all five witnesses. Thank you for being

here today and testifying before the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment. The

focus of our inquiry today is the President’s 2008 Budget Request for research and

development programs in the Department of Energy.

I know I don’t have to remind anyone in this room just how much high energy

prices and calls for action to mitigate climate change have propelled ‘‘energy’’ to the

forefront of public debate in the last few years.

Our nation’s energy challenges are momentous and incredibly diverse, and I am

pleased to see that the President’s budget request for FY08 takes a number of important steps, and even some grand leaps, in pursuit of technological solutions to

these challenges.

However, one can’t help but notice serious gaps in R&D funding for certain programs. While resources are lavished on some high-profile research areas, other valuVerDate 11-MAY-2000 08:14 Jan 17, 2008 Jkt 033610 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\E&E07\030707\33610 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
12

able programs are left to languish. In a time of intense challenge, it is important

that we keep all possibilities on the table.

For instance, in the President’s budget, Hydrogen, Solar and Cellulosic ethanol

are beneficiaries of major funding increases. But this encouraging trend is offset by

large cuts and flat-funding of equally valuable programs in areas such as geothermal, hydropower, ocean wave power, advanced grid technologies, and even oil

& gas research.

Furthermore, the Administration continues its trend of slashing funds for valuable energy efficiency programs that help states, low-income consumers, industries,

vehicle manufacturers and even the Federal Government use energy more efficiently. Efficiency must be regarded another valuable ‘‘source’’ of energy. After all,

the cheapest, cleanest, most secure, and most domestic energy is the energy you

never have to produce at all.

Enormous opportunities exist to increase the efficiency, intelligence, and security

of the Nation’s electricity grid without simply erecting more towers and stringing

more wire. However, the Nation has not deployed these technologies widely yet, and

R&D funding in many of the related programs has been cut in this budget request.

The Administration requests a very aggressive increase in funding for nuclear energy, primarily to fund the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP). Carbon-free

nuclear energy may very well play a vital role in addressing our climate crisis, and

it is clear that issues of waste disposal have to be resolved. But the Department

must convince this Congress and the public that the billions it will cost to implement the program and deploy a fleet of these technologies is warranted, and conduct

a full systems analysis for GNEP.

I am particularly disappointed to see that, for the second year in a row, the Administration insists on ignoring EPAct 2005 by failing to carry out vital research

and development into Ultra-Deepwater and Unconventional drilling technologies.

This illustrates a fundamental misunderstanding both of what the program is intended to do and the need to expand domestic resources of fossil fuels.

I’d like to acknowledge the special role of the Office of Science within DOE. Although sometimes overlooked in the in the greater energy debate, the Office of

Science, as the leading federal sponsor of research in the physical sciences, plays

a critical part in our nation’s scientific and technological competitiveness.

The Office of Science has a long-standing role as steward of large, world-class scientific research facilities. However, construction and operation of facilities has come

at the expense of funding for actual research at these facilities. I am glad to see

that Dr. Orbach plans to put this back on track.

Furthermore, as the Department pursues plans for additional large-scale scientific

facilities, demonstrable measures should be taken to assure due diligence in the

areas of cost estimates and design. This gives everyone a higher level of comfort

when multi-billion dollar research machines, such as the I.L.C. are proposed to Congress.

The FY08 request makes a commitment to the Office of Science that is essential

to maintaining our economic competitiveness, drawing a new generation into the

physical sciences, and successfully meeting future challenges, whether they be energy-related or otherwise.

In the end, it is encouraging that the President’s FY08 budget request for DOE

R&D programs takes a solid step forward. However, it is important that that step

forward benefit all worthwhile programs, not just a few, high-profile, exciting ones.

Today’s witnesses find themselves at the crossroads of intense political pressures,

and the technological cutting edge, and probably spend much of their time reconciling the two—never an easy job. Again, we thank them and look forward to hearing their testimony today.

Mr. INGLIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I got released from the American Legion, and now I am here, and

thank you for holding this hearing, and thank the witnesses for

being here.

There is a difference, seems to me, between simple spending and

thoughtful investing, and that is what I hope we are here to discuss today. Simple spending just doesn’t—it is maybe good, it creates an immediate impact, but investing creates returns in the future. And so I am very grateful for the work of the Department of

Energy in—on these kind of investments. It really could change the

game for us.

13

So, as we discuss the R&D budget today, we are really acting

more as investors here, investors who are looking at alternative

fuel industries, for example, and seeing the payoffs that they could

produce for us, and we realize that we have a great need to break

free of an addiction to oil, and some of the work that you all are

doing could help make that happen.

So, we are certainly not there yet. Obviously, more commitment

is needed, and we are going to need to spend good money to accomplish the objectives that we have set out. I think that many of us

want to see the market make some of these decisions about what

fuels work and that sort of thing, and I trust markets mostly. It

is also true that some basic research needs to be done, and the people that are going to do that are in the Department of Energy and

places like that, so we thank you for your work.

I am particularly excited that the Chairman mentioned we don’t

want to focus on just the high profile ones, but one favorite one is

the President’s Hydrogen Initiative, because what a triple play opportunity, to do three things all at once that every American, I

think, wants to do. One is improve the national security of the

United States by no longer being dependent on the Middle East.

Second, clean up the air, because the emissions would be water.

And third, create jobs as we do that.

And of course, South Carolina probably isn’t thought of as a car

producing state, but that is what we are now, and we have got a

wonderful company, BMW, that stands for Bubba Makes Wheels,

and so, Bubba is making a lot of wheels in South Carolina, and we

hope that the BMW H7 starts sweeping the country, and if it does,

who knows, maybe we will make some of those in South Carolina.

But it is an example of what exciting things can happen when

people put money into research, and so, we are looking forward to

hearing your suggestions about how to do that.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Inglis follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE BOB INGLIS

Thank you Mr. Chairman, and I want to thank our witnesses from the Department of Energy for appearing here today to discuss funding for vital research and

development projects.

As we discuss the proposed R&D budget today, I think we all realize that we

aren’t accountants sitting around just talking numbers—we’re investors. The alternative fuel industry is a start-up business opportunity that promises huge payoffs

for our nation’s security, environment, and our economy. We have the ability and

opportunity to partner with this promising enterprise and lend federal resources to

help establish the alternative energy industry.

We haven’t yet reached a place of energy security, nor have we scratched the surface of what economic benefits will come from energy advancements, but we don’t

have to look far to see great payoffs from today’s investments. For that reason, we

must stay committed to providing our scientists, national labs, and other R&D programs with adequate funding to continue the progress already made, and ensure

our nation’s energy security.

We should focus funding on a vast array of alternatives—hydrogen, biofuels, wind,

solar, and nuclear. If we are true investors, we will use discretion as certain alternatives prove to be more valuable than others. For now, there are many roads for

our engineers, inventors, and scientists to follow, and we should not close those

roads. On that note, I have specific concerns I will address regarding the future of

the President’s Hydrogen Fuel Initiative. For example, what exactly does the proposal mean when it says that the budget request ‘‘completes the President’s commitment of $1.2 billion over five years for this initiative?’’ I hope that you agree with

me that $1.2 billion is a good start and certainly not the end of our efforts.

14

Thank you for the Department of Energy’s past, present, and future commitments

to research and develop tomorrow’s energy solutions.

Chairman LAMPSON. I thank the Ranking Member. If there are

other Members who wish to submit additional opening statements,

your statements will be added to the record.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Costello follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE JERRY F. COSTELLO

Good morning. I want to thank the witnesses for appearing before our subcommittee to examine the Department of Energy’s (DOE) fiscal year 2008 (FY08)

Budget request for Research and Development Programs.

I am privileged to represent the 12th Congressional District of Illinois, a region

rich in coal reserves and a proud mining tradition. Coal plays a vital role as an energy source, and the industries involved in the mining, transportation and utilization of coal provide thousands of jobs for Illinoisans and economic stability to many

communities across the State. Further, the Clean Coal Research Center at Southern

Illinois University (SIUC), the State of Illinois and its energy industries are committed to the development and application of technologies for the environmentally

sound use of Illinois coal. In addition, they have several programs, such as the Illinois Coal Competitiveness Program, the Illinois Coal Education Program, and the

Illinois Coal Research Center, to further this mission.

As a senior Member of the House Science and Technology Committee and the Energy and Environment Subcommittee, I have been a strong advocate for federal coal

initiatives and programs. I am focused on increasing the funding levels for Clean

Coal Research and Development (R&D) Programs for FY08 because coal is going to

be the mainstay for electricity generation well into the future. While federal investments have increased slightly in recent years for Coal Research and Development

(R&D), I am concerned that overall funding for several coal programs are woefully

inadequate to address the scale of challenges facing coal as it continues to provide

approximately half of the Nation’s electricity.

I believe clean coal technology is part of the solution to achieving U.S. energy

independence, continued economic prosperity and improved environmental stewardship. FutureGen, a 275-megawatt coal fueled power plant, is an example of an important DOE clean coal R&D and demonstration project designed to turn coal into

both electricity and hydrogen fuel with minimal air pollution. To address climate

change, FutureGen would also bury its heat-trapping carbon dioxide emissions deep

underground. No project of this magnitude is in operation anywhere in the world

at a commercial scale. That is why I am concerned the President’s proposed budget

seeks to rescind $149 million from the Clean Coal Technology account, acting

against prior congressional intent to defer and designate the un-obligated Clean

Coal Technology funds for FutureGen.

Another important coal program in the President’s Coal Research Initiative that

complements FutureGen and seeks to drive down the cost of clean coal technologies

is the Clean Coal Power Initiative (CCPI). CCPI is a cooperative, cost shared program between the government and industry to rapidly demonstrate emerging technologies in coal-based power generation to help accelerate their commercialization.

While CCPI received a slight increase in the President’s proposed FY08 budget, the

funding level is not sufficient. If Congress passes legislation to regulate carbon dioxide, advanced clean coal technologies must be successfully demonstrated and commercialized. This is the goal of the CCPI program and Congress and the Administration must work together to increase its funding to achieve its stated purpose.

Further, I believe several large scale demonstrations of efficiency improvements and

carbon capture technologies that can be applied to the existing fleet are critical to

continued coal use if we are going to achieve meaningful reductions of carbon dioxide emissions in this country.

Finally, the Administration’s carbon sequestration program within the DOE is developing a portfolio of technologies that hold great potential to reduce greenhouse

gas emissions. The Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership, of which we have

one for the Illinois Basin, are providing the critical data that the U.S. needs to support carbon dioxide sequestration as a strategy for addressing global climate change.

The DOE had put out a request for proposals for Phase III large scale field testing

of geological sequestration in December but then canceled it when the President’s

FY08 budget came in with lesser funds than needed to support these tests. This is

not the time to limit the amount of activities DOE should be undertaking in the

coal program. The budget for carbon reducing technologies must be realistic if Congress is going to take a hard-fast look at regulating greenhouse gases in this counVerDate 11-MAY-2000 08:14 Jan 17, 2008 Jkt 033610 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\E&E07\030707\33610 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
15

try. Therefore, it is essential that a robust budget to develop clean coal technologies

and reduce carbon dioxide must be provided for FY08.

I look forward to hearing from our panel of witnesses.

Chairman LAMPSON. And at this time, I would like to introduce

our witnesses: Dr. Raymond Orbach, Under Secretary for Science

with the Office of Science; Mr. Alexander Karsner, Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy; Mr. Thomas

Shope, Assistant Secretary for Fossil Energy; Mr. Dennis Spurgeon,

who is the Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy; and finally, Mr.

Kevin Kolevar, Director of the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability at the Department of Energy.

As our witnesses should know, spoken testimony is limited to

five minutes each, and after which the Members of the Committee

will have five minutes to ask questions, and we will start with Dr.

Orbach.

STATEMENT OF DR. RAYMOND L. ORBACH, UNDER

SECRETARY FOR SCIENCE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Mr. ORBACH. Thank you, Chairman Lampson. Mr. Chairman,

Congressman Inglis, Members of the Committee, I am grateful for

the opportunity this morning to discuss the President’s Fiscal Year

2008 budget request for the Office of Science. I want to thank you,

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Inglis, for your kind remarks about basic research and the Office of Science.

The DOE Office of Science is the primary agency in the Federal

Government for energy-related basic research. The Office interfaces

with the Department of Energy’s Applied Research programs, represented by my colleagues here this morning, upon which our nation relies for both energy security and national defense. Our goal

is to underpin the applied research programs with the finest basic

science, and at the same time, to energize our basic research with

insights and opportunities from advanced applied research.

Transformational basic science discoveries are essential to the

success of the Department’s efforts in hydrogen, solar power, and

biofuels. We are one department, and we have been working very

hard together on strengthening the relationship between the Department’s basic and applied research programs.

Let me say a few words this morning about the critical role that

basic science plays in addressing our nation’s energy challenge.

Two examples. The first is cellulosic ethanol. To make this biofuel

cost-effective, we must produce ethanol from cellulose directly. The

problem is that the lignins that surround the cellulose in plants inhibit currently available enzymes from breaking down the cellulose

into sugars that can be fermented into ethanol.

The Office of Science will be deploying three innovative new bioenergy research centers, studying both microbes and plants, developing new methods on processes actually found in nature to create

the breakthroughs that we need. For example, our DOE Joint Genome Institute announced this week, in conjunction with the U.S.

Forest Service, that identification of the metabolic pathways in a

fungus found in the bowels of insects that holds the secret to effective fermentation of the sugar xylose, a key to making cellulosic

ethanol cost-effective.

16

Second, consider intermittent sources of energy, such as wind

and solar and tidal. The key to base load electrical contributions

from these renewable sources is electric energy storage. In April of

this year, we will bring together leading scientists and people from

industry for a major workshop to chart a transformational path forward for electrical energy storage. We shall be considering supercapacitors and other innovative approaches based on the latest advances in materials and nanotechnology, to change the way we

think about electrical storage. Solving this problem is an enabling

key for renewable energy to make major contributions to electric

base load generation.

These are examples of our mission in the Office of Science, investment in basic research to generate transformational scientific

breakthroughs for our nation. Supporting transformational research also means providing cutting edge scientific facilities

through our ten National Laboratories that will allow scientists

from universities and the private sector to do the analysis that will

give them advantages over their colleagues in other countries,

thereby contributing to American competitiveness. It means educating, training, and sustaining a world-class scientific workforce,

thousands strong, 25,500 supported by the Office of Science in our

fiscal year 2008 budget in laboratories and universities across our

nation for the sake of our country’s future.

We are not doing this in a vacuum. Other nations are increasing

their investment in basic science, because they know that those

who dominate science will dominate the Twenty First Century

global economy. To remain competitive, we cannot afford to fall behind other nations in R&D. To remain competitive, the President’s

Fiscal Year 2008 budget request for the Office of Science is $4.4 billion, an increase of seven percent over the fiscal year 2007 request.

It is an important milestone on the path to doubling federal support for basic research in the physical sciences over the next ten

years, and an indispensable investment in our nation’s energy security and America’s continued competitiveness in the global economy.

Thank you, and I will be pleased to answer questions.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Orbach follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RAYMOND L. ORBACH

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to

testify today on the Office of Science’s Fiscal Year (FY) 2008 budget request. I appreciate your support for the Office of Science and basic research in the physical

sciences, Mr. Chairman, and your understanding of the importance of this research

to our nation’s energy security and economic competitiveness. I also want to thank

the Members of the Committee for their support. I believe this budget will enable

the Office of Science to deliver on its mission and enhance U.S. competitiveness

through our support of transformational science, national scientific facilities, and

the scientific workforce for the Nation’s future.

The Office of Science requests $4,397,876,000 for the FY 2008 Science appropriation, an increase of $600,582,000 over the FY 2007 appropriated level. The FY 2008

budget request for the Office of Science represents the second year of the President’s

commitment to double the federal investment in basic research in the physical

sciences by the year 2016 as part of the American Competitiveness Initiative. It also

represents a continued commitment to maintain U.S. leadership in science and recognition of the valuable role research in the physical sciences plays in technology

innovation and global competitiveness.

With the FY 2008 budget request the Office of Science will continue to support

transformational science—basic research for advanced scientific breakthroughs that

17

will revolutionize our approach to the Nation’s energy, environment, and national

security challenges. The Office of Science is the Nation’s steward for fields such as

high energy physics, nuclear physics, heavy element chemistry, plasma physics,

magnetic fusion, and catalysis. It also supports unique components of U.S. research

in climate change and geophysics.

Researchers funded through the Office of Science are working on some of the most

pressing scientific challenges of our age including: 1) Harnessing the power of microbial communities and plants for energy production from renewable sources, carbon

sequestration, and environmental remediation; 2) Expanding the frontiers of

nanotechnology to develop materials with unprecedented properties for widespread

potential scientific, energy, and industrial applications; 3) Pursuing the breakthroughs in materials science, nanotechnology, biotechnology, and other fields needed to make solar energy more cost-effective; 4) Demonstrating the scientific and

technological feasibility of creating and controlling a sustained burning plasma to

generate energy, as the next step toward making fusion power a commercial reality;

5) Using advanced computation, simulation, and modeling to understand and predict the behavior of complex systems beyond the reach of some of our most powerful

experimental probes, with potentially transformational impacts on a broad range of

scientific and technological undertakings; 6) Understanding the origin of the universe and nature of dark matter and dark energy; and 7) Resolving key uncertainties and expanding the scientific foundation needed to understand, predict, and assess the potential effects of atmospheric carbon dioxide on climate and the environment.

U.S. leadership in many areas of science and technology depends in part on the

continued availability of the most advanced scientific facilities for our researchers.

The Office of Science builds and operates national scientific facilities and instruments that make up the world’s most sophisticated suite of research capabilities.

The resources available for scientific research include advanced synchrotron light

sources, the new Spallation Neutron Source, state-of-the-art Nanoscale Science Research Centers, supercomputers and high-speed networks, climate and environmental monitoring capabilities, particle accelerators and detectors for high energy

and nuclear physics, and genome sequencing facilities We are in the process of developing new tools such as an X-ray free electron laser light source that can image

single large macromolecules and measure in real-time changes in the chemical bond

as chemical and biological reactions take place, a next generation synchrotron light

source for x-ray imaging and capable of nanometer resolution, and detectors and instruments for world-leading neutrino physics research. SC will also select and begin

funding in FY 2007 for three Bioenergy Research Centers to conduct fundamental

research on microbes and plants needed to produce biologically-based fuel

Office of Science leadership in support of the physical sciences and stewardship

of large national research facilities is directly linked to our historic role in training

America’s scientists and engineers. In addition to funding a diverse portfolio of research at more than 300 colleges and universities nationwide, we provide direct support and access to research facilities for thousands of university students and researchers. Facilities at the national laboratories provide unique opportunities for researchers and their students from across the country to pursue questions at the

intersection of physics, chemistry, biology, computing, and materials science. About

half of the annual 21,000 users of the Office of Science’s scientific facilities come

from universities. The FY 2008 budget will support the research of approximately

25,500 faculty, postdoctoral researchers, and graduate students throughout the Nation, an increase of 3,600 from FY 2006, in addition to supporting undergraduate

research internships and fellowships and research and training opportunities for K–

14 science educators at the national laboratories.

The approximate $600 million increase in FY 2008 from the FY 2007 appropriated

level will bring manageable increases to the Office of Science programs for long

planned for activities. The FY 2008 request will allow the Office of Science to increase support for high-priority DOE mission-driven scientific research and new initiatives; maintain optimum operations at our scientific user facilities; continuing

major facility construction projects; and enhance educational, research, and training

opportunities for the Nation’s future scientific workforce. The budget request will

also support basic research that contributes to Presidential initiatives such as the

Hydrogen Fuel Initiative and the Advanced Energy Initiative, the Climate Change

Science and Technology Programs, and the National Nanotechnology Initiative.

The following programs are supported in the FY 2008 budget request: Basic Energy Sciences, Advanced Scientific Computing Research, Biological and Environmental Research, Fusion Energy Sciences, High Energy Physics, Nuclear Physics,

Workforce Development for Teachers and Scientists, Science Laboratories Infrastructure, Science Program Direction, and Safeguards and Security.

18

OFFICE OF SCIENCE

FY 2008 SCIENCE PRIORITIES

The challenges we face today in energy and the environment are some of the most

vexing and complex in our history. Our success in meeting these challenges will depend in large part on how well we maintain this country’s leadership in science and

technology because it is through scientific and technological innovation and a skilled

workforce that these challenges will be solved.

President George W. Bush made this point in his State of the Union Message on

January 23, 2007, when he stated,

‘‘It’s in our vital interest to diversify America’s energy supply—the way forward

is through technology. . .. We must continue changing the way America generates electric power, by even greater use of clean coal technology, solar and wind

energy, and clean, safe nuclear power. We need to press on with battery research

for plug-in and hybrid vehicles, and expand the use of clean diesel vehicles and

biodiesel fuel. We must continue investing in new methods of producing ethanol—using everything from wood chips to grasses, to agricultural wastes. . ..

‘‘America is on the verge of technological breakthroughs that will enable us to

live our lives less dependent on oil. And these technologies will help us to be better stewards of the environment, and they will help us confront the serious challenge of global climate change.’’

In 2006, the President announced a commitment to double the budget for basic

research in the physical sciences at key agencies over ten years to maintain U.S.

leadership in science and ensure continued global competitiveness. This commitment received bipartisan support in both the House of Representatives and the Senate and the FY 2008 budget request for the Office of Science represents the second

year of this effort. Through the FY 2008 budget, the Office of Science will build on

its record of results with sound investments to keep U.S. research and development

19

at the forefront of global science and prepare the scientific workforce we will need

in the 21st century to address our nation’s challenges.

Determining and balancing science and technology priorities across the Office of

Science programs is an ongoing process. Several factors are considered in our

prioritization, including scientific opportunities identified by the broader scientific

community through Office of Science sponsored workshops; external review and recommendations by scientific advisory committees; DOE mission needs; and national

and departmental priorities. In FY 2008, we will support the priorities in scientific

research, facility operations, and construction and laboratory infrastructure established in the past few years and outlined in the Office of Science Strategic Plan and

Twenty-year Facilities Outlook, in addition to national and departmental priorities

and new research opportunities identified in recent workshops.

National initiatives in hydrogen fuel cell and advanced energy technologies will

be supported through our contributions to basic research in hydrogen, fusion, solar

energy-to-fuels, and production of ethanol and other biofuels from cellulose. We will

also continue strong support for other Administration priorities such as

nanotechnology, advanced scientific computation, and climate change science and

technology.

The Office of Science will support three Bioenergy Research Centers in FY 2008

as part of the broader Genomics: GTL program. These centers, to be selected in FY

2007 and fully operational by the end of 2008, will conduct comprehensive, multidisciplinary research programs focused on microbes and plants to drive scientific

breakthroughs necessary for the development of cost-effective biofuels and bioenergy

production. The broader GTL program will also continue to support fundamental research and technology development needed to understand the complex behavior of

biological systems for the development of innovative biotechnology solutions to energy production, environmental mitigation, and carbon management.

The Office of Science designs, constructs, and operates facilities and instruments

that provide world-leading research tools and capabilities for U.S. researchers and

will continue to support next generation tools for enabling transformational science.

For example, the Spallation Neutron Source (SNS), the world’s forefront neutron

scattering facility, increases the number of neutrons available for cutting-edge research by a factor of ten over any existing spallation neutron source in the world.

SNS was completed and began operations in 2006 and in FY 2008 full operations

are supported and additional experimental capabilities continue to be added.

When it comes on line, the Linac Coherent Light Source (LCLS) at the Stanford

Linear Accelerator Center (SLAC) will produce X-rays 10 billion times more intense

than any existing X-ray source in the world, and will allow structural studies on

individual nanoscale particles and single biomolecules. Construction of LCLS continues in FY 2008.

A next generation synchrotron light source, the National Synchrotron Light

Source-II (NSLS–II), would deliver orders of magnitude improvement in spatial resolution, providing the world’s finest capabilities for X-ray imaging and enabling the

study of material properties and functions, particularly at the nanoscale, at a level

of detail and precision never before possible. Its energy resolution would explore dynamic properties of matter as no other light source has ever accomplished. Support

for continued R&D and project engineering and design (PED) are provided in FY

2008.

All five of DOE’s Nanoscale Science Research Centers (NSRCs) will be operating

in FY 2008. These facilities are the Nation’s premier nanoscience user centers, providing resources unmatched to the scientific community for the synthesis, fabrication, and analysis of nanoparticles and nanomaterials.

We will fully fund the programs for advanced scientific computing, including: continued support for high-performance production computing at the National Energy

Research Scientific Computing Center (NERSC), which will increase capacity to

100–150 teraflops in FY 2007; support for advanced capabilities for modeling and

simulation of scientific problems in combustion, fusion, and complex chemical reactions at Oak Ridge National Laboratory’s Leadership Computing Facility, which

should deliver 250 teraflops computing capability by the end of FY 2008; and support for the upgrade to 250–500 teraflop peak capacity of the IBM Blue Gene P system at Argonne National Laboratory’s Leadership Computing Facility to extend architectural diversity in leadership computing.

The Office of Science continues to be a partner in the interagency Climate Change

Science Program focusing on understanding the principal uncertainties of the causes

and effects of climate change, including abrupt climate change, understanding the

global carbon cycle, developing predictive models for climate change over decades to

centuries, and supporting basic research for biological sequestration of carbon. We

also continue to support research in geosciences and environmental remediation toVerDate 11-MAY-2000 08:14 Jan 17, 2008 Jkt 033610 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\E&E07\030707\33610 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
20

wards the development of scientific and technological solutions to long-term environmental challenges.

The Office of Science will continue to actively lead and support the U.S. contributions to ITER, the international project to build and operate the first fusion science

facility capable of producing a sustained burning plasma to generate energy on a

massive scale without environmental insult.

The historic international fusion energy agreement to build ITER with six other

international partners was signed in November 2006.

We continue strong support for experimental and theoretical high energy physics

and the study of the elementary constituents of matter and energy and interactions

at the heart of physics. Full operations at the Tevatron Collider at Fermilab and

the B-factory at SLAC are supported to maximize the scientific research and data

derived from these facilities. Full operation of the neutrino oscillation experiment

at Fermilab and start of fabrication of a next generation detector are supported to

provide a platform for a world-leading neutrino program in the U.S. International

Linear Collider (ILC) R&D and superconducting radio frequency technology R&D

are supported to enable the most compelling scientific opportunities in high energy

physics in the coming decades.

Our research programs in nuclear physics continue to receive strong support. Operations at the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) and additional instrumentation projects for RHIC are supported for studies of the properties of hot, dense nuclear matter, providing insight into the early universe. We will also support operations at the Continuous Electron Beam Accelerator Facility (CEBAF), the world’s

most powerful ‘‘microscope’’ for studying the quark structure of matter, and project

engineering and design and R&D for doubling the energy of the existing beam at

CEBAF to 12 gigaelectron volts (GeV). Support for R&D to develop advanced rare

isotope beam capabilities for the next generation U.S. facility for nuclear structure

and astrophysics is also provided.

The standard of living we enjoy and the security of our nation now and in the

future rests on the quality of science and technology education we provide America’s

students from elementary through graduate school and beyond. The FY 2008 budget

will provide support for over 25,500 Ph.D.s, graduate students, engineers, and technical professionals, an increase of 3,600 over the number supported in FY 2006. The

Office of Science will also support the development of leaders in the science and

mathematics education community through participation of K–14 teachers in the

DOE Academies Creating Teacher Scientists program, formerly the Laboratory

Science Teacher Professional Development program. This immersion program at the

national laboratories is an opportunity for teachers to work with laboratory scientists as mentors and to build content knowledge, research skills, and lasting connections to the scientific community, ultimately leading to more effective teaching

that inspires students in science and math. The year 2008 will also mark the 18th

year of DOE’s National Science Bowl® for high school students. National Science

Bowl® events for high school and middle school students, which will involve 17,000

students across the Nation this year, provide prestigious academic competitions that

challenge and inspire the Nation’s youth to excel in math and science.

SCIENCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS

For more than 50 years, the Office of Science (SC) has balanced basic research,

innovative problem-solving, and support for world-leading scientific capabilities, enabling historic contributions to U.S. economic and scientific preeminence. American

taxpayers have received good value for their investment in basic research sponsored

by the Office of Science; this work has led to significant technological innovations,

new intellectual capital, improved quality of life, and enhanced economic competitiveness. The following are some of the past year’s highlights:

Nobel Prize in Physics. The 2006 Nobel Prize in physics was awarded to Dr.

George Smoot (DOE Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and University of California, Berkeley) and Dr. John Mather (NASA Goddard Space Flight Center) for

their discovery of ‘‘the blackbody form and anisotropy of the cosmic microwave background radiation,’’ the pattern of minuscule temperature variations in radiation

which allowed scientists to gain better understanding of the origins of galaxies and

stars. These two American scientists led the teams of researchers who worked on

the historic 1989 NASA COBE satellite. The results of their work provided increased support for the ‘‘Big Bang’’ theory of the universe and marked the inception

of cosmology as a precise science. SC supported Dr. Smoot’s research during the period in which he worked on the COBE experiment, and continues to support his research today. One of the principal instruments used to make the discoveries was

built at SC-supported facilities at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and

21

DOE’s National Energy Research Scientific Computing Center supercomputers were

used to analyze the massive amounts of data and produce detailed visual maps.

Advancing Science and Technology for Bioenergy Solutions. Harnessing the capabilities of microbes and plants holds great potential for the development of innovative, cost-effective methods for the production of biofuels and bioenergy. Sequencing

of the poplar tree genome was completed as part of a DOE national laboratory-led

international collaboration; the information encoded in the poplar genome will provide researchers with an important resource for developing trees that produce more

biomass for conversion to biofuels and trees that can sequester more carbon from

the atmosphere. The DOE Joint Genome Institute (JGI) marked a technical milestone this year with the 100th microbe genome sequenced; Methanosarcina barkeri

fusaro is capable of living in diverse and extreme environments, produces methane

from digesting cellulose and other complex sugars, and provides greater understanding of potential new methods for producing renewable sources of energy. A

chemical imaging method developed using a light-producing cellulose synthesizing

enzyme allowed researchers to observe the enzyme as it deposited cellulose fibers

in a cell, providing greater understanding of the mechanism for cellulose formation.

Delivering Forefront Computational and Networking Capabilities for Science. Several 2006 advances in computing, computational sciences, and networking enabled

greater opportunities for computational research and effective management of data

collected at DOE scientific user facilities. NERSC began to increase its peak capacity by a factor of 100 and the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) Leadership

Computing Facility doubled its capability to 54 teraflops to provide additional resources for computationally intensive, large-scale projects. The Energy Sciences Network expanded in 2006 to include the Chicago and New York-Long Island metropolitan area networks (MANs), bringing dual connectivity at 20 gigabits per second and

highly reliable, advanced network services to accommodate next-generation scientific instruments and supercomputers. Chemistry software using parallel-vector

algorithms developed by researchers at ORNL has enabled computations 40 times

more complex and 100 times faster than previous state-of-the-art codes. The development of a multi-scale mathematical framework for simulating the process of selforganization in biological systems has led to the discovery of a previously unidentified cluster state, providing possible applications to modeling microbial populations.

Advances in Basic Science for Energy Technologies. Current and future national

energy challenges may be partially addressed through scientific and technological

innovation. Some recent accomplishments in basic science that may contribute to future energy solutions include the following. Basic research on the molecular design

and synthesis of new polymer membranes has lead to the discovery of a new fuel

cell membrane that is longer lasting and three times more proton conductive than

the current gold standard for proton exchange membrane fuel cells. Computational

studies showing that in titanium-coated carbon nanotubes a single titanium atom

can adsorb four hydrogen molecules opens new ways that the control of matter on

the nanoscale can lead to the creation of novel materials for hydrogen storage. Recent work demonstrating that visible light can split carbon dioxide into carbon monoxide and a free oxygen atom, the critical first reaction in sunlight-driven transformation of carbon dioxide into methanol, makes it feasible to consider harnessing

sunlight to drive the photocatalytic production of methanol from carbon dioxide.

Demonstration of the effect known as carrier multiplication in which a single photon

creates multiple charge carriers during the interaction of photons with a

nanocrystalline sample could lead to substantial increases in solar cell conversion

efficiency.

Maintaining World-leading Research Tools for U.S. Science. The Office of Science

continues to construct and maintain powerful tools and research capabilities that

will accelerate U.S. scientific discovery and innovation. The following highlight a

few recent accomplishments. Construction and commissioning of the Spallation Neutron Source (SNS), an accelerator-based neutron source that will provide the most

intense pulsed neutron beams in the world for scientific research and industrial development, was completed and began operations. Full operation of four of the five

DOE Nanoscale Science Research Centers began in 2006, providing resources unmatched anywhere in the world for the synthesis, fabrication, and analysis of

nanoparticles and nanomaterials. A nanofocusing lens device at the Advanced Photon Source at Argonne National Laboratory has set a world’s record for line size resolution produced with a hard x-ray beam and enables such capabilities as three-dimensional visualization of electronic circuit boards, mapping impurities in biological

and environmental samples, and analyzing samples inside high-pressure or hightemperature cells. A new record for performance, a 77 percent increase in peak luminosity in 2006 from the previous year, was achieved at the Tevatron, the world’s

most powerful particle collider for high energy physics research at Fermilab. EviVerDate 11-MAY-2000 08:14 Jan 17, 2008 Jkt 033610 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\E&E07\030707\33610 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
22

dence of the rare single top quark was observed at Fermilab in 2006, bringing researchers a step closer to finding the Higgs boson. The Large Area Telescope (LAT),

a DOE and NASA partnership and the primary instrument on NASA’s GLAST mission, was completed in 2006 and will be placed in orbit in the fall of 2007 to study

the high energy gamma rays and other astrophysical phenomena using particle

physics detection techniques. During the 2006 operation of the Relativistic Heavy

Ion Collider (RHIC), polarized protons were accelerated to the highest energies ever

recorded—250 billion electron volts—for world-leading studies of the internal quarkgluon structure of nucleons.

PROGRAM OBJECTIVES AND PERFORMANCE

The path from basic research to technology development and industrial competitiveness is not always obvious. History has taught us that seeking answers to fundamental questions can ultimately result in a diverse array of practical applications

as well as some remarkable revolutionary advances. Working with the scientific

community, the Office of Science invests in the promising research and sets longterm scientific goals with ambitious annual targets. The intent and impact of our

performance goals may not always be clear to those outside the research community.

Therefore the Office of Science has created a website (www.sc.doe.gov/measures) to

better communicate to the public what we are measuring and why it is important.

Further, the Office of Science has revised the appraisal process it uses each year

to evaluate the scientific, management, and operational performance of the contractors who manage and operate each of its 10 national laboratories. This new appraisal process went into effect for the FY 2006 performance evaluation period and

provides a common structure and scoring system across all 10 Office of Science laboratories. The performance-based approach focuses the evaluation of the contractor’s

performance against eight Performance Goals (three Science and Technology Goals

and five Management and Operation Goals). Each goal is composed of two or more

weighted objectives. The new process has also incorporated a standardized five-point

(0–4.3) scoring system, with corresponding grades for each Performance Goal, creating a ‘‘Report Card’’ for each laboratory.

The FY 2006 Office of Science laboratory report cards have been posted on the

SC website (http://www.science.doe.gov/News¥Information/News¥Room/2007/

Appraisa¥%20Process/index.htm).

SCIENCE PROGRAMS

BASIC ENERGY SCIENCES

FY 2007 Request—$1,421.0 Million; FY 2008 Request—$1,498.5 Million

Basic research supported by the Basic Energy Sciences (BES) program touches

virtually every aspect of energy resources, production, conversion, efficiency, and

waste mitigation. Research in materials sciences and engineering leads to the development of materials that may improve the efficiency, economy, environmental acceptability, and safety of energy generation, conversion, transmission, and use. Research in chemistry leads to the development of advances such as efficient combustion systems with reduced emission of pollutants; new solar photo-conversion processes; improved catalysts for the production of fuels and chemicals; and better separations and analytical methods for applications in energy processes, environmental

remediation, and waste management. Research in geosciences contributes to the solution of problems in multiple DOE mission areas, including reactive fluid flow studies to understand contaminant remediation and seismic imaging for reservoir definition. Research in the molecular and biochemical nature of photosynthesis aids the

development of solar photo-energy conversion and biomass conversion methods. BES

asks researchers to reach far beyond today’s problems in order to provide the basis

for long-term solutions to what is one of society’s greatest challenges—a secure,

abundant, and clean energy supply. In FY 2008, the Office of Science will support

expanded efforts in basic research related to transformational energy technologies.

Within BES, there are increases to ongoing basic research for the hydrogen economy

and effective solar energy utilization. The FY 2008 budget request also supports increased research in electric-energy storage, accelerator physics, and X-ray and neutron detector research.

BES also provides the Nation’s researchers with world-class research facilities, including reactor- and accelerator-based neutron sources, light sources (soon to include

an X-ray free electron laser), nanoscale science research centers, and electron beam

micro-characterization centers. These facilities provide outstanding capabilities for

imaging and characterizing materials of all kinds from metals, alloys, and ceramics

to fragile biological samples. The next steps in the characterization and the ultimate

control of materials properties and chemical reactivity are to improve spatial resoluVerDate 11-MAY-2000 08:14 Jan 17, 2008 Jkt 033610 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\E&E07\030707\33610 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
23

tion of imaging techniques; to enable a wide variety of samples, sample sizes, and

sample environments to be used in imaging experiments; and to make measurements on very short time scales, comparable to the time of a chemical reaction or

the formation of a chemical bond. With these tools, we will be able to understand

how the composition of materials affects their properties, to watch proteins fold, to

see chemical reactions, and to understand and observe the nature of the chemical

bond. For FY 2008, BES scientific user facilities will be scheduled to operate at an

optimal number of hours.

Construction of the Spallation Neutron Source (SNS) was completed in FY 2006

ahead of schedule, under budget, and meeting all technical milestones. In FY 2008

fabrication and commissioning of SNS instruments will continue, funded by BES

and other sources including non-DOE sources, and will continue to increase power

towards full levels. Two Major Items of Equipment are funded in FY 2008 that will

allow the fabrication of approximately nine to ten additional instruments for the

SNS, thus nearly completing the initial suite of 24 instruments that can be accommodated in the high-power target station.

All five Nanoscale Science Research Centers will be fully operational in FY 2008:

the Center for Nanophase Materials Sciences at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, the

Molecular Foundry at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, the Center for

Nanoscale Materials at Argonne National Laboratory, the Center for Integrated

Nanotechnologies at Sandia National Laboratories and Los Alamos National Laboratory, and the Center for Functional Nanomaterials at Brookhaven National Laboratory. In FY 2008, funding for research at the nanoscale increases for activities related to the hydrogen economy and solar energy utilization.

The Linac Coherent Light Source (LCLS) at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (SLAC) will continue construction at the planned levels in FY 2008. Funding is

also provided for primary support of the operation of the SLAC linac. This marks

the third year of the transition of linac funding from the High Energy Physics program to the Basic Energy Sciences program. The purpose of the LCLS Project is to

provide laser-like radiation in the X-ray region of the spectrum that is 10 billion

times greater in peak power and peak brightness than any existing coherent X-ray

light source and that has pulse lengths measured in femtoseconds—the timescale

of electronic and atomic motions. The LCLS will be the first such facility in the

world for ground-breaking research in the physical and life sciences. Funding is provided separately for design and fabrication of instruments for the facility. Project

Engineering and Design (PED) and construction for the Photon Ultra-fast Laser

Science and Engineering (PULSE) building renovation begins in FY 2008. PULSE

is a new center for ultra-fast science at SLAC focusing on ultra-fast structural and

electronic dynamics in materials sciences, the generation of attosecond laser pulses,

single-molecule imaging, and understanding solar energy conversion in molecular

systems. Support continues for PED and R&D for the National Synchrotron Light

Source-II (NSLS–II), which would be a new synchrotron light source, highly optimized to deliver ultra-high brightness and flux and exceptional beam stability. This

would enable the study of material properties and functions with a spatial resolution of one nanometer (nm), an energy resolution of 0.1 millielectron volt (meV), and

the ultra-high sensitivity required to perform spectroscopy on a single atom, achieving a level of detail and precision never possible before. NSLS–II would open new

regimes of scientific discovery and investigation.

The Scientific Discovery through Advanced Computing (SciDAC) program is a set

of coordinated investments across all Office of Science mission areas with the goal

of using computer simulation to achieve breakthrough scientific advances that are

impossible using theoretical or laboratory studies alone. The SciDAC program in

BES consists of two activities: (1) characterizing chemically reacting flows as exemplified by combustion and (2) achieving scalability in the first-principles calculation

of molecular properties, including chemical reaction rates.

ADVANCED SCIENTIFIC COMPUTING RESEARCH

FY 2007 Request—$318.7 Million; FY 2008 Request—$340.2 Million

The Advanced Scientific Computing Research (ASCR) program is expanding the

capability of world-class scientific research through advances in mathematics, high

performance computing and advanced networks, and through the application of computers capable of many trillions of operations per second (terascale to petascale computers). Computer-based simulation can enable us to understand and predict the behavior of complex systems that are beyond the reach of our most powerful experimental probes or our most sophisticated theories. Computational modeling has

greatly advanced our understanding of fundamental processes of nature, such as

fluid flow and turbulence or molecular structure and reactivity. Soon, through modVerDate 11-MAY-2000 08:14 Jan 17, 2008 Jkt 033610 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\E&E07\030707\33610 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
24

eling and simulation, we will be able to explore the interior of stars to understand

how the chemical elements were created and learn how protein machines work inside living cells to enable the design of microbes that address critical energy or

waste cleanup needs. We could also design novel catalysts and high-efficiency engines that expand our economy, lower pollution, and reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Computational science is increasingly important to making progress at the

frontiers of almost every scientific discipline and to our most challenging feats of

engineering. Leadership in scientific computing has become a cornerstone of the Department’s strategy to ensure the security of the Nation and success in its science,

energy, environmental quality, and national security missions.

The demands of today’s facilities, which generate millions of gigabytes of data per

year, now outstrip the capabilities of the current Internet design and push the stateof-the-art in data storage and utilization. But, the evolution of the telecommunications market, including the availability of direct access to optical fiber at attractive prices and the availability of flexible dense wave division multiplexing (DWDM)

products gives SC the possibility of exploiting these technologies to provide scientific

data where needed at speeds commensurate with the new data volumes. To take

advantage of this opportunity, the Energy Science Network (ESnet) has entered into

a long-term partnership with Internet 2 to build the next generation optical network

infrastructure needed for U.S. science. To fully realize the potential for science, however, significant research is needed to integrate these capabilities, make them available to scientists, and build the infrastructure which can provide cyber security.

ASCR is leading an interagency effort to develop a Federal Plan for Advanced Networking R&D. This plan will provide a strategy for addressing current and future

networking needs of the Federal Government in support of science and national security missions and provide a process for developing a more detailed roadmap to

guide future multi-agency investments in advancing networking R&D.

ASCR supports core research in applied mathematics, computer sciences, and distributed network environments. The applied mathematics research activity produces

fundamental mathematical methods to model complex physical and biological systems. The computer science research efforts enable scientists to perform scientific

computations efficiently on the highest performance computers available and to

store, manage, analyze, and visualize the massive amounts of data that result. The

networking research activity provides the techniques to link the data producers with

scientists who need access to the data. Results from enabling research supported by

ASCR are used by scientists supported by other SC programs. This link to other

DOE programs provides a tangible assessment of the value of ASCR’s core research

program for advancing scientific discovery and technology development through simulations. In FY 2008 expanded efforts in applied mathematics will support critical

long-term mathematical research issues relevant to petascale science, multi-scale

mathematics, and optimized control and risk analysis in complex systems. Expanded

efforts in computer science will enable scientific applications to take full advantage

of petascale computing systems at the Leadership Computing Facilities.

In addition to its research activities, ASCR plans, develops, and operates supercomputer and network facilities that are available 24 hours a day, 365 days a year

to researchers working on problems relevant to DOE’s scientific missions. Investments in the ESnet will provide the DOE science community with capabilities not

available through commercial networks or the commercial Internet to manage increased data flows from petascale computers and experimental facilities. In FY 2008

ESnet will deliver a 10 gigabit per second (gbps) core Internet service as well as

a Science Data Network with 20 gbps on its northern route and 10 gbps on its

southern route. Delivery of the next generation of high performance resources at the

National Energy Research Scientific Computing Center (NERSC) is scheduled for

FY 2007. This NERSC–5 system is expected to provide 100–150 teraflops of peak

computing capacity. The NERSC computational resources are integrated by a common high performance file storage system that enables users to use all machines

easily. Therefore the new machine will significantly reduce the current oversubscription at NERSC which serves nearly 2,000 scientists annually.

In FY 2008, the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) Leadership Computing

Facility (LCF) will continue to provide world leading high performance sustained capability to researchers through the Innovative and Novel Computational Impact on

Theory and Experiment (INCITE) program. The acquisition of a 250 teraflop Cray

Baker system by the end of FY 2008 will enable further scientific advancements in

areas such as combustion simulation for clean coal research, simulation of fusion devices that approach ITER scale, and quantum calculations of complex chemical reactions. In addition, further diversity with the LCF resources will be realized with an

acquisition by Argonne National Laboratory (ANL) of a high performance IBM Blue

Gene/P with low-electrical power requirements and a peak capability of up to 100

25

teraflops in 2007, and further expansion to 250–500 teraflops in FY 2008 will bring

enhanced capability to accelerate scientific understanding in areas such as molecular dynamics, catalysis, protein/DNA complexes, and aging of material. With the

ORNL and ANL LCF facilities SC is developing a multiple set of computer architectures to enable the most efficient solution of critical problems across the spectrum

of science, ranging from biology to physics and chemistry.

The Scientific Discovery through Advanced Computing (SciDAC) program is a set

of coordinated investments across all SC mission areas with the goal of using computer simulation and advanced networking technologies to achieve breakthrough

scientific advances via that are impossible using theoretical or laboratory studies

alone. In FY 2006 ASCR recompeted its SciDAC portfolio, with the exception of activities in partnership with the Fusion Energy Sciences program that were initiated

in FY 2005. The new portfolio, referred to as SciDAC–2, enables new areas of

science through Scientific Application Partnerships; Centers for Enabling Technologies (CET) at universities and national laboratories; and University-led SciDAC

Institutes to establish centers of excellence that complement the activities of the

CETs and provide training for the next generation of computational scientists.

Advancing high performance computing and computation is a highly coordinated

interagency effort. ASCR has extensive partnerships with other federal agencies and

the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA). Activities are coordinated

with other federal efforts through the Networking and Information Technology R&D

(NITR&D) subcommittee of the National Science and Technology Council Committee

on Technology. The subcommittee coordinates planning, budgeting, and assessment

activities of the multi-agency NITR&D enterprise. DOE has been an active participant in these coordination groups and committees since their inception. ASCR will

continue to coordinate its activities through these mechanisms and will lead the development of new coordinating mechanisms as needs arise such as the ongoing development of a Federal Plan for Advanced Networking R&D.

BIOLOGICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH

FY 2007 Request—$510.3 Million; FY 2008 Request—$531.9 Million

Biological and Environmental Research (BER) supports basic research with broad

impacts on our energy future, our environment, and our health. By understanding

complex biological systems, developing computational tools to model and predict

their behavior, and developing methods to harness nature’s capabilities, biotechnology solutions are possible for DOE energy, environmental, and national security challenges. An ability to predict long-range and regional climate enables effective planning for future needs in energy, agriculture, and land and water use. Understanding the global carbon cycle and the associated role and capabilities of microbes and plants can lead to solutions for reducing carbon dioxide concentrations

in the atmosphere. Understanding the complex role of biology, geochemistry, and

hydrology beneath the Earth’s surface will lead to improved decision-making and solutions for contaminated DOE weapons sites. Understanding the biological effects of

low doses of radiation can lead to the development of science-based health risk policy to better protect workers and citizens. Both normal and abnormal physiological

processes—from normal human development to cancer to brain function—can be understood and improved using radiotracers, advanced imaging instruments, and novel

biomedical devices.

The FY 2008 BER request continues expansion of the Genomics: GTL program.

This program employs a systems approach to biology at the interface of the biological, physical, and computational sciences to determine the diverse biochemical capabilities of microbes, microbial communities, and plants, with the goal of tailoring

and translating those capabilities into solutions for DOE mission needs. In FY 2005

BER engaged a committee of the National Research Council (NRC) of the National

Academies to review the design of the Genomics: GTL program and its infrastructure plan. The NRC committee report, Review of the Department of Energy’s

Genomics: GTL Program was released in FY 2006 and provided a strong endorsement of the GTL program, recommending that the program’s focus on systems biology for bioenergy, carbon sequestration, and bioremediation be given a ‘‘high priority’’ by DOE and the Nation. The report also recommended that the program’s

plan for new research facilities be reshaped to produce earlier and more cost-effective results by focusing not on particular technologies, but on research underpinning

particular applications such as bioenergy, carbon sequestration, or environmental

remediation.

In response, SC revised its original single-purpose user facilities plan to instead

develop and support vertically-integrated GTL Research Centers to accelerate systems biology research. BER will support the development of three Bioenergy ReVerDate 11-MAY-2000 08:14 Jan 17, 2008 Jkt 033610 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\E&E07\030707\33610 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
26

search Centers to be selected and initiated in FY 2007, and fully operational by the

end of 2008. All three centers will conduct comprehensive, multidisciplinary research programs focused on microbes and plants to drive scientific breakthroughs

necessary for the development of cost-effective biofuels and bioenergy production.

These centers will not only possess the robust scientific capabilities needed to carry

out their broad mission mandates, but will also draw upon the broader GTL program for technology development and foundational research. The vertically-integrated GTL Research Centers will not require construction of facilities. Moreover,

the competition to establish and operate them is open to universities, non-profit research organizations, the national laboratories, and the private sector—an approach

that is new for the Department. The first three research centers will focus on bioenergy research. The Department announced the solicitation for Bioenergy Research

Centers in August 2006, and proposals were due on February 1, 2007.

Development of a global biotechnology based energy infrastructure requires a

science base that will enable scientists to control or redirect genetic regulation and

redesign specific proteins, biochemical pathways, and even entire plants or microbes. Renewable biofuels could be produced using plants, microbes, or isolated enzymes. Understanding the biological mechanisms involved in these energy producing

processes will allow scientists and technologists to design novel biofuel production

strategies involving both cellular and cell free systems that might include defined

mixed microbial communities or consolidated biological processes. Within the

Genomics: GTL program, BER supports basic research aimed at developing the understanding needed to advance biotechnology-based strategies for biofuel production,

focusing on renewable, carbon-neutral energy compounds like ethanol and hydrogen,

as well as understanding how the capabilities of microbes can be applied to environmental remediation and carbon sequestration.

In 2003, the Administration launched the Climate Change Research Initiative

(CCRI) to focus research on areas where substantial progress in understanding and

predicting climate change, including its potential causes and consequences, is possible over the next five years. In FY 2008, BER will contribute to the CCRI by focusing on (1) helping to resolve the North American carbon sink question (i.e., the magnitude and location of the North American carbon sink); (2) deployment and operation of a mobile ARM facility to provide data on the effects of clouds and aerosols

on the atmospheric radiation budget in regions and locations of opportunity where

data are lacking or sparse; (3) using advanced climate models to simulate potential

effects of natural and human-induced climate forcing on global and regional climate

and the potential effects on climate of alternative options for mitigating increases

in human forcing of climate, including abrupt climate change; and (4) developing

and evaluating assessment tools needed to study costs and benefits of potential

strategies for reducing net carbon dioxide emissions.

In FY 2008, BER will continue to support research aimed at advancing the science

of climate and Earth system modeling by coupling models of different components

of the earth system related to climate and by significantly increasing the spatial resolution of such models. SciDAC-enabled activities will allow climate scientists to

gain unprecedented insights into interactions and feedbacks between, for example,

climate change and global cycling of carbon, the potential effects of carbon dioxide

and aerosol emissions from energy production and their impact on the global climate

system. BER will also add a SciDAC component to GTL and Environmental Remediation research. GTL SciDAC will initiate new research to develop mathematical and

computational tools needed for complex biological system modeling and for analysis

of complex data sets, such as mass spectrometry metabolomic or proteomic profiling

data. Environmental Remediation SciDAC will provide an opportunity for subsurface and computational scientists to develop and improve methods of simulating

subsurface reactive transport processes on ‘‘discovery class’’ computers.

Research emphasis within BER’s Environmental Remediation Sciences subprogram will focus on issues of subsurface cleanup such as defining and understanding

the processes that control contaminant fate and transport in the environment and

providing opportunities for use or manipulation of natural processes to alter contaminant mobility. In FY 2008, BER will support the development of two additional

field research sites (for a total of three), providing opportunities to validate laboratory findings under field conditions. The resulting knowledge and technology will assist DOE’s environmental clean-up and stewardship missions. Funding for the William R. Wiley Environmental Molecular Sciences Laboratory (EMSL) at Pacific

Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) will be increased in FY 2008 to maintain

operations at full capacity.

Also continuing in FY 2008 is BER support for fundamental research in genomics,

medical applications and measurement science, and the health effects of low dose

radiation in FY 2008. Resources are developed and made widely available for deterVerDate 11-MAY-2000 08:14 Jan 17, 2008 Jkt 033610 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\E&E07\030707\33610 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
27

mining protein structures at DOE synchrotrons, and for DOE—relevant highthroughput genomic DNA sequencing. Building on DOE capabilities in physics,

chemistry, engineering, biology and computation, BER supports fundamental imaging research, maintains core infrastructure for imaging research and develops new

technologies to improve the diagnosis and treatment of psycho-neurological diseases

and cancer and to improve the function of patients with neurological disabilities like

blindness. Funding for Ethical, Legal, and Societal Issues (ELSI) associated with activities applicable to SC, increases to support research on the ecological and environmental impacts of nanoparticles resulting from nanotechnology applied to energy

technologies.

HIGH ENERGY PHYSICS

FY 2007 Request—$775.1 Million; FY 2008 Request—$782.2 Million

The High Energy Physics (HEP) program provides over 90 percent of the federal

support for the Nation’s high energy physics research. This research advances our

understanding of the basic constituents of matter, deeper symmetries in the laws

of nature at high energies, and mysterious phenomena that are commonplace in the

universe, such as dark energy and dark matter. Research at these frontiers of

science may uncover new particles, forces, or undiscovered dimensions of space and

time; explain how matter came to have mass; and reveal the underlying nature of

the universe. HEP supports particle accelerators and very sensitive detectors to

study fundamental particle interactions at the highest possible energies as well as

non-accelerator studies of cosmic particles using experiments conducted deep underground, on mountains, or in space. These research facilities and basic research supported by HEP advance our knowledge not only in high energy physics, but increasingly in other fields was well, including particle astrophysics and cosmology. Research advances in one field often have a strong impact on research directions in

another. Technology that was developed in response to the pace-setting demands of

high energy physics research has also become indispensable to other fields of science

and has found wide applications in industry and medicine, often in ways that could

not have been predicted when the technology was first developed.

In FY 2008 HEP supports core experimental and theoretical research to maintain

strong participation in the Tevatron, Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN (the

European Organization for Nuclear Research), and B-factory physics program, and

supports research activities associated with development of potential new initiatives

such as International Linear Collider (ILC) R&D, neutrinos, dark energy, and dark

matter. HEP places a high priority on maximizing scientific data derived from the

three major HEP user facilities: the Tevatron Collider and Neutrinos at the Main

Injector (NuMI) beam line at Fermilab, and the B-factory at SLAC. HEP will continue to lead the international scientific community with these world-leading user

facilities at Fermilab and SLAC in FY 2008, but these facilities will complete their

scientific missions by the end of the decade. Thus, the longer-term HEP program

supported in FY 2008 begins to develop new cutting-edge facilities in targeted areas

(such as neutrino physics) that will establish U.S. leadership in these areas in the

next decade, when the centerpiece of the world HEP program will reside at CERN.

In FY 2008 HEP continues to support software and computing resources for U.S.

researchers participating in the LHC program at CERN as well as pre-operations

and maintenance of the U.S.-built systems that are scientific components of the

LHC detectors. R&D in support of the proposed ILC is maintained in FY 2008 to

support U.S. participation in a comprehensive, coordinated international R&D program and to provide a basis for U.S. industry to compete successfully for major subsystem contracts, should the ILC be designed and then built. The long-term goal of

this effort is to provide robust cost and schedule baselines to support design and

construction decisions for an international electron-positron linear collider. The ILC

would provide unprecedented power, clarity, and precision to unravel the mysteries

of the next energy frontier, which we will just begin to discover with the LHC. In

2006 the ILC Reference Design Report was completed, and in FY 2007 further work

toward the design, including some site-specific studies and detector studies, will be

performed. In FY 2008 further work on both accelerator systems and detector studies will be performed.

To provide a nearer-term future HEP program, and to preserve future research

options, R&D for accelerator and detector technologies, particularly in the growing

area of neutrino physics, will continue in FY 2008. With Tevatron improvements

completed, much of the accelerator development effort at Fermilab in FY 2008 will

focus on the neutrino program to study the universe’s most prolific particle. The

Neutrinos at the Main Injector (NuMI) beam allows studies of the fundamental

physics of neutrino masses and mixings using the proton source section of the

28

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 (NOνA) Detector, which was originally proposed as a line item construction project in FY 2007 under the generic name of Electron Neutrino Appearance (EνA) Detector, is funded in FY 2008 and will utilize the

NuMI beam. This project includes improvements to the proton source to increase the

intensity of the NuMI beam. Meanwhile, fabrication will begin for the Reactor Neutrino Detector and two small neutrino experiments, the Main Injector Experiment

ν-A (MINERνA) in the MINOS near detector hall at Fermilab and the Tokai-toKamioka (T2K) experiment using the Japanese J–PARC neutrino beam. R&D will

continue for a large double beta decay experiment to measure the mass of a neutrino. These efforts are part of a coordinated neutrino program developed from an

American Physical Society study and a joint HEPAP/Nuclear Sciences Advisory

Committee (NSAC) subpanel review.

To exploit the unique opportunity to expand the boundaries of our understanding

of the matter-antimatter asymmetry in the universe, a high priority is given to continued operations and infrastructure support for the B-factory at SLAC. Final upgrades to the accelerator and detector are scheduled for completion in FY 2007, and

B-factory operations will conclude in FY 2008. HEP support of SLAC operations decreases in FY 2008 as the contribution from BES increases for SLAC linac operations in preparation for the Linac Coherent Light Source (LCLS).

As the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) accelerator nears its turn-on date in 2007,

U.S. activities related to fabrication of detector components will be completed and

new activities related to commissioning and pre-operations of these detectors, along

with software and computing activities needed to analyze the data, will ramp-up significantly. Support of an effective role for U.S. research groups in LHC discoveries

will continue to be a high priority of the HEP program. R&D for possible future upgrades to the LHC accelerator and detectors will also be pursued.

Enhanced support for R&D on ground- and space-based dark energy experimental

concepts, begun in FY 2007, will be continued in FY 2008. These experiments

should provide important new information about the nature of dark energy, leading

to a better understanding of the birth, evolution, and ultimate fate of the universe.

For example, the Super Nova/Acceleration Probe (SNAP) will be a mission concept

proposed for a potential interagency-sponsored experiment with NASA, and possibly

international partners: the Joint Dark Energy Mission (JDEM). DOE and NASA are

jointly funding a National Academy of Sciences study to determine which of the proposed NASA ‘‘Beyond Einstein’’ missions should launch first, with technical design

of the selected proposal to begin at the end of this decade. JDEM is one of the candidate missions in this study. In FY 2008, fabrication for the Dark Energy Survey

Project will begin.

The HEP program re-competed its SciDAC portfolio in FY 2006. Major thrusts in

theoretical physics, astrophysics, and particle physics grid technology will be supported through the SciDAC program in FY 2008, as well as proposals in accelerator

modeling and design to be selected in FY 2007. These projects will allow HEP to

use computational science to obtain significant new insights into challenging problems that have the greatest impact in HEP mission areas.

NUCLEAR PHYSICS

FY 2007 Request—$454.1 Million; FY 2008 Request—$471.3 Million

The Nuclear Physics (NP) program is the major sponsor of fundamental nuclear

physics research in the Nation, providing about 90 percent of federal support. Scientific research supported by NP is aimed at advancing knowledge and providing

insights into the nature of energy and matter and, in particular, at investigating

the fundamental forces which hold the nucleus together and determining the detailed structure and behavior of the atomic nuclei. NP builds and supports worldleading scientific facilities and state-of-the-art instrumentation to carry out its basic

research agenda—the study of the evolution and structure of nuclear matter from

the smallest building blocks, quarks and gluons, to the stable elements in the Universe created by stars, to unique isotopes created in the laboratory that exist at the

limits of stability and possess radically different properties from known matter. NP

also trains a workforce needed to underpin the Department’s missions for nuclearrelated national security, energy, and environmental quality.

Key aspects of NP research agenda include understanding how the quarks and

gluons combine to form the nucleons (proton and neutron), what the properties and

behavior of nuclear matter are under extreme conditions of temperature and presVerDate 11-MAY-2000 08:14 Jan 17, 2008 Jkt 033610 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\E&E07\030707\33610 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
29

sure, and what the properties and reaction rates are for atomic nuclei up to their

limits of stability. Results and insight from these studies are relevant to understanding how the universe evolved in its earliest moments, how the chemical elements were formed, and how the properties of one of nature’s basic constituents, the

neutrino, influences astrophysics phenomena such as supernovae. Knowledge and

techniques developed in pursuit of fundamental nuclear physics research are also

extensively utilized in our society today. The understanding of nuclear spin enabled

the development of magnetic resonance imaging for medical use. Radioactive isotopes produced by accelerators and reactors are used for medical imaging, cancer

therapy, and biochemical studies. Advances in cutting-edge instrumentation developed for nuclear physics experiments have relevance to technological needs in combating terrorism. The highly trained scientific and technical personnel in fundamental nuclear physics who are a product of the program are a valuable human resource for many applied fields.

The FY 2008 budget request supports operations of the four National User Facilities and research at universities and laboratories, and makes investments in new

capabilities to address compelling scientific opportunities and to maintain U.S. competitiveness in global nuclear physics efforts. In FY 2008 support continues for R&D

on rare isotope beam development, relevant to the next-generation facilities that

will provide capabilities for forefront nuclear structure and astrophysics studies and

for understanding the origin of the elements from iron to uranium.

When the Universe was a millionth of a second old, nuclear matter is believed

to have existed in its most extreme energy density form called the quark-gluon plasma. Experiments at the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) at Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL) are searching to find and characterize this new state and

others that may have existed during the first moments of the Universe. These efforts will continue in FY 2008. The NP program, together with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), will continue construction of a new Electron Beam Ion Source (EBIS) to provide RHIC with more cost-effective, reliable, and

versatile operations. Research and development activities, including the development of an innovative electron beam cooling system for RHIC, are expected to demonstrate the feasibility of increasing the luminosity (or collision rate) of the circulating beams by a factor of ten, which would increase the long-term scientific productivity and international competitiveness of the facility. Support for participation

in the heavy ion program at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN allows U.S.

researchers the opportunity to search for new states of matter under substantially

different initial conditions than those provided at RHIC. The interplay of the different research programs at the LHC and the ongoing RHIC program will allow a

detailed tomography of the hot, dense matter as it evolves from the ‘‘perfect fluid’’

(a fluid with zero viscosity) discovered at RHIC.

Operations of the Continuous Electron Beam Accelerator Facility (CEBAF) at

Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility (TJNAF) in FY 2008 will continue

to advance our knowledge of the internal structure of protons and neutrons. By providing precision experimental information concerning the quarks and gluons that

form protons and neutrons, the approximately 1,200 experimental researchers who

use CEBAF, together with researchers in nuclear theory, seek to provide a quantitative description of nuclear matter in terms of the fundamental theory of the

strong interaction, Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD). In FY 2008, the accelerator

will provide beams simultaneously to all three experimental halls and funding is

provided for engineering design activities for the 12 GeV CEBAF Upgrade Project.

This upgrade is one of the highest priorities for NP and would allow for a test of

a proposed mechanism of ‘‘quark confinement,’’ one of the compelling, unanswered

puzzles of physics.

Efforts at the Argonne Tandem Linear Accelerator System (ATLAS) at ANL and

the Holifield Radioactive Ion Beam Facility (HRIBF) at ORNL will be supported in

FY 2008 to focus on investigating new regions of nuclear structure, studying interactions in nuclear matter like those occurring in neutron stars, and determining the

reactions that created the nuclei of the chemical elements inside stars and

supernovae. The GRETINA gamma-ray tracking array, which continues fabrication

in FY 2008, will revolutionize gamma ray detection technology and offer dramatically improved capabilities to study the structure of nuclei at ATLAS, HRIBF, and

elsewhere. The Fundamental Neutron Physics Beamline (FNPB) under fabrication

at the SNS will provide a world-class capability to study the fundamental properties

of the neutron, leading to a refined characterization of the weak force. Support continues in FY 2008 for the fabrication of a neutron Electric Dipole Moment experiment, to be sited at the FNPB, in the search for new physics beyond the Standard

Model.

30

Funds are provided in FY 2008 to initiate U.S. participation in the fabrication of

an Italian-led neutrino-less double beta decay experiment, the Cryogenic Underground Observatory for Rare Events (CUORE). A successful search for neutrino-less

beta decay will determine if the neutrino is its own antiparticle and provide information about the mass of the neutrino. Neutrinos are thought to play a critical role

in the explosions of supernovae and the evolution of the cosmos. A successful search

for neutrino-less beta decay will determine if the neutrino is its own antiparticle

and provide information about the mass of the neutrino.

Following the re-competition of SciDAC projects in FY 2006, NP currently supports efforts in nuclear astrophysics, grid computing, Lattice Gauge (QCD) theory,

and low energy nuclear structure and nuclear reaction theory. NP is also supporting

R&D in an international effort to develop a larger, more sensitive neutrino-less beta

decay experiment.

FUSION ENERGY SCIENCES

FY 2007 Request—$319.0 Million; FY 2008 Request—$427.9 Million

The Fusion Energy Sciences (FES) program advances the theoretical and experimental understanding of plasma and fusion science, including a close collaboration

with international partners in identifying and exploring plasma and fusion physics

issues through specialized facilities. The FES program supports research in plasma

science, magnetically confined plasmas, advances in tokamak design, innovative confinement options, non-neutral plasma physics and high energy density laboratory

plasmas (HEDLP), and cutting edge technologies. FES also leads U.S. participation

in ITER, an experiment to study and demonstrate the sustained burning of fusion

fuel. This international collaboration will provide an unparalleled scientific research

opportunity with a goal of demonstrating the scientific and technical feasibility of

fusion power. Fusion is the energy source that powers the sun and stars. Fusion

power could play a key role in U.S. long-term energy plans and independence because it offers the potential for plentiful, safe, and environmentally benign energy.

On November 21, 2006, the DOE signed the ITER agreement with its counterparts

in China, the European Union, India, Japan, the Republic of Korea and the Russian

Federation, formalizing this historic arrangement for international scientific cooperation.

The U.S. Contributions to ITER project is being managed by the U.S. ITER

Project Office (USIPO), established as an Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL)/

Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory (PPPL) partnership. The FY 2008 request for

the U.S. Contributions to ITER project reflects a significant increase in procurement, fabrication activities, and delivery of medium- and high-technology components, assignment of U.S. personnel to the International ITER Organization abroad,

and the U.S. share of common costs at the ITER site in Cadarache, France, including installation and testing. These costs are part of the Total Estimated Cost (TEC)

for the U.S. Contributions to ITER project. There is a second category of costs,

Other Project Costs (OPC), which is for the supporting research and development

activity for our U.S. Contributions. Together the TEC and OPC make up the overall

Total Project Cost which is $1,122,000,000.

In support of ITER and U.S. Contributions to ITER, FES has placed an increased

emphasis on its national burning plasma program—a critical underpinning to the

fusion science in ITER. FES has enhanced burning plasma research efforts across

the U.S. domestic fusion program, including: carrying out experiments on our national FES facilities that are exploring new modes of improved or extended ITER

performance with diagnostics and plasma control that can also be extrapolated to

ITER; developing safe and environmentally attractive technologies that could be

used in future upgrades of ITER; exploring fusion simulation efforts that examine

the complex behavior of burning plasmas in tokamaks; and integrating all that is

learned into a forward-looking approach to future fusion applications. The U.S.

Burning Plasma Organization has been established to coordinate these efforts.

Section 972(c)(5)(C) of the Energy Policy Act (EPAct) of 2005, required the Secretary of Energy to provide ‘‘a report describing how United States participation in

the ITER will be funded without reducing funding for other programs in the Office

of Science (including other fusion programs). . ..’’ This report as well as all the

other requirements for FES in EPAct have been or are in the process of being completed. The Department’s FY 2008 budget provides for modest increases for all programs within the Office of Science and supports the ITER request of $160,000,000

from new funds in the FES budget request.

FES supports the operation of a set of experimental facilities. These facilities provide scientists with the means to test and extend our theoretical understanding and

computer models—leading ultimately to improved predictive capabilities for fusion

31

science. Research and facility operations support for the three major facilities is

maintained in FY 2008. Experimental research on tokamaks is continued with emphasis on physics issues of interest to the ITER project. The DIII–D tokamak at

General Atomics will operate for 15 weeks in FY 2008 to conduct research relevant

to burning plasma issues and topics of interest to the ITER project as well as maintain the broad scientific scope of the program. The Alcator C–Mod at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology will operate for 15 weeks and the National Spherical

Torus Experiment (NSTX) at the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory (PPPL) will

operate for 12 weeks. Fabrication of the major components of the National Compact

Stellarator Experiment (NCSX) at PPPL continues and assembly of the entire device

will be completed in FY 2009.

Funding for the FES SciDAC program continues in FY 2008 for the development

of tools that facilitate international fusion collaborations and initiate development

of an integrated software environment that can accommodate the wide range of

space and time scales and the multiple phenomena that are encountered in simulations of fusion systems. Within SciDAC, the Fusion Simulation Project is a major

initiative involving plasma physicists, applied mathematicians, and computer scientists to create a comprehensive set of models of fusion systems, combined with

the algorithms required to implement the models and the computational infrastructure to enable them to work together.

FES will issue a joint solicitation in FY 2008, with the National Nuclear Security

Administration (NNSA), focused on academic research in high energy density laboratory plasmas, which supports the Department’s programmatic goals in inertial

confinement fusion science.

WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT FOR TEACHERS AND SCIENTISTS

FY 2007 Request—$10.9 Million; FY 2008 Request—$11.0 Million

The Department of Energy has played a role in training America’s scientists and

engineers for more than 50 years, making contributions to U.S. economic and scientific preeminence. The Nation’s current and future energy and environmental

challenges may be solved in part through scientific and technological innovation and

a highly skilled scientific and technical workforce. The Workforce Development for

Teachers and Scientists (WDTS) program acts as a catalyst within the DOE for the

training of the next generation of scientists. WDTS programs create a foundation

for DOE’s national laboratories to provide a wide range of educational opportunities

to more than 280,000 educators and students on an annual basis. WDTS’s mission

is to provide a continuum of educational opportunities to the Nation’s students and

teachers of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM).

WDTS supports experiential learning opportunities that compliment curriculum

taught in the classroom and (1) build links between the national laboratories and

the science education community by providing funding, guidelines, and evaluation

of mentored research experiences at the national laboratories to K–12 teachers and

college faculty to enhance their content knowledge and research capabilities; (2) provide mentor-intensive research experiences at the national laboratories for undergraduate and graduate students to inspire commitments to the technical disciplines

and to pursue careers in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, thereby

helping our national laboratories and the Nation meet the demand for a well-trained

scientific/technical workforce; and (3) encourage and reward middle and high school

students across the Nation to share, demonstrate, and excel in math and the

sciences, and introduce these students to the national laboratories and the opportunities available to them when they go to college.

In FY 2008, the DOE Academies Creating Teacher Scientists (DOE ACTS) program, formerly the Laboratory Science Teacher Professional Development (LSTPD)

program, will support the participation of approximately 300 teachers. All 17 of

DOE’s national laboratories will participate in this program. Each national laboratory can elect to implement either or both of the two types of teacher professional

development models in DOE ACTS: (1) Teachers as Investigators (TAI) is geared towards novice teachers typically in the elementary to intermediate grade levels; and

(2) Teachers as Research Associates (TARA) for teachers with a stronger background

in science, mathematics, and engineering.

The Science Undergraduate Laboratory Internship (SULI) program, which provides mentor intensive research experiences for undergraduates at the national laboratories, will support approximately 340 students in FY 2008. The Albert Einstein

Distinguished Educator Fellowships, the College Institute of Science and Technology

(CCI) program, the Pre-Service Teacher activity for students preparing for teaching

careers in a STEM discipline, and the National and Middle School Science Bowls

will all continue in FY 2008.

32

SCIENCE LABORATORIES INFRASTRUCTURE

FY 2007 Request—$50.9 Million; FY 2008 Request—$79.0 Million

The mission of the Science Laboratories Infrastructure (SLI) program is to enable

the conduct of DOE research missions at the Office of Science laboratories by funding line item construction projects and the clean up for reuse or removal of excess

facilities to maintain the general purpose infrastructure. The program also supports

Office of Science landlord responsibilities for the 24,000 acre Oak Ridge Reservation

and provides Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) to local communities around ANL,

BNL, and ORNL.

In FY 2008, SLI will fund four construction subprojects: Seismic Safety Upgrade

of Buildings, Phase I, at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL); Modernization of Building 4500N, Wing 4, Phase I, at ORNL; Building Electrical Services Upgrade, Phase II, at ANL; and Renovate Science Laboratory, Phase I, at BNL.

Funding for FY 2008 includes $35,000,000 held in reserve pending resolution of

issues related to capability replacement and renovation at PNNL. If the issues are

resolved, DOE will initiate a reprogramming request to use these funds to replace

and/or upgrade mission-critical facilities currently located in the Hanford Site 300

Area. The SLI program continues funding for demolition of the Bevatron at LBNL

in FY 2008, and funding is also provided for the demolition of several small buildings and trailers at ORNL.

SCIENCE PROGRAM DIRECTION

FY 2007 Request—$170.9 Million; FY 2008 Request—$184.9 Million

Science Program Direction (SCPD) enables a skilled, highly motivated federal

workforce to manage the Office of Science’s basic and applied research portfolio, programs, projects, and facilities in support of new and improved energy, environmental, and health technologies. SCPD consists of two subprograms: Program Direction and Field Operations.

The Program Direction subprogram is the single funding source for the Office of

Science federal staff in headquarters responsible for managing, directing, administering, and supporting the broad spectrum of Office of Science disciplines. This

subprogram includes planning and analysis activities, providing the capabilities

needed to plan, evaluate, and communicate the scientific excellence, relevance, and

performance of the Office of Science basic research programs. Additionally, Program

Direction includes funding for the Office of Scientific and Technical Information

(OSTI) which collects, preserves, and disseminates DOE research and development

(R&D) information for use by DOE, the scientific community, academia, U.S. industry, and the public to expand the knowledge base of science and technology. The

Field Operations subprogram is the funding source for the federal workforce in the

Field responsible for management and administrative functions performed within

the Chicago and Oak Ridge Operations Offices, and site offices supporting the Office

of Science laboratories and facilities.

In FY 2008, Program Direction funding increases by 8.2 percent from the FY 2007

request. Most of the increase will support an additional 29 FTEs, to mange the increase in the SC research investment that is a key component of the President’s

American Competitiveness Initiative; four new FTEs to support NSLS–II, and ITER

project office activities; and 35 FTEs—the staff of the New Brunswick Laboratory—

transferring from the Office of Security and Safety Performance Assurance. Twentyfour FTEs are reduced across the SC complex in FY 2008 consistent with SC’s corporate workforce planning strategy. The SCPD FY 2008 increase also supports a 2.2

percent pay raise; an increased cap for SES basic pay; other pay related costs such

as the government’s contributions for employee health insurance and Federal Employees’ Retirement System (FERS); escalation of non-pay categories, such as travel,

training, and contracts; and increased e-Gov assessments and other fixed operating

requirements across the Office of Science complex.

SAFEGUARDS AND SECURITY

FY 2007 Request—$71.0 Million; FY 2008 Request—$71.0 Million

The Safeguards and Security (S&S) program ensures appropriate levels of protection against unauthorized access, theft, diversion, loss of custody, or destruction of

DOE assets and hostile acts that may cause adverse impacts on fundamental

science, national security, or the health and safety of DOE and contractor employees, the public, or the environment. The Office of Science’s Integrated Safeguards

and Security Management strategy uses a tailored approach to safeguards and security. As such, each site has a specific protection program that is analyzed and defined in its individual Security Plan. This approach allows each site to design varyVerDate 11-MAY-2000 08:14 Jan 17, 2008 Jkt 033610 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\E&E07\030707\33610 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
33

ing degrees of protection commensurate with the risks and consequences described

in their site-specific threat scenarios. The FY 2008 budget includes funding necessary to protect people and property at the 2003 Design Basis Threat (DBT) level.

In FY 2008, funding for the Cyber Security program element addresses the promulgation of new National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) requirements

that are statutorily required by the Federal Information Security Management Act

(FISMA) to improve the Federal and Office of Science laboratory cyber security posture.

CONCLUSION

I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for providing this opportunity to discuss the

Office of Science research programs and our contributions to the Nation’s scientific

enterprise and U.S. competitiveness. On behalf of DOE, I am pleased to present this

FY 2008 budget request for the Office of Science.

This concludes my testimony. I would be pleased to answer any questions you

might have.

BIOGRAPHY FOR RAYMOND L. ORBACH

Raymond Lee Orbach was sworn in by Secretary Samuel W. Bodman as the Department of Energy’s first Under Secretary for Science on June 1, 2006. President

Bush nominated Dr. Orbach for the new position, created by the Energy Policy Act

of 2005, on December 13, 2005, and he was unanimously confirmed by the U.S. Senate on May 26, 2006.

As Under Secretary for Science, Dr. Orbach serves as the Secretary’s advisor on

science policy as well as on the scientific aspects of all that DOE does, from basic

research, to nuclear energy, to the environmental clean-up of Cold War legacy sites,

to defense programs. Dr. Orbach is responsible for planning, coordinating and overseeing the Energy Department’s research and development programs and its 17 national laboratories, as well as the department’s scientific and engineering education

activities.

Secretary Bodman has tasked Dr. Orbach with the department’s implementation

of the President’s American Competitiveness Initiative, will help drive continued

U.S. economic growth. Dr. Orbach continues to serve as the 14th Director of the Office of Science (SC) at the Department of Energy (DOE), a position he has held since

the Senate confirmed him and he was sworn in in March 2002. In this capacity, Dr.

Orbach manages an organization that is the third largest federal sponsor of basic

research in the United States, the primary supporter of the physical sciences in the

U.S., and one of the premier science organizations in the world.

The SC fiscal year 2006 budget of $3.6 billion funds programs in high energy and

nuclear physics, basic energy sciences, magnetic fusion energy, biological and environmental research, and computational science. SC, formerly the Office of Energy

Research, also provides management oversight of 10 DOE non-weapons laboratories,

supports researchers at more than 300 colleges and universities nationwide, and

builds and operates the world’s finest suite of scientific facilities and instruments

used annually by more than 19,000 researchers world-wide to extend the frontiers

of science.

From 1992 to 2002, Dr. Orbach served as Chancellor of the University of California (UC), Riverside. Under his leadership, UC–Riverside doubled in size, achieved

national and international recognition in research, and led the University of California in diversity and educational opportunity. In addition to his administrative duties at UC–Riverside, sustained an active research program; worked with

postdoctoral, graduate, and undergraduate students in his laboratory; and taught

the freshman physics course each year. As Distinguished Professor of Physics, Dr.

Orbach set the highest standards for academic excellence.

Dr. Orbach began his academic career as a postdoctoral fellow at Oxford University in 1960 and became an Assistant Professor of applied physics at Harvard University in 1961. He joined the faculty of the University of California, Los Angeles

(UCLA) two years later as an Associate Professor, and became a Full Professor in

1966. From 1982 to 1992, he served as the Provost of the College of Letters and

Science at UCLA.

Dr. Orbach’s research in theoretical and experimental physics has resulted in the

publication of more than 240 scientific articles. He has received numerous honors

as a scholar including two Alfred P. Sloan Foundation Fellowships, a National

Science Foundation Senior Postdoctoral Fellowship at Oxford University, a John

Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation Fellowship at Tel Aviv University, the

Joliot Curie Professorship at the Ecole Superieure de Physique et Chimie

Industrielle de la Ville de Paris, the Lorentz Professorship at the University of

34

Leiden in the Netherlands, the 1991–1992 Andrew Lawson Memorial Lecturer at

UC–Riverside, the 2004 Arnold O. Beckman Lecturer in Science and Innovation at

the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, and the Outstanding Alumni

Award from the California Institute of Technology in 2005.

Dr. Orbach is a fellow of the American Physical Society and the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Dr. Orbach has also held numerous visiting

professorships at universities around the world. These include the Catholic University of Leuven in Belgium, Tel Aviv University, and the Imperial College of Science

and Technology in London. He also serves as a member of 20 scientific, professional,

and civic boards.

Dr. Orbach received his Bachelor of Science degree in Physics from the California

Institute of Technology in 1956. He received his Ph.D. degree in Physics from the

University of California, Berkeley, in 1960 and was elected to Phi Beta Kappa.

Dr. Orbach was born in Los Angeles, California. He is married to Eva S. Orbach.

They have three children and seven grandchildren and three step-grandchildren.

Chairman LAMPSON. Thank you, Dr. Orbach. Mr. Spurgeon.

STATEMENT OF MR. DENNIS R. SPURGEON, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR NUCLEAR ENERGY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Mr. SPURGEON. Thank you, Chairman Lampson, Ranking Member Inglis, Chairman Gordon, and Members of the Subcommittee.

It is a pleasure to be here to discuss the fiscal year 2008 budget

request for the Department of Energy’s Office of Nuclear Energy.

The Office of Nuclear Energy has made a great deal of progress

in the last several years in advancing our nation’s energy security

and independence, in support of the Department’s strategic plan. It

is my near-term highest priority to enable industry to deploy a new

generation of nuclear power plants. We have also made steps forward in developing advanced nuclear reactor and fuel cycle technologies while maintaining a critical national nuclear infrastructure.

Today, 103 nuclear reactors generate roughly 20 percent of

America’s electricity. U.S. electricity demand is anticipated to grow

by 50 percent over the next 25 years, the equivalent of 45 to 50

one-thousand megawatt nuclear reactors must be built just to

maintain that 20 percent share. The U.S. is at a critical juncture

in the future of nuclear power in the United States. Unlike many

of our international research partners, our nuclear industry has not

been heavily supported financially or politically over the past 30

years. Today, the need for increased electric generating capacity is

clear, and hopefully undisputed. Fortunately, we do have a growth

option that allows us to have a diversified electric generation portfolio that includes a significant carbon emissions free component,

and that is nuclear power.

To support near-term domestic expansion of the nuclear industry, the fiscal year 2008 budget requests $114 million for the Nuclear

Power 2010 program to support continued cost-share efforts with

industry to reduce the barriers to deployment of new nuclear power

plants in the United States. We anticipate the NRC will soon

vote—actually, I think it is tomorrow—on approval of the early site

permit for the Exelon Generation Company’s Clinton site in central

Illinois, which represents a major accomplishment in the Energy

Department’s efforts to address the barriers and stimulate deployment of new nuclear power plants in the United States.

With nuclear power as the only proven base load producer of

electricity that does not emit greenhouse gases, it is vital that our

35

current fleet of reactors be expanded in order to meet our needs for

carbon-free, dependable, and economic electric power.

Any serious effort toward expanding global use of nuclear energy

will inevitably require us to address the spent fuel and proliferation challenges that accompany such an expansion. To meet these

challenges, President Bush initiated the Global Nuclear Energy

Partnership, or GNEP, a comprehensive approach to enable an expansion of nuclear power in the United States and around the

world, to promote nonproliferation goals, and to help resolve the

nuclear waste issues.

Domestically, GNEP provides a solution to the ever-growing

issue of spent nuclear fuel. In conjunction with Yucca Mountain,

GNEP provides a solution which outlines a closed fuel cycle, where

energy is harvested from the spent fuel before the end product is

disposed of in a permanent repository. The spent fuel will be recycled in a manner that will be more proliferation-resistant than current processes used around the world. A closed fuel cycle will also

alleviate some of the burden placed on Yucca Mountain, and will

possibly eliminate the need for a second geologic repository

throughout the remainder of this century. We reiterate, though,

that no fuel cycle scenario will eliminate the need for a permanent

geologic repository such as Yucca Mountain.

Internationally, GNEP promises to address the growing global

energy demand in an environmentally friendly way. A global regime of countries able to provide a complete portfolio of nuclear

fuel services, including Russia, France, and possibly Japan, China,

and Britain, will provide these services to countries wanting to use

nuclear power to meet their domestic growth and electricity demand without the cost and risk associated with nuclear fuel cycle

infrastructure. By providing these services to other countries, we

hope to dissuade future states from developing domestic enrichment capabilities like we are encountering with Iran today.

The fact is the U.S. is not currently positioned to be an active

member of this global regime. We have limited enrichment capabilities and no back-end fuel cycle capabilities. Creating capabilities

needed to provide—to participate in the global expansion of nuclear

power will take 15 to 20 years, meaning that in order to become

an active participant of the global nuclear expansion, we need to

begin now. Taking those steps necessary enables us to better assure that the imminent expansion will be safe, beneficial, and will

not promote the proliferation of nuclear weapons. If we fail to act,

we will have little to say in the process.

The Department requests $405 million in fiscal year 2008 to

begin work on developing a detailed roadmap for implementing all

aspects of the GNEP vision.

Mr. Chairman, we appreciate the support that we have received

from the Committee as we seek to address the challenges surrounding the global expansion of nuclear power. We remain confident and optimistic about the role of nuclear energy in providing

a solution to our nation’s energy stability and independence.

I would be pleased to answer your questions. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Spurgeon follows:]

36

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DENNIS R. SPURGEON

Chairman Lampson, Ranking Member Inglis, and Members of the Committee, it

is a pleasure to be here to discuss the Fiscal Year (FY) 2008 budget request for The

Department of Energy’s (DOE) Office of Nuclear Energy.

The Department of Energy’s strategic plan portrays a long-term vision of a zeroemission future, free from the reliance on imported energy. A portfolio of nuclear

programs is provided for in this plan for near-term, medium-term, and long-term

sustained advances in nuclear technology.

The Office of Nuclear Energy has made a great deal of progress in the last several

years in advancing our nation’s energy security and independence in support of the

Department’s strategic plan. The Department remains committed to enabling industry to deploy a new generation of nuclear power plants. We have also made steps

forward in developing advanced nuclear reactor and fuel cycle technologies while

maintaining a critical national nuclear infrastructure.

Today, 103 nuclear reactors generate roughly 20 percent of America’s electricity.

U.S. electricity demand is anticipated to grow 50 percent over the next 25 years—

the equivalent of 45 to 50 one-thousand megawatt nuclear reactors must be built

to maintain that 20 percent share. With nuclear power as the only proven base load

producer of electricity that does not emit greenhouse gases, it is vital that our current fleet of reactors be expanded in order to meet our needs for carbon-free, dependable and economic electric power.

Any serious effort to stabilize greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, while providing the increasing amounts of energy needed for economic development and

growth, requires the expanded use of nuclear energy. This will inevitably require

us to address the spent fuel and proliferation challenges that confront the expanded,

global use of nuclear energy. To meet these challenges, the Department initiated the

Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP), a comprehensive approach to enable an

expansion of nuclear power in the U.S. and around the world, promote non-proliferation goals, and help minimize the amount of nuclear waste disposal.

GNEP is a perfect example of where global cooperation is required to address a

changing global energy landscape. The United States has a unique opportunity to

influence global energy policy, and more specifically global nuclear energy policy.

However, for the U.S. to have influence abroad, we must have an established domestic policy supportive of a significant role for nuclear power in our energy future, an

aggressive nuclear research and development program, and a viable nuclear technology infrastructure. Through the GNEP program, we are pursuing in parallel the

development of the policies, technologies, and facilities necessary for the U.S. to be

a global leader in the nuclear energy enterprise and to ensure our energy security

and national security objectives.

The Department’s FY 2008 budget request proposes an $874.6 million investment

in nuclear research, development and infrastructure for the Nation’s future. This

budget request supports the President’s priorities to enhance the Nation’s energy security while enabling significant improvements in environmental quality. Our request supports development of new nuclear generation technologies and advanced

energy products that provide significant improvements in sustainability, economics,

safety and reliability, and proliferation and terrorism resistance.

While we have made great progress in all program areas, much remains to be

done. Our FY 2008 request moves us in the right direction and I will now provide

you a full report of our activities and explain the President’s request for nuclear energy in detail.

NUCLEAR POWER 2010

To support near-term domestic expansion of nuclear energy, the FY 2008 budget

requests $114 million for the Nuclear Power 2010 program to support continued

cost-shared efforts with industry to reduce the barriers to the deployment of new

nuclear power plants in the U.S. The technology focus of the Nuclear Power 2010

program is on Generation III+ advanced, light water reactor designs, which offer advancements in safety and economics over the Generation III designs certified in the

1990s by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). To reduce the regulatory uncertainties and enable the deployment of new Generation III+ nuclear power plants

in the U.S., it is essential to demonstrate the untested federal regulatory processes

for the siting, construction, and operation of new nuclear plants. In addition, design

finalization of two standard plant designs and NRC certification of these Generation

III+ advanced reactor concepts are needed to reduce the high initial capital costs

of the first new plants so that these new technologies can be competitive in the deregulated electricity market and deployable within the next decade.

37

The FY 2008 budget request continues the licensing demonstration activities

started in previous years. Activities include completion of the last Early Site Permit

demonstration projects and continuation of the New Nuclear Plant Licensing Demonstration projects that will exercise the untested licensing process to build and operate new nuclear plants and complete and obtain certification of two advanced

Generation III+ advanced reactor designs. Engineering activities in support of the

submission of two combined Construction and Operating License (COL) applications

to the NRC will continue. In addition, two reactor vendors will continue first-of-akind design activities for two standard nuclear plants.

We anticipate the NRC will soon vote on approval of the Early Site Permit for

the Exelon Generation Company’s Clinton site in central Illinois, which culminates

a four-year, cost-shared project between DOE and the Chicago-based Exelon Corporation. NRC approval of the Clinton Early Site Permit would represent a major

accomplishment in the Energy Department’s effort to address the barriers and stimulate deployment of new nuclear power plants in the United States.

The project teams, Dominion Energy and NuStart Energy Development LLC, involved in the licensing demonstration projects represent power generating companies and reactor vendors that operate more than two-thirds of all the U.S. nuclear

power plants in operation today. As a result of the Nuclear Power 2010 program

and Energy Policy Act of 2005 financial incentives (e.g., standby support), fourteen

power companies have announced their intentions to apply for combined construction and operating licenses. Several have specifically stated that they are building

on work being done in the Nuclear Power 2010 program as the basis for their applications.

The U.S. is at a critical juncture in the future of nuclear power in the United

States. Unlike many of our international research partners, our nuclear industry

has not been heavily supported financially and politically over the past thirty years.

Today the need for increased electrical generating capacity is clear and hopefully

undisputed. We have only one growth option that allows us to have a diversified

electrical generation portfolio that includes a significant carbon emissions-free component, and that is nuclear power. To realize this option, we are asking private companies to build plants whose collective cost will likely exceed their net worth. This

represents an enormous financial risk, the same risk that caused many U.S. companies to go into bankruptcy in the past.

If one accepts the fact that we need more electrical generation capacity, and if

one desires to have a component of that new capacity that is carbon free, and one

recognizes the financial considerations associated with such a large private investment in technologies that we have not supported in thirty years, then the importance of this program to our future energy security is self-evident. These companies

will be building new generating capacity in the very near future, but the question

they must first answer is whether this generation will come from clean, safe, nuclear technologies or not.

If widely deployed in the U.S., these new technologies will create significant business opportunities and will support the rapid growth of heavy equipment fabrication, high technology and commercial construction industries in this country. Moreover, these American technologies and industrial capabilities will be highly competitive internationally and would support our leadership role in the global expansion

of safe, clean nuclear power.

ADVANCED FUEL CYCLE INITIATIVE

One of the most important and challenging issues affecting future expansion of

nuclear energy in the U.S. and worldwide is dealing effectively with spent nuclear

fuel and high-level waste. For the medium-term, the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative

(AFCI) will develop fuel cycle technologies that will support the economic and sustained production of nuclear energy while minimizing waste in a proliferation-resistant manner. To support the development of these technologies, the FY 2008 Budget

request includes $395.0 million for AFCI.

AFCI’s near-term goals are to develop and demonstrate advanced, proliferationresistant fuel cycle technologies for treatment of commercial light water reactor

spent fuel, to develop an integrated spent fuel recycling plan, and to provide information and support on efforts to minimize the amount of material that needs disposal in a geologic repository. AFCI conducts research and development of spent fuel

treatment and recycling technologies to support an expanding role for nuclear power

in the U.S. and to promote world-wide expansion of nuclear energy in a proliferation-resistant manner as envisioned for the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership

(GNEP). AFCI is the U.S. technology component of the GNEP.

Specifically, in FY 2008, the Department intends to complete industry-led conceptual design studies for the nuclear fuel recycling center and the advanced recycling

38

reactor Demonstration Analysis. Additionally, DOE will continue start-to-finish

demonstrations of recycling technologies, which are expected to produce separated

transuranics for use in transmutation fuel development, as well as conduct systems

analysis and advanced computing and simulation activities focused on a variety of

deployment system alternatives and supporting technology development. As part of

GNEP Technology Development, the Department also intends to evaluate small,

proliferation-resistant reactors for potential U.S. manufacture and export to reactor

user nations.

GNEP seeks to bring about a significant, wide-scale use of nuclear energy, and

to take actions now that will allow that vision to be achieved while decreasing the

risk of nuclear weapons proliferation and effectively addressing the challenges of nuclear waste disposal. GNEP will advance the nonproliferation and national security

interests of the United States by reinforcing its nonproliferation policies and limiting the spread of enrichment and reprocessing technologies, and will eventually

eliminate excess civilian plutonium stocks that have accumulated. The AFCI budget

request supports the Department’s goal of realizing the GNEP vision. AFCI activities in FY 2007 and FY 2008 are focused on developing a detailed roadmap for implementing all aspects of the GNEP vision and informing a Secretarial decision in

June 2008 on the path forward for GNEP.

Long-term goals for AFCI/GNEP will develop and demonstrate an advanced, proliferation-resistant closed nuclear fuel cycle system involving spent fuel partitioning

and recycling of actinides and other long-lived radioactive elements for destruction

through transmutation in fast reactors that could result in a significant increase in

the effective capacity of the planned Yucca Mountain repository. This increase

would come principally from the destruction of actinides that generate the heat that

limits repository capacity that the Yucca Mountain repository would have. This capacity increase would ensure enough capacity to accommodate all the spent fuel

generated in the United States this century from any reasonably conceivable deployment scenario for nuclear energy. Yet, under any fuel cycle scenario a geologic repository is necessary. Therefore, GNEP and Yucca Mountain are proceeding on parallel tracks.

GENERATION IV NUCLEAR ENERGY SYSTEMS INITIATIVE

The FY 2008 budget request includes $36.1 million to continue development of

next-generation nuclear energy systems within the Generation IV program. For the

long-term, the Generation IV program will develop new nuclear energy systems that

can compete with advanced fossil and renewable technologies, enabling power providers to select from a diverse group of options that are economical, reliable, safe,

secure, and environmentally acceptable. In particular, the Next Generation Nuclear

Plant (NGNP) reactor concept will be capable of providing high-temperature process

heat for various industrial applications, including the production of hydrogen in support of the President’s Advanced Energy Initiative.

The NGNP, with an investment of $30 million within the Generation IV Nuclear

Energy Systems Initiative, will utilize a Generation IV Very High Temperature Reactor configured for production of high temperature process heat for the generation

of hydrogen, electricity, and other industrial commodities. The Energy Policy Act of

2005 (EPACT) authorized the Department to create a two-phased NGNP Project at

the Idaho National Laboratory (INL). The Department is presently engaged in

Phase 1 of the EPACT defined scope of work which includes: developing a licensing

strategy, selecting and validating the appropriate hydrogen production technology,

conducting enabling research and development for the reactor system, determining

whether it is appropriate to combine electricity generation and hydrogen production

in a single prototype nuclear reactor and plant, and establishing key design parameters. Phase I will continue until 2011, at which time the Department will evaluate

the need for continuing into the design and construction activities called for in

Phase II.

The FY 2008 budget request maintains critical R&D that will help achieve the

desired goals of sustainability, economics, and proliferation resistance. Further investigation of technical and economical challenges and risks is needed before a decision can be made to proceed with a demonstration of a next-generation reactor.

NUCLEAR HYDROGEN INITIATIVE

Hydrogen offers significant promise as a future energy technology, particularly for

the transportation sector. The use of hydrogen in transportation will reduce U.S. dependence on foreign sources of petroleum, enhancing our energy security. The FY

2008 budget request for the Office of Nuclear Energy includes $22.6 million to continue to develop enabling technologies, demonstrate nuclear-based hydrogen producVerDate 11-MAY-2000 08:14 Jan 17, 2008 Jkt 033610 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\E&E07\030707\33610 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
39

tion technologies, and study potential hydrogen production strategies to support the

President’s vision for a future hydrogen economy.

Currently, the only economical, large-scale method of hydrogen production involves the conversion of methane into hydrogen through a steam reforming process.

This process produces ten kilograms of greenhouse gases for every kilogram of hydrogen, defeating a primary advantage of using hydrogen—its environmental benefits. Another existing method, electrolysis, converts water into hydrogen using electricity. Electrolysis is typically used for small production quantities and is inherently less efficient because electricity must first be produced to run the equipment

used to convert the water into hydrogen. Additionally, the environmental benefits

of electrolysis are negated unless a non-emitting technology, such as nuclear or renewable energy, is used to produce the electricity. The Nuclear Hydrogen Initiative

is developing processes that operate across a range of temperatures for the various

advanced reactors being researched by the Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems

Initiative. These processes, coupled with advanced nuclear reactors, have the potential for high-efficiency, large-scale production of hydrogen.

The objective of this program is to demonstrate the technologies at increasingly

larger scales ultimately culminating in an industrial scale that would be technically

and economically suited for commercial deployment. FY 2005 and FY 2006 activities

were focused on the validation of individual processes and components; FY 2007 and

FY 2008 are focused on the design, construction and operation of integrated laboratory scale experiments. In FY 2008, the Department will complete construction of

integrated laboratory-scale system experiments and begin testing to enable the 2011

selection of the technology that could be demonstrated in a pilot scale hydrogen production experiment.

RADIOLOGICAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT

The Office of Nuclear Energy’s FY 2008 budget request also includes $53.0 million

to maintain critical research and production facilities for medical isotopes and radioisotope power systems at the Idaho National Laboratory, the Oak Ridge National

Laboratory, the Los Alamos National Laboratory, the Sandia National Laboratory,

and the Brookhaven National Laboratory. This request also includes funding for

University Research Reactors.

These funds assure that the infrastructure for the facilities meet essential safety

and environmental requirements and are maintained at operable user-ready levels.

Programmatic activities, including production and research, are funded either by

other DOE programs, by the private sector, or by other federal agency users.

The Department seeks $14.9 million to maintain one-of-a-kind facilities at the

Idaho, Oak Ridge, Brookhaven, and Los Alamos National Laboratories for isotope

production and processing. These isotopes are used to help improve the accuracy,

effectiveness, and continuation of medical diagnoses and therapy, enhance homeland

security, improve the efficiency of industrial processes, and provide precise measurement and investigative tools for materials, biomedical, environmental, archaeological, and other research. Actual operations, production, research or other activities are funded either by other DOE programs, by the private sector, or by other

federal agency users.

The Department also maintains unique facilities and capabilities at the Idaho,

Oak Ridge, and Los Alamos National Laboratories that enable the Department to

provide the radioisotope power systems for space exploration and national security

applications. The FY 2008 budget requests $35.1 million to maintain the basic facilities and associated personnel whereas mission specific development or hardware

fabrication costs are provided by the user agencies. This arrangement is essential

in order to preserve the basic capability regardless of periodic fluctuations in the

demand of the end product users.

Finally, the Department requests $2.9 million in FY 2008 to provide research reactor fuel to universities and dispose of spent fuel from university reactors. Currently, there are 27 operating university research reactors at 27 institutions in the

U.S. Many of these facilities have permanent fuel cores and therefore do not require

regular fuel shipments. However, DOE supplies approximately a dozen universities

with fresh fuel and shipments of spent fuel as needed.

IDAHO FACILITIES MANAGEMENT

The Department is working to transform Idaho National Laboratory into one of

the world’s foremost nuclear research laboratories. As such, the FY 2008 budget request seeks $104.7 million for the Idaho Facilities Management Program to maintain and enhance the laboratory’s nuclear energy research infrastructure.

The Idaho Facilities Management Program operates and maintains three main

engineering and research campuses and the Central Facilities Area at the Idaho NaVerDate 11-MAY-2000 08:14 Jan 17, 2008 Jkt 033610 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\E&E07\030707\33610 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
40

tional Laboratory. The three main engineering and research campuses are: (1) the

Reactor Technology Complex which houses the world-renown Advanced Test Reactor, (2) the Materials and Fuels Complex, and (3) the Science and Technology Campus. As the Idaho National Laboratory landlord, the Office of Nuclear Energy also

operates and maintains the Central Facilities Area at Idaho National Laboratory,

providing site-wide support services and from which various site infrastructure systems and facilities, such as electrical utility distribution, intra-laboratory communications systems, and roads are managed and maintained. Also included within the

Central Facilities Area is the Radiological and Environmental Sciences Laboratory

operated by the Office of Nuclear Energy.

IDAHO SITE-WIDE SAFEGUARDS & SECURITIES

The mission of the Idaho Site-wide Safeguards and Security program is to protect

the assets and infrastructure of the Idaho National Laboratory from theft, diversion,

sabotage, espionage, unauthorized access, compromise, and other hostile acts that

may cause unacceptable adverse impacts on national security; program continuity;

or the health and safety of employees, the public, or the environment.

The FY 2008 Budget Request includes $72.9 million to provide protection of nuclear materials, classified matter, Government property, and other vital assets from

unauthorized access, theft , diversion, sabotage, espionage, and other hostile acts

that may cause risks to national security, the health and safety of DOE and contractor employees, the public or the environment.

UNIVERSITY REACTOR INFRASTRUCTURE AND EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE

While the University Educational Assistance program has concluded, funding will

continue to be provided to the Nation’s nuclear science and engineering universities

through our applied research and development programs by means of our Nuclear

Energy Research Initiative (NERI). NERI funds are competitively awarded to support research objectives of the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative, the Generation IV

Energy Systems Initiative and the Nuclear Hydrogen Initiative. By increasing the

opportunities for university participation in our research programs, the Department

seeks to establish an improved education and research network among universities,

laboratories, industry and government. Approximately $62 million in funding for

universities is included in the research programs for FY 2008, a 21 percent increase

over the FY 2007 request.

CONCLUSION

This concludes my prepared statement. Your leadership and guidance has been

essential to the progress the program has achieved thus far and your support is

needed as we engage the task ahead of investing in our energy security.

I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.

BIOGRAPHY FOR DENNIS R. SPURGEON

Dennis Spurgeon was sworn in on April 3, 2006, as the first Assistant Secretary

for Nuclear Energy (NE) at the Department of Energy in more than a decade. In

this capacity, Mr. Spurgeon is the senior nuclear technology official in the U.S. Government.

Mr. Spurgeon is responsible for the Department’s nuclear energy enterprise, including nuclear technology research and development, management of the Department’s nuclear technology infrastructure, and support to nuclear education in the

United States. NE’s nuclear technology infrastructure is comprised of hot cells, test

reactors, accelerators and other highly specialized facilities that support nuclear research and development, materials testing, and production of isotopes for medicine

and radioisotope power systems for space and national security users. He is responsible for execution of a $536 million annual federal budget (FY 2006).

Mr. Spurgeon leads the recently-announced Global Nuclear Energy Partnership,

a comprehensive strategy aimed at accelerating the demonstration of a more proliferation resistant closed fuel cycle and bringing the benefits of nuclear energy to

the world in a safer and more secure manner, reducing the possibility that nuclear

energy could be used for non-peaceful purposes. GNEP is part of the President’s Advanced Energy Initiative.

Most recently, Assistant Secretary Spurgeon served as Executive Vice President

and Chief Operating Office for USEC, Inc. an international supplier of enriched uranium for nuclear plants. Prior to that, he served as Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and principal owner of Swiftships, an international leader in shipbuilding for

commercial and military markets.

41

Assistant Secretary Spurgeon held posts in the Ford administration, including an

assignment as Assistant Director for Fuel Cycle in the U.S. Energy Research and

Development Administration. He was a member of the White House task force that

developed President Ford’s nuclear policy. Earlier in his career, as a U.S. Naval officer, he served as technical assistant to Commissioner Tommy Thompson and later

to Dr. Glenn Seaborg, Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission and predecessor

agency of the department.

He also held executive positions at the former United Nuclear Corporation, where

as Chief Operating Officer he managed the manufacturing of reactor cores for the

Navy and operation of the Department’s former N-reactor, located at the Hanford

Reservation. He previously worked for the General Atomic Company, where he assisted in the development of nuclear reactor plants for electric power generation. He

served in the U.S. Navy, achieving the rank of Captain.

Mr. Spurgeon graduated with distinction from the U.S. Naval Academy. He holds

a Masters of Science in nuclear engineering and the degree of Nuclear Engineer

from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Chairman LAMPSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Spurgeon. Mr.

Karsner, you are recognized for five minutes.

STATEMENT OF MR. ALEXANDER KARSNER, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Mr. KARSNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Inglis, and Members of the Committee, thank you for

the opportunity to testify on the President’s fiscal year 2008 budget

request for the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. The request includes $1.24 billion for EERE, approximately $60

million more than the fiscal year 2007 request to Congress. To be

clear, my testimony today on the fiscal year 2008 budget request

is presented in comparison to the Administration’s fiscal year 2007

request, not the final amounts that were eventually appropriated

in the 2007 Continuing Resolution. The Department of Energy is

in the process of preparing an operating plan for submittal to Congress, as required. EERE received an increase in funding under the

CR, as you know, and I am grateful to Congress for its strong commitment to energy efficiency and renewable energy programs.

The budget request addresses pressing energy security, economic,

and environmental challenges facing our country today. Accelerating the development of renewable energy and energy efficiency

technologies will maximize rational utilization of our resources and

clean energy production. Much of EERE’s funding is integral to the

President’s Advanced Energy Initiative. The AEI, launched in

2006, aims to confront our addiction to oil, reducing our dependence on foreign sources of energy, and commercializing emissionfree sources of power generation. The technology investment is

meant to change the way we power our homes, offices, and vehicles.

In his 2007 State of the Union address, the President raised the

bar further by challenging our country to reduce gasoline consumption by 20 percent within the decade, and advocated the ‘‘Twenty

in Ten’’ plan. The budget request increases funding for programs

to help the Nation achieve the Twenty in Ten goal, including for

example, biomass and biofuels R&D, and expanding the availability

of alternative transportation fuels.

We must work to not only accelerate R&D for new energy technologies, but speed the adoption of the technologies into commercial

products that can become more widely available into the marketVerDate 11-MAY-2000 08:14 Jan 17, 2008 Jkt 033610 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\WORKD\E&E07\030707\33610 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
42

place at a reasonable cost to all Americans. EERE is taking aggressive steps to catalyze the rapid commercialization and deployment

of critical energy advances through innovative partnerships with

lenders and investment groups, with our state partners, and with

industrial leaders. EERE’s overall budget request reflects the funding needed to meet these goals.

The fiscal year 2008 request for Biomass and Biorefinery Sys- tems R&D is $179.3 million, an increase of approximately $30 million. Biomass is the most viable renewable option for producing liquid transportation fuels in the near-term, holding great potential

to help reduce our dependence on imported oil. EERE will continue

to support cost-share efforts with industry to develop and demonstrate technologies to enable cellulosic biorefineries. The proposed increase will also support cost-share projects with industry

for enzyme development to produce low cost sugars from biomass,

and for improved organism development, or ethanologens, for converting those sugars into ethanol.

For the Vehicle Technologies Program, the Department is re- questing $176.1 million to advance development of increasingly energy-efficient and environmentally friendly flexible platform technologies for our cars and trucks. The program focuses on technologies that use significantly less oil, and enable the auto industry

to comply with reformed and modernized CAFE standards. Battery

technologies have made significant progress towards our program

goals, having reduced the cost of next generation hybrid vehicle

batteries in each of the past three years from almost $1,200 per vehicle at the beginning of fiscal year 2004 to $750 per vehicle at the

end of fiscal year 2006. We expect to bring that down the cost curve

further in the next fiscal year to $625 per vehicle, and to increase

our emphasis on batteries specifically optimized for plug-in hybrids.

EERE seeks to have battery technology ready no later than 2014

that will enable auto manufacturers to widely and economically

produce competitive plug-in hybrid vehicles having a 40 mile all

electric range.

Hydrogen is also an important element of the Nation’s strategy

for energy security and environmental stewardship. The President’s

$309 million budget request for DOE and the Hydrogen Fuel Initiative fulfills his commitment of $1.2 billion over five years. The portion that is under my purview is $213 million, which reflects a

$17.2 million increase over the Fiscal 2007 budget request.

The proposed increase will accelerate and expand the efforts to

research and develop hydrogen storage systems and improve performance, and fuel cell materials and components to reduce their

cost and improve their durability. Over the past four years, our research has reduced the high volume costs of automotive fuel cells

from $275 per kilowatt in 2002 to $107 per kilowatt in 2006, a

major step towards the ultimate cost target of $30 per kilowatt for

commercial production.

For solar energy, the budget request is $148.3 million, a level

that is nearly twice that which was enacted in fiscal year 2006. To

lower costs more rapidly and improve performance, the Department’s photovoltaic R&D, for example, focuses on those technology

pathways that have the greatest potential to reach cost competitiveness and grid parity by or before 2015.

43

And we are emphasizing efficiency with our Building Technologies Program, which targets a long-term goal of cost-neutral

net zero energy buildings, houses that produce as much energy as

they use on an annual basis by 2020. And in the near-term, our

R&D has helped industry to produce a white Light Emitting Diode,

or LED, lamps which set a world record for LED brightness and

efficacy in the use of a power chip.

Our Wind Program focuses on reducing wind power costs and removing barriers to resource utilization to enable maximum market

penetration of wind energy technology across the U.S., so that domestic emission-free clean energy may one day contribute up to 20

percent of our national generation portfolio.

Our Industrial Technologies Program leverages its innovative

technology transfer practices and highly successful partnerships

with energy-intensive industries, as well as supporting development of next generation technologies to revolutionize U.S. industrial processes, including those for nanomanufacturing, that ultimately enhance our competitiveness, and deliver dramatic energy

and environmental benefits.

My written statement, of course, includes greater detail on these

and our other programs, but this concludes my opening remarks,

and I would be happy to answer any questions the Committee may

have.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Karsner follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ALEXANDER KARSNER

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank you for this opportunity to

testify on the President’s Fiscal Year (FY) 2008 budget request for the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE).

The President’s FY 2008 budget request includes $1.24 billion for EERE, approximately $60 million (five percent) more than the FY 2007 request to Congress. To

be clear, my testimony today on the FY 2008 budget request is presented in comparison to the Administration’s FY 2007 request—not the final amounts appropriated in the 2007 Continuing Resolution (CR). In accordance with the terms of the

2007 CR, the Department of Energy (DOE) is in the process of preparing an operating plan for submittal to Congress. EERE received an increase in funding under

the CR, and I am grateful to Congress for its strong commitment to energy efficiency and renewable energy programs.

The FY 2008 budget request addresses pressing energy and environmental challenges facing our country today by accelerating the development of both renewable

energy technologies to increase the amount of clean energy produced in the United

States and advanced energy efficient technologies, standards, and practices that use

less energy. Much of EERE’s funding is an integral part of the President’s Advanced

Energy Initiative (AEI), launched in 2006 to confront our addiction to oil, lessen dependence on foreign resources, and reduce emissions by developing clean sources of

electricity generation. Together, new technologies can help change the way we

power our homes, businesses, and automobiles.

In his 2007 State of the Union address, the President raised the bar by seeking

legislative action for our country to reduce gasoline consumption by 20 percent in

the next 10 years, the ‘‘20 in 10’’ plan. The FY 2008 budget request increases funding for programs that may help the Nation achieve the ‘‘20 in 10’’ goal, including,

for example, biomass/biofuels R&D that may help to expand the availability of alternative transportation fuels.

EERE’s applied science R&D contributes to the foundation for transforming the

Nation’s energy options and energy use. For example, one of this year’s R&D 100

awards went to the Department’s Idaho National Laboratory for its work with

Xtreme Xylanase, an enzyme produced by bacteria found in the hot, acidic waters

of Yellowstone National Park. Work on Xtreme Xylanase was funded in part by

EERE’s Biomass Program. The metabolic versatility of this enzyme (it breaks down

cellulose and hemicellulose over a broad range of temperatures and acidic pH conditions) could help make cellulosic ethanol more efficiently and economically. In the

44

field of solar energy, a new world-record 40 percent efficient concentrating photovoltaic solar cell was developed as a result of collaboration between DOE, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, and Spectrolab. For general lighting applications with solid-state lighting, Cree, Inc., with DOE R&D funding, has released the

new XLamp® 7090 power white light-emitting diode (LED), setting a world record

for LED brightness and efficacy (at 85 lumens/Watt) in a power chip.

It is essential, however, that, we work not only to accelerate R&D for new energy

technologies, but address the accelerated adoption of technologies into commercial

products that are widely available at reasonable cost to all Americans. Thus, in addition to its historical role of leading federal applied science on emerging technologies, EERE is taking aggressive steps to catalyze the rapid commercialization

and deployment of critical energy advances through innovative partnerships and collaboration with lenders and investment groups, the States, and industry leaders. We

seek to help enable and accelerate market transformation toward the use of more

efficient and cleaner technologies.

EERE’s overall budget request reflects the funding needed to meet our goals. The

following EERE programs target and support sectors of energy use and supply that

will help lead our nation to a secure energy future:

BIOMASS AND BIOREFINERY SYSTEMS R&D

The FY 2008 budget request for Biomass and Biorefinery Systems R&D is $179.3

million, an increase of $29.6 million, almost 20 percent above the FY 2007 request.

This proposed funding increase reflects the essential role of the Biofuels Initiative

in increasing America’s energy security. Biomass is the most viable renewable option for producing liquid transportation fuels in the near-term, with the potential

to help reduce our dependence on imported oil.

The focus of the program is to make cellulosic ethanol cost-competitive by 2012.

EERE will continue in FY 2008 to support its cost-share efforts with industry to develop and demonstrate technologies to enable cellulosic biorefineries for the production of transportation fuels and co-products. The FY 2008 funding increase also supports the validation of advancing biomass conversion technologies and feedstocks in

biorefineries at approximately 10 percent of commercial scale. This effort enables industry to resolve remaining technical and process integration uncertainties for the

‘‘next generation’’ of biorefinery process technologies being examined at a significant,

but less-costly scale.

Ultimately, 10 percent scale demonstrations have the potential to reduce the overall cost and risk to industry along with improving the likelihood of obtaining financing for commercial-scale facilities.

The FY 2008 funding increase will also support EERE cost-shared projects with

industry for enzyme development for producing low cost sugars from biomass and

for improved organism development or ‘‘ethanologen’’ for converting those sugars to

ethanol. These two industry cost-share projects address major barriers to meeting

the 2012 cost goal. Overall knowledge gained from Section 932 projects, 10 percent

validation scale projects, enzyme development, and ethanologen R&D, combined

with other key R&D activities, should accelerate industry’s ability to produce costcompetitive cellulosic ethanol.

To address biomass resource availability and feedstock infrastructure to reduce

the cost and improve the storage of delivered biomass in different geographical

areas of the U.S., EERE will continue to support the Regional Feedstock Partnership work with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and land grant colleges.

These partnerships will help identify the regional biomass supply, growth, and biorefinery development opportunities.

In order to capture and coordinate federal-wide activities supporting the President’s goal, the Biomass Program is developing a National Biofuels Action Plan commissioned through the Biomass Research and Development Initiative. The Biomass

Program will also establish the framework for an ethanol reverse auction in accordance with Section 942 of EPACT 2005. The auction will award incentives on a per

gallon basis of cellulosic biofuels produced.

VEHICLE TECHNOLOGIES PROGRAM

In FY 2008, the Department is requesting $176.1 million for the Vehicle Technologies Program to advance development of increasingly more energy-efficient and

environmentally friendly, flexible platform technologies for cars and trucks that will

use significantly less oil and enable the auto industry to comply with reformed

CAFE standards. This request is $10.1 million higher than the FY 2007 request,

and will advance the state-of-the-art for energy storage batteries, power electronics

and motors, and the hybrid drive systems and testing needed to accelerate manufacturing viability and delivery of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles.

45

Activities in the Vehicle Technologies Program contribute to two cooperative government/industry activities: the FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership (where CAR

stands for Cooperative Automotive Research) and the 21st Century Truck Partnership. The FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership is a collaborative effort among the

U.S. Council for Automotive Research (USCAR—representing the three domestic

automobile manufacturers), five energy suppliers, and DOE for cooperative, pre-competitive research on advanced automotive technologies having significant potential

to reduce oil consumption. The 21st Century Truck Partnership focuses on commercial vehicles. The partnership involves key members of the commercial vehicle industry, (truck equipment manufacturers and engine manufacturers) along with

three other federal agencies. The R&D centers on improving advanced combustion

engine systems and fuels and on reducing vehicle parasitic losses, meaning frictional

and aerodynamic losses, extra loads like air conditioning, and other vehicle inefficiencies that increase fuel consumption.

Vehicle Technologies Program activities that support the goals of the

FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership focus on high-efficiency and flexible platform vehicle technologies such as advanced combustion engines and their enabling fuels,

hybrid vehicle systems (including plug-in hybrids), high-power and high-energy batteries, light-weight materials, and power electronics. These technologies could lead

to substantial oil savings if adopted by industry participants and included in their

manufacturing plans.

The FreedomCAR goals include reducing the volume production cost of a highpower 25kW battery for use in hybrid passenger vehicles from $3,000 in 1998 to

$500 by 2010. In 2006 we projected through the modeling of research data that lithium ion battery cost could be reduced to $750 per 25 kW battery system when produced in mass quantities. This year’s request increases the emphasis on plug-in hybrid vehicle component technologies. Cited by the President as a key part of the

strategy for reducing America’s dependence on oil, these technologies offer the potential to make significant additional improvements in petroleum reduction beyond

that achievable with standard hybrid configurations.

Combustion engine efficiency has made good progress over the past three years

(2004–2006), with our R&D increasing the efficiency of light-duty passenger vehicle

diesel engines from 35 to 41 percent. This means that if manufacturers were to

produce these more efficient engines, a car that previously got the CAFE average

of 27 miles per gallon on gasoline could potentially get 37 miles per gallon with an

advanced, clean diesel. In FY 2008, we expect to reach 43 percent efficiency for passenger vehicle diesel engines, approaching the 2010 goal of 45 percent. These advanced combustion engines have the potential to achieve the efficiency goals for cars

and trucks while maintaining cost and durability with near-zero emissions. Battery

technologies have also made significant progress toward program goals, having reduced the cost of next-generation hybrid vehicle batteries in each of the past three

years, from almost $1,200 per vehicle at the beginning of FY 2004 to $750 at the

end of FY 2006. In FY 2008, we expect to bring that down to $625 per vehicle, and

to increase our emphasis on batteries specifically optimized for plug-in hybrid vehicles to have battery technology ready by 2014 that will enable automobile manufacturers to economically produce competitive plug-in hybrid vehicles having a 40 mile

all-electric range.

R&D programs will also continue to accelerate materials research directed at

light, strong vehicle structures to enable the production of lighter vehicles that could

result in higher efficiency fleets, and to develop thermoelectric materials for efficient

energy recovery from heat. Other activities will focus on expanding efforts to promote the adoption and use of petroleum-reducing fuels, technologies, and practices,

principally by working with industry partners, fuel providers, Clean Cities coalitions

and their stakeholders, and end-users on activities ranging from using more alternative fuel vehicles and renewable fuel blends to driving smarter, minimizing wasteful idle time, and purchasing vehicles that get better fuel economy. Accordingly, the

Vehicle Technologies Deployment budget request (including Clean Cities) will increase by over 100 percent relative to the FY 2007 request.

HYDROGEN TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM

Hydrogen is an important element of our nation’s long-term strategy for energy

security and environmental stewardship. It could enhance our energy security by

providing a transportation fuel that may be produced from a variety of domestic resources; and it should serve our environmental interests by allowing vehicles to operate using fuel cells, without generating any tailpipe emissions. The Department’s

research is focused on pathways that produce and deliver hydrogen from diverse origins including emission-free nuclear, and renewable resources.

46

The President’s $309 million FY 2008 budget request for DOE for the Hydrogen

Fuel Initiative fulfills his commitment of $1.2 billion over five years. The portion

of this under our purview in EERE is $213 million, which reflects a $17.2 million

increase over the FY 2007 budget request. The proposed increase will accelerate and

expand efforts to research and develop hydrogen-storage systems to improve performance, and fuel cell materials and components to reduce their cost, and improve

durability. It will also support accelerating cost reduction of renewable hydrogen

production technologies as well as critical delivery technologies.

Much progress has been made since the announcement of the Hydrogen Fuel Initiative in 2003. The research has reduced the high-volume cost of automotive fuel

cells from $275 per kilowatt in 2002 to $107 per kilowatt in 2006—a major step towards the ultimate cost target of $30 per kilowatt. In FY 2008, we will continue

projects on fuel cell catalysts and membranes, and cold-weather start-up and operation. In addition to reducing cost and improving performance, this work will help

us achieve our 2010 durability target of 5,000 hours, which should enable a vehicle

lifetime of 150,000 miles.

We have also achieved our 2006 hydrogen cost goal of $3 per gasoline-gallonequivalent for hydrogen produced by distributed reforming of natural gas, a potentially economical early market pathway. Our research will sharpen its focus to meet

the same objective through renewable pathways—including reforming of bio-derived

liquids and electrolysis. We are also working with the Department’s Offices of Nuclear Energy, Fossil Energy, and Science to develop nuclear-based hydrogen production, hydrogen from coal—exclusively with carbon sequestration—and longer-term

biological and photoelectrochemical hydrogen production pathways.

Our diverse hydrogen-storage portfolio is also showing promising results, with innovative materials being developed in areas such as metal hydrides, chemical hydrides, and carbon-based materials. Research conducted at our ‘‘Centers of Excellence,’’ and by independent projects, has continued to increase material storage capacity. Substantial breakthroughs are required to reach our goal of providing consumers with enough storage for a 300-mile driving range, without compromising a

vehicle’s interior space.

Developing hydrogen technologies that can be manufactured domestically will also

improve our economic competitiveness. Our manufacturing R&D effort addresses the

need for high-volume fabrication processes for fuel cells and many other components, which are all currently built one-at-a-time. This is essential to lowering the

cost of these technologies, and to developing a domestic supplier base.

In addition to these R&D activities, we are addressing other challenges significant

to realizing the benefits of hydrogen fuel cells. Our Technology Validation Program

has brought together teams of automobile manufacturers and energy companies to

operate and evaluate fuel cell vehicles and hydrogen stations under real-world conditions. To date, the program has placed 69 fuel cell vehicles on the road, served

by 10 hydrogen fueling stations.

Furthermore, we are working to ensure safe practices, and—through support of

existing codes and standards development organizations—we are laying the groundwork for developing technically sound codes and standards, which are essential to

implementing hydrogen technologies.

Finally, our education activities focus on overcoming the knowledge barriers inherent in the introduction of new technology. Last month, we released a multimedia

web-based course that introduces hydrogen to first responders. In the coming year,

we will continue to expand the availability of training and conduct outreach to raise

awareness of the technology.

The effects of the Department’s broad-based efforts in the Hydrogen Program are

being seen nationwide, and progress has been substantial. Investments are not only

occurring at the federal level, but also at state and local levels. These diverse investments increase our probability of success in overcoming existing technological barriers, which will allow industry to make fuel cell vehicles that customers will want

to buy, and encourage investment in a hydrogen refueling infrastructure that is

profitable.

SOLAR ENERGY PROGRAM

The Solar Energy Program sponsors research, development, and deployment of

solar energy technologies and systems that can help our Nation meet electricity

needs and reduce the stress on our electricity infrastructure. Through the Solar

America Initiative (SAI), the Solar Program aims to accelerate the market competitiveness of solar electricity as industry-led teams compete to deliver solar systems

that are less expensive, more efficient, and highly reliable. The Solar Program supports three technology areas: photovoltaics (PV), concentrating solar power (CSP),

47

and solar heating and lighting. The FY 2008 budget request for Solar Energy is

$148.3 million, a level that is nearly twice the enacted FY 2006 level.

To lower costs more rapidly and improve performance, the Department’s PV R&D, budgeted in FY 2008 at $137.3 million, focuses on those technology pathways that

have the greatest potential to reach cost-competitiveness and grid parity by or before 2015. Industry-led partnerships with universities, state groups and National

Laboratories, known as ‘‘Technology Pathway Partnerships,’’ will continue in FY

2008 to address the issues of cost, performance, and reliability associated with each

pathway. Work on PV modules, the heart of PV systems, will be conducted, as well

as other ‘‘balance-of-system’’ components.

To catalyze market transformation, DOE will promote the expansion of the solar

marketplace by seizing opportunities for growth and by lowering barriers to entry.

The Department will provide technical outreach to States and utilities, continue

pressing work on codes and standards issues, and solicit new applications for its

Solar America Cities activity. These market transformation activities help pave the

way for technologies developed by our industry partnerships to enter the marketplace.

We will emphasize the importance of interconnection standard procedures and net

metering regulations that are designed to accommodate solar and other clean distributed energy systems. A precondition for large-scale solar market penetration in

America is to have the proper means for homeowners and businesses to connect

solar systems to the grid, as well as to be paid for excess electricity they feed back

into the grid. We are working with our colleagues in the Department’s Office of

Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability to develop ‘‘best practice’’ recommendations for States to use as they undertake consideration of interconnection procedures

and net metering regulations and make implementation decisions pursuant to Sections 1251 and 1254 of EPACT 2005. FY 2008 funding will also be used to offer

technical outreach to States and utilities to enhance solar connectivity issues.

Work will continue on the multi-year solicitations launched in FY 2007 that promote adoption of market-ready solar technologies and a new effort will support

benchmarking, modeling, and analysis for the systems driven approach, and market,

value and policy analysis needed to support the SAI. EERE’s PV activities are increasingly coordinated and when possible convergent with solar energy activities in

the Building Technologies and the Federal Energy Management programs, and the

research activities of the DOE Office of Science.

The FY 2008 budget request for CSP—systems that utilize heat generated by concentrating and absorbing the sun’s energy to drive a heat engine/generator to

produce electric power—is $9.0 million. The development of advanced thermal energy storage technologies will be expanded, along with continued support to develop

next generation parabolic trough concentrators, solar engines, and receivers. For

distributed applications, research will focus on improving the reliability of dish systems through the operation and testing of multiple units. Technical assistance will

be provided to industry in its development of a 1.0 MW dish system in California

that is expected to be the precursor of several much larger plants. Technical support

will also be provided to the Western Governors’ Association and several southwestern utilities to assist their CSP deployment activities.

The Solar Heating and Lighting program, a $2.0 million request, will focus on

R&D to reduce the cost of solar heating in freezing climates. The program will also

support collaboration with EERE’s Building Technologies programs to integrate photovoltaic systems, solar water heating, and solar space heating into home design and

structure. Such deployment efforts will help to seize market expansion opportunities.

BUILDING TECHNOLOGIES PROGRAM

Energy use by residential and commercial buildings accounts for over one-third

of the Nation’s total energy consumption, including two-thirds of the electricity generated in the United States. Addressing that significant sector of energy consumption, the $86.5 million requested this year for the Building Technologies Program

represents a $9.1 million increase of 12 percent over the FY 2007 request. The funding supports a portfolio of activities that includes solid state lighting, improved energy efficiency of other building components and equipment and their effective integration using whole-building-system design technique, the development of codes and

standards for buildings and appliances, and education and market introduction programs, including ENERGY STAR and EnergySmart Schools.

Funding for Residential Buildings Integration aims to enable residential buildings

to use up to 70 percent less energy, and to integrate renewable energy systems into

highly efficient buildings to achieve the long-term goal in 2020 of net Zero Energy

Buildings—houses that produce as much energy as they use on an annual basis.

48

During FY 2008, research for production-ready new residential buildings that are

40 percent more efficient will continue for four climate zones.

The $19.3 million request for solid state lighting will advance development of the

organic and inorganic LEDs that has the potential to double the efficiency of fluorescent lighting technology. The FY 2008 requested funding will be used to develop

general illumination technologies with the goal of achieving energy efficiencies of up

to 93 lumens per Watt with improved visual comfort and quality of light and focus

on applied research that enables the industrial base to manufacture LEDs.

The FY 2008 request reflects the Department’s commitment to clear the backlog

of equipment standards and test procedures that had accumulated in the prior 12

years and meet the statutory schedule for rule-makings for new products covered

by EPACT 2005. The Department will continue to implement productivity enhancements that will allow multiple rule-making activities to proceed simultaneously,

while maintaining the rigorous technical and economic analysis required by statute.

Funds for the Building Technologies Program will also support development of

highly insulating and dynamic window technologies and integrated attic-roof systems needed to achieve long-term zero energy building goals. Efforts to accelerate

the adoption of efficient building technologies by consumers and businesses include

expanded ENERGY STAR specifications and labels for more products, promotion of

advanced building efficiency codes, and public-private partnerships to advance efficient schools, hospitals, commercial lighting, and home building.

FEDERAL ENERGY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

The Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP) assists federal agencies, including DOE, in increasing their use of energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies through alternative financing contract support and technical assistance,

and coordinates federal reporting and evaluation of agency progress each year. As

the single largest energy consumer in the U.S., the Federal Government must set

an example and lead the Nation toward becoming a cleaner, more efficient consumer

by using existing energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies and techniques. On January 24, 2007, President Bush signed a new Executive Order to

strengthen the environmental, energy, and transportation management of federal

agencies which includes a requirement for agencies to reduce their energy intensity

by three percent each year until 2015, compared with a 2003 baseline.

The FY 2008 request for FEMP is $16.8 million, a slight decrease of $0.1 million

from the FY 2007 request. We are requesting $7.9 million for FEMP alternative financing programs that help agencies access private sector financing to fund energy

improvements without the use of current appropriations. We expect to achieve not

less than $160 million in private sector investment through Super ESPCs, Energy

Savings Performance Contracts, and Utility Energy Service Contracts (UESCs),

which will result in about 15 trillion Btus in energy saved over the life cycle of the

projects. Furthermore, we are requesting $6.5 million for Technical Guidance and

Assistance to help federal energy managers identify, design, and implement new

construction and facility improvement projects that incorporate energy efficiency

and renewable energy. FEMP will assist federal agencies in meeting the increased

energy efficiency goals, established by the new Executive Order, by orienting its

Technical Guidance and Assistance, Training, and Outreach activities towards attracting private-sector financing for investment into energy efficiency at federal facilities. In addition to the focus on facility energy consumption, FEMP also tracks

alternative fuel use in federal vehicle fleets.

In FY 2008, the Departmental Energy Management Program (DEMP) is being discontinued. FEMP will still provide policy guidance and technical assistance to the

Department, but DOE has determined that the management of energy efficiency

and renewable investments at its facilities can be more effectively conducted by

those facilities. While not reported separately, DOE national labs and other facilities

spend significant funding (direct and indirect) on energy efficiency improvements,

while also using ESPCs and UESCs where appropriate.

WIND ENERGY PROGRAM

The Wind Program focuses on reducing wind power costs and removing barriers

to resource utilization of wind energy technology in the United States. The program’s FY 2008 request is $40.1 million.

As a result of thirty years of R&D, wind turbines can now provide cost-effective,

reliable clean energy in high wind speed areas. While we will continue to do R&D

to improve wind energy technologies in low wind speed areas, we are also focusing

on near-term actions to remove existing barriers to increasing the use of wind energy, building on the current robust market for wind energy in the U.S. These efforts could help to set the path for the wind industry to accelerate its penetration

49

of delivered emission-free energy, significantly expanding beyond the roughly one

percent of installed electrical generating capacity today.

The program is expanding application and deployment-related activities. The

$12.9 million requested for Systems Integration and Technology Acceptance will

help wind technologies entering the market to overcome key obstacles such as grid

integration, siting, permitting, and environmental barriers. In addition, there will

be increased support to address issues of pre-competitive turbine reliability and performance via efforts of National Laboratories and Cooperative Research and Development Agreements or ‘‘CRADAs’’ with industry. The Wind Program will also establish a federal interagency siting group to minimize regulatory delays on wind

projects.

The Wind Program is funding a broader effort on distributed wind technologies

and applications to advance the full scope of diverse opportunities for wind energy

on the distribution side of the electric power system.

A U.S. wind industry-wide roadmapping analysis, being supported by the DOE

wind program, is underway to determine the technical feasibility for wind energy

to generate 20 percent of our nation’s electricity. To achieve this vision it would require grid modernization, expansion, and integration, and removal of other deployment barriers. Success would enable delivery of more than 300 gigawatts of new,

clean, affordable, and domestic production capacity to our urban load centers and

be a substantial contributor to economic growth, manufacturing, and rural prosperity. EERE will work with DOE’s Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability on several studies aimed at expanding electricity transmission between remote wind resources and urban areas.

WEATHERIZATION AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL PROGRAM

In FY 2008, we are requesting $204.9 million for Weatherization and Intergovernmental Activities, a $20.1 million decrease from the FY 2007 request. The reduction

is primarily related to the decrease in the amounts requested for the Weatherization

Assistance Program, which will enable greater investments in advanced R&D within

the EERE portfolio to address national priorities: reducing dependence on foreign

oil, accelerating the development of clean, emission-free electricity supply options,

and developing highly efficient new technologies, products, and practices for our

homes and buildings.

The requested $144 million for the Weatherization Assistance Program will fund

energy efficiency audits and upgrades for at least 54,599 low-income homes. DOE

works directly with States and certain Native American Tribes that contract with

local governmental or non-profit agencies to deliver weatherization services to

homes in need of energy assistance.

The $45.5 million requested for the State Energy Program provides financial and

technical assistance to State governments, enabling them to target their high priority energy needs and expand clean energy choices for their citizens and businesses. This request includes $10.5 million for a competitive solicitation that will

seek regional and state partnerships to replicate smart energy policies and programs among States. The regional context is outlined in EPACT and aligns with our

electricity transmission infrastructure.

Clean electricity generation is targeted by the Renewable Energy Production Initiative, which provides financial incentive payment to public and Tribal utilities and

not-for-profit electric cooperatives for renewable generation systems that use solar,

wind, geothermal, or biomass technologies. The Tribal Energy Program aims to facilitate the installation of 100 MW of renewable energy generation by Native American tribes by 2010.

The Asia Pacific Partnership (APP) for Clean Development and Climate requests

funding at the $7.5 million level. This international partnership is an important and

innovative accord to accelerate the development and deployment of clean energy

technologies among the six member countries: Australia, China, India, Japan, South

Korea, and the United States. Representing about half of the world’s economy, population, energy use, and emissions, the six countries have agreed to work together

and with private sector partners to set and meet goals for energy security, national

air pollution reduction, and global warming, employing policies and practices that

promote sustainable economic growth and poverty reduction, while addressing the

serious challenge of climate change.

INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGIES PROGRAM

Industry consumes more energy than the residential, commercial, and transportation end-use sectors, and it is also the Nation’s second largest emitter of CO2. Advancements in industrial energy-efficient technology could improve U.S. competitiveness, and contribute to our national effort to reduce oil imports, alleviate natural

50

gas price pressure, and preempt the need for new power plants and consequent

emissions.

The FY 2008 budget request for Industrial Technologies is $46.0 million, a $0.4

million increase over the FY 2007 request. The program will leverage its innovative

technology transfer practices and partnerships with energy-intensive industries,

while shifting toward more crosscutting and higher-impact R&D activities that will

bring innovative energy solutions to a much broader group of industrial companies,

at a more accelerated pace.

The Industrial Technologies Program (ITP) has a track record for moving innovative technologies from R&D through commercialization and onto the floors of industrial plants. In 2006 alone, eight technologies funded by ITP received prestigious

R&D 100 awards. New technologies emerging from ITP’s R&D program are being

adopted to help solve some of industry’s toughest energy and competitiveness challenges. In many cases, this is occurring through the industrial energy assessments

that ITP is conducting at 250 of the Nation’s largest energy-consuming manufacturing plants as part of Secretary Bodman’s ‘‘Easy Ways to Save Energy’’ initiative.

We estimate that ITP-sponsored technologies and deployment activities have contributed to industrial energy savings of over $3.1 billion in one year (2004).

The $7.2 million requested for the new activity, Energy-Intensive Process R&D,

will support R&D in four crosscutting areas to better deliver technology solutions

for the industrial processes that consume the most energy. These four areas are Energy Conversion Systems, Industrial Reaction and Separation, High-Temperature

Processing, and Fabrication and Infrastructure. One example of a technology that

cuts across the industrial sector to deliver savings is ITP’s ultra-high efficiency,

ultra-low emissions, industrial steam generation ‘‘Super Boiler.’’ Since steam is used

in every major sector, the potential benefits are tremendous. The Super Boiler is

10 to 20 percent more efficient than current technology and can reduce NOΧ emissions to below five parts per million, which represents an approximately 90 percent

reduction in emissions from a conventional boiler.

The $4.9 million request for the new Inter-Agency Manufacturing R&D activity

working with the National Science and Technology Council will support the development or adaptation of next-generation technologies that can revolutionize U.S. industrial processes and deliver dramatic energy and environmental benefits. These

next-generation technologies, such as entirely new processing routes and supply

chains, can have broad application across industry, yet they typically require the

type of high-risk, high-return R&D that one industry cannot usually undertake. Our

initial research focus will include development of techniques and processes needed

for nanomanufacturing. We aim to help transform industrial processes by enabling

the mass production and application of nano-scale materials, structures, devices,

and systems that provide unprecedented energy, cost, and productivity benefits in

manufacturing.

Deployment efforts such as ‘‘Best Practices’’ activities and Industrial Assessment

Centers will continue to deliver the results of energy-efficiency R&D and energy-saving practices to industrial plants nationwide. A vehicle for educational outreach, the

university-based Industrial Assessment Centers train engineers and scientists in

the energy field, providing opportunities for students to conduct energy assessments

at no cost to small and medium-sized manufacturing plants in the U.S.

FACILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE

The FY 2008 budget request of $7.0 million for Facilities and Infrastructure, an

increase of $1.0 million from the FY 2007 request, supports the operations and

maintenance of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) in Golden, CO.

NREL is a single-purpose National Laboratory dedicated to R&D for energy efficiency, renewable energy, and related technologies that provides EERE, as well as

DOE’s Office of Science and the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability,

with R&D, expert advice, and programmatic counsel.

PROGRAM DIRECTION AND PROGRAM SUPPORT

The Program Direction budget supports the management and technical direction

and oversight needed to implement EERE programs at both headquarters and the

Project Management Center. Areas funded by this request include: federal salaries,

information systems and technology equipment, office space, travel, and support

service contractors. The FY 2008 budget request for Program Direction totals $105.0

million, a $14.0 million increase over the FY 2007 request. This increase reflects

EERE’s updated staffing needs, which more closely align critical skills to mission

requirements and adds staff to support technical program staffing shortfalls and implementation of the AEI and EPACT 2005 priorities.

51

The Program Support budget request provides resources for crosscutting performance evaluation, analysis, and planning for EERE programs and for technical advancement and outreach activities. The information developed by the Program Support components provides decision-makers at every level the information they need

to make choices related to energy alternatives that can help the Department achieve

its goals. The FY 2008 budget request for Program Support activities totals $13.3

million, representing a $2.4 million increase from the FY 2007 budget request. The

increase reflects the expansion of EERE’s market transformation and commercialization analysis and expanded efforts in the Technology Advancement and Outreach Office.

CONCLUSION

Accelerating research, development, and deployment of America’s abundant clean

sources of energy and making more efficient use of all energy consumed is central

to EERE’s mission, and to a secure and competitive economic future that enhances

our environmental well-being for our nation and our world. We believe the Administration’s FY 2008 budget request for energy efficiency and renewable energy programs strategically positions the stepping stones that will continuously catalyze and

accelerate new energy sources, technologies, and practices into the marketplace, and

hasten the transformation of how our homes, businesses, and vehicles use energy.

This concludes my prepared statement, and I am happy to answer any questions

the Committee Members may have.

BIOGRAPHY FOR ALEXANDER KARSNER

Alexander ‘‘Andy’’ Karsner was unanimously confirmed by the Senate as Assistant

Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) on March 16, 2006

and sworn-in by Secretary of Energy Samuel W. Bodman on March 23, 2006.

Assistant Secretary Karsner manages the Department of Energy’s (DOE) $1.17

billion EERE office, which promotes the development and marketplace integration

of renewable and environmentally sound energy technologies, as well as the preservation and efficient use of our nation’s valuable resources. Assistant Secretary

Karsner also helps lead DOE’s efforts to carry out the Advanced Energy Initiative

(AEI), announced by President Bush in his 2006 State of the Union address, which

aims to accelerate breakthroughs in the way we power our cars, homes, and businesses.

Previously, Assistant Secretary Karsner served in the private sector on a wide

range of technologies including heavy fuel oil, distillates, natural gas, coal, wood

waste/biomass, wind energy and distributed generation based upon renewable technologies. He has been responsible for and taken part in large-scale power projects

in North America, Asia, the Middle East, North Africa, including unprecedented

projects structuring in the Philippines and Pakistan.

In 2002, Assistant Secretary Karsner led his company, Enercorp, to win a global

competition to develop the world’s largest private wind farm outside the United

States at that time. He has worked with Tondu Energy Systems of Texas, Wartsila

Power Development of Finland, and prominent multinational energy firms and developers including ABB of Sweden, RES of the UK, Tacke of Germany (now known

as GE Wind), and Vestas of Denmark.

Assistant Secretary Karsner also worked on behalf of the International Protocol

for Hydrogen Economy, participating in meetings and ministerials to advance the

President’s agenda for a new energy economy. He was played an integral role in arranging DOE’s U.S.-Morocco bilateral protocols for clean energy policy. Mr. Karsner

is currently co-leading the Department’s support for the Asia Pacific Pact to address

global emissions with market based mechanisms.

Assistant Secretary Karsner graduated with honors from Rice University, and received an MA from Hong Kong University. Mr. Karsner resides with his wife and

family in Alexandria, Virginia.

Chairman LAMPSON. Thank you, Mr. Karsner. Mr. Kolevar.

STATEMENT OF MR. KEVIN M. KOLEVAR, DIRECTOR, OFFICE

OF ELECTRICITY DELIVERY AND ENERGY RELIABILITY, U.S.

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Mr. KOLEVAR. Thank you Chairman Lampson and Members of

the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity today to testify on

52

the President’s fiscal year 2008 budget request for the Office of

Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability.

The mission of the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability (OE) is to lead national efforts to modernize the electricity

delivery system, enhance the security and reliability of America’s

energy infrastructure, and facilitate recovery from disruptions to

energy supply. These functions are vital to the Department of Energy’s strategic goal of protecting our national and economic security by promoting a diverse supply and delivery of reliable, affordable, and environmentally responsible energy. The President’s budget includes $114.9 million for OE in fiscal

year 2008, which represents an eight percent decrease from the fiscal year 2007 request. This includes $86 million for Research and

Development activities, $11.6 million for Operations and Analysis

activities, and $17.4 million for program direction.

I will primarily address the activities of OE’s Research and De- velopment program today. Our request of $86 million for fiscal year

2008 will fund the following four main activities: high temperature

superconductivity, visualization and controls; energy storage and

power electronics; and renewable and distributed systems integration. The development of these advanced electricity technologies

will influence the future of all aspects of the electric transmission

and distribution system.

The first activity I would like to highlight is one to which the

DOE has made a long-term commitment. This is the science and

development of high temperature superconductivity. Superconducting cables transmit electricity through conductors at temperatures approaching absolute zero, thus preventing resistance to

electrical voltage, which allows large amounts of electricity to be

transmitted over long distances with little line loss. Superconductivity, therefore, holds the promise of alleviating capacity concerns

while moving power reliably and efficiently.

Another critical piece of a resilient and reliable modern grid is

enhancing the security of our control systems. Our visualization

and control activity focuses on improving our ability to measure

and address the vulnerability of control systems. The research in

this area will allow us to detect cyberintrusion, implement protective measures and response strategies, and sustain cybersecurity

improvements over time.

Our energy storage and power electronics activity is a mid-term

research endeavor to significantly reduce transmission system congestion, manage peak loads, make renewable electricity sources

more dispatchable, and increase the reliability of the overall electric grid. This may be achieved through large-scale megawatt level

electricity storage systems, or multiple, smaller, distributed storage

systems. Using our understanding from previous energy storage

demonstration activities, we are researching and developing new,

advanced, higher energy density materials and storage devices for

utility scale application. The program also focuses on research in

power electronics to improve material and device properties that

are needed for transmission level applications.

Finally, in fiscal year 2007, the renewable and distributed systems integration activity completed the transition away from generation technology activities, and will now focus on grid integration

53

of distributed and renewable systems in fiscal year 2008. This is

a logical step in advancing clean energy resources to address future

energy challenges.

Mr. Chairman, as you know, OE also carries out mission-critical

work within the Operations and Analysis Subprogram. These relate

principally to the implementation of EPAct requirements in energy

sector facility security and recovery.

In his 2007 State of the Union Address, President Bush emphasized the importance of continuing to change the way America generates electric power, and highlighted the significant progress we

have already made in integrating clean coal technology, solar and

wind energy, and clean, safe, nuclear energy into the electric transmission system.

Technologies such as power electronics, high temperature superconductivity, and energy storage hold not only the promise of lower

costs and greater efficiency, but also directly enhance the viability

of clean energy resources by addressing issues such as

intermittency, controllability, and environmental impact.

We cannot simply rely on innovative policies and infrastructure

investment. We must also invest federal dollars in the research, development, and deployment of new technologies in order to improve

grid performance and ensure our energy security, economic competitiveness, and environmental well-being.

This concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to

taking questions.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Kolevar follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF KEVIN M. KOLEVAR

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank you for this opportunity to

testify on the President’s Fiscal Year (FY) 2008 budget request for the Office of

Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability.

The mission of the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability (OE) is to

lead national efforts to modernize the electricity delivery system, enhance the security and reliability of America’s energy infrastructure, and facilitate recovery from

disruptions to energy supply. These functions are vital to the Department of Energy’s (DOE) strategic goal of protecting our national and economic security by promoting a diverse supply and delivery of reliable, affordable, and environmentally responsible energy. The President’s FY 2008 budget includes $114.9 million for OE in FY 2008, which is an eight percent decrease from the FY 2007 request. This includes $86.0 million

for Research and Development activities, $11.6 million for Operations and Analysis

activities, and $17.4 million for Program Direction. As DOE is currently preparing

a spending plan in accordance with the terms of the 2007 Continuing Resolution,

my testimony on the FY 2008 budget request reflects a comparison to the Administration’s FY 2007 request.

When Thomas Edison opened the Pearl Street Station in lower Manhattan on

September 4, 1884, he could hardly have foreseen of the role electricity would play

in the development of American society. Although the demand for electric lighting

and power initially drove the station’s construction, electricity ultimately stimulated

and enabled technological innovations that reshaped America. Today, the availability and access to electricity is something that most Americans take for granted.

Most people cannot describe what it is or where it comes from. Yet, it is vital to

nearly every aspect of our lives from powering our electronics and heating our

homes to supporting transportation, finance, food and water systems, and national

security.

The Energy Information Administration has estimated that by the year 2030, U.S.

electricity sales are expected to increase by 43 percent from their 2005 level. Although this is a positive indicator of a growing economy, it is also a significant

amount of new demand on an electricity infrastructure that is already stressed and

aging. With this in mind, OE’s FY 2008 budget request reflects a commitment to

implement the directives of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT), support reVerDate 11-MAY-2000 08:14 Jan 17, 2008 Jkt 033610 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\E&E07\030707\33610 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
54

search of breakthrough technologies, and coordinate federal response to temporary

disruptions in energy supply to ensure a reliable and secure electricity infrastructure for every American in the coming decades.

Meeting our future electricity needs will not be solved by focusing only on expanding our generation portfolio or on energy conservation. Perhaps the greatest challenge today, as it was in Edison’s time, is building the elaborate network of wires

and other facilities needed to deliver energy to consumers reliably and safely.

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

The FY 2008 budget request of $86.0 million for the Research and Development

(R&D) program within OE funds four activities: High Temperature Superconductivity; Visualization and Controls; Energy Storage and Power Electronics; and Renewable and Distributed Systems Integration.

Over the past eighteen years, DOE has invested more than $500 million in the

science and development of high temperature superconductivity. Superconductivity

holds the promise of addressing capacity concerns by maximizing use of available

‘‘footprint’’ and limited space, while moving power efficiently and reliably. It also

supports advanced substation and interconnection designs that allow larger

amounts of power to be routed between substations, feeders, and networks using

less space and improving the security and reliability of the electric system.

Today, the High Temperature Superconductivity activity continues to support second generation wire development as well as research on dielectrics, cryogenics, and

cable systems. This activity is being refocused to address a near-term critical need

within the electric system to not only increase current carrying capacity, but also

to relieve overburdened cables elsewhere in the local grid. The superconductivity industry in the United States is now at the critical stage of moving from small business development to becoming a part of our manufacturing base.

Enhanced security for control systems is critical to the development of a reliable

and resilient modern grid. The Visualization and Controls Research & Development

activity focuses on improving our ability to measure and address the vulnerabilities

of controls systems, detect cyber intrusion, implement protective measures and response strategies, and sustain cyber security improvements over time. The FY 2008

request reflects an increase of $7.75 million related to support this effort.

This activity is also developing the next generation system control and data acquisition (SCADA) system that features GPS-synchronized grid monitoring, secure data

communications, custom visualization and operator cueing, and advanced control algorithms. Advanced visualization and control systems will allow operators to detect

disturbances and take corrective action before problems cascade into widespread

outages. The need to improve electric power control systems security is well-recognized by both the private and public sectors.

The Energy Storage and Power Electronics activity proposes an increase of $3.80

million in FY 2008 to: 1) leverage understanding gained from previous Energy Storage demonstration activities to research and develop new advanced higher energy

density materials and storage devices for utility scale application; and 2) focus on

enhanced research in Power Electronics to improve material and device properties

needed for transmission-level applications.

Large scale, megawatt-level electricity storage systems, or multiple, smaller distributed storage systems, could significantly reduce transmission system congestion,

manage peak loads, make renewable electricity sources more dispatchable, and increase the reliability of the overall electric grid.

The Renewable and Distributed Systems Integration Research & Development activity completed the transition away from generation technology activities in FY

2007 and will focus on grid integration of distributed and renewable systems in FY

2008, which is a logical step in advancing clean energy resources to address future

challenges.

PERMITTING, SITING, AND ANALYSIS

In FY 2008, the Department is requesting $5.7 million for the Permitting, Siting,

and Analysis (PSA) Office within the Operations and Analysis subprogram, which

implements mandatory requirements set by EPACT to modernize the electric grid

and enhance reliability of the energy infrastructure by contributing to the development and implementation of electricity policy at the federal and State level. The

Permitting Siting and Analysis Office is also tasked with analyzing transmission

congestion, proposing energy corridors for the Secretary’s consideration, and coordinating federal agency review of applications to site transmission facilities on federal

lands.

The Department published its National Electric Transmission Congestion Study

on August 8, 2006, in compliance with Section 1221(a) of EPACT, which requires

55

DOE to prepare a study of electric transmission congestion every three years. The

study named more than fifteen areas of the Nation with existing or potential transmission congestion problems. The study identifies Southern California and the East

Coast from New York City to Washington, D.C., as ‘‘Critical Congestion Areas,’’ because transmission congestion in these densely populated and economically vital

areas is especially significant.

During the development of the study, which relied on extensive consultation with

States and other stakeholders, the Department provided numerous opportunities for

discussion and comment by States, regional planning organizations, industry, and

the general public. OE intends to supplement the tri-annual Congestion Studies

study by publishing annual progress reports on transmission improvements in the

congested areas.

Section 1221(a) also requires the Secretary to issue a report based on the August

8 Congestion Study. In this report, if consumers in any geographic area are being

adversely affected by electric energy transmission capacity constraints or congestion,

the Secretary may, at his discretion, designate such an area as a National Interest

Electric Transmission Corridor (National Corridor).

Because of the broad public interest in the implementation of Section 1221(a), the

Department invited and received over 400 public comments on the designation of

National Corridors. The Department continues to evaluate these comments, and has

not yet determined whether, and if so, where, it would be appropriate to propose

designation of National Corridors. Prior to issuing a report that designates any National Corridor, the Department will first issue a draft designation to allow affected

States, regional entities, and the general public additional opportunities for review

and comment.

Another major effort involves the implementation of Section 368 of EPACT, which

requires the designation of energy right-of-way corridors on federal lands in the

eleven contiguous Western States. An interagency team, with DOE as the lead agency, conducted public scoping meetings concerning the designation of corridors in

each of the eleven contiguous Western States. The agencies plan to publish a draft

Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for the designation of the energy

corridors in late spring of 2007 and will solicit public comments.

In August 2006, DOE and eight other federal agencies signed a Memorandum of

Understanding (MOU) that clarifies the respective roles and responsibilities of federal agencies, State and tribal governments, and transmission project applicants

with respect to making decisions on transmission siting authorizations. DOE is preparing to implement its responsibilities under the new section 216(h) of the Federal

Power Act to coordinate with these eight other federal agencies to prepare initial

calendars, with milestones and deadlines for the federal authorizations and related

reviews required for the siting of transmission facilities. DOE will maintain a public

website that will contain a complete record of federal authorizations and related environmental reviews and will work closely with the lead Federal NEPA agency to

encourage complete and expedited federal reviews. DOE is currently considering the

procedures it will use in carrying out this program.

INFRASTRUCTURE SECURITY AND ENERGY RESTORATION

The President has designated the Department of Energy as the Lead Sector Specific Agency responsible for facilitating the protection of the Nation’s critical energy

infrastructure. The Infrastructure Security and Energy Restoration (ISER) activity

of the Operations and Analysis subprogram is responsible for coordinating and carrying out the Department’s obligations to support the Department of Homeland Security in this important national initiative. The FY 2008 request is for $5.9 million

in funding for Infrastructure Security and Energy Restoration within the Operations

and Analysis subprogram.

The Infrastructure Security and Energy Restoration activity fulfills DOE’s responsibilities as defined in Homeland Security Presidential Directives 7 and 8 for critical

infrastructure identification, prioritization, and protection and for national preparedness. In times of declared emergencies, this Office also coordinates federal efforts under the National Response Plan to assist State and local governments and

the private sector in the restoration of electrical power and other energy-related activities.

In the event of a large-scale electrical power outage caused by natural disasters

such as hurricanes, ice storms, or earthquakes, DOE personnel will deploy to the

affected region to assist in recovery efforts. During the 2005 hurricane season, DOE

was specifically deployed to respond to five hurricanes: Dennis, Katrina, Ophelia,

Rita and Wilma. In such instances, DOE coordinates all federal efforts to assist local

authorities and utilities in dealing with both measures to restore power and to resolve other issues related to fuel supply.

56

The Infrastructure Security and Energy Restoration Office also fosters greater

awareness of the regional scope of energy inter-dependencies by working with States

to develop energy assurance plans that address the potential cascading effects of energy supply problems. Exercises are conducted with States and federal partners to

help sharpen this focus. Finally, staff work with States and DHS in emergency situations to help resolve issues brought on by temporary energy supply disruptions,

such as the winter 2007 propane shortage in Maine.

CONCLUSION

In his 2007 State of the Union address, President Bush emphasized the importance of continuing to change the way America generates electric power and highlighted significant progress in integrating clean coal technology, solar and wind energy, and clean, safe nuclear energy into the electric transmission system.

Technologies such as power electronics, high temperature superconductivity, and

energy storage hold the promise of lower costs and greater efficiency, and also directly enhance the viability of clean energy resources by addressing issues such as

intermittency, controllability, and environmental impact.

Federal investment in the research, development, and deployment of new technology combined with innovative policies and infrastructure investment, is essential

to improving grid performance and ensuring our energy security, economic competitiveness, and environmental well-being.

This concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to answering any

questions you and your colleagues may have.

BIOGRAPHY FOR KEVIN M. KOLEVAR

In February 2005, Kevin Kolevar was named Director of the Office of Electricity

Delivery and Energy Reliability at the United States Department of Energy. As Director, Mr. Kolevar leads the development and implementation of national policy

pertaining to electric grid reliability; management of research, development, and

demonstration activities for ‘‘next generation’’ electric grid infrastructure technologies; and leads federal efforts to help ensure and secure the reliable flow of energy.

Mr. Kolevar is the Department lead for implementation of the Electricity Title of

the Energy Policy Act of 2005. His responsibilities have included analysis of electricity congestion, the possible designation of National Interest Electric Transmission Corridors, the coordination of energy corridors across federal lands, and

workforce issues related to the electricity utility industry.

On behalf of the Secretary of Energy, Mr. Kolevar coordinated energy response

efforts with the energy industry and other federal agencies after Hurricanes

Katrina, Rita and Wilma ravaged the Gulf Coast. His office also collected, analyzed,

and disseminated vital information to all involved in the response and restoration

efforts and served an essential coordinating role for the energy sector.

Before assuming his current position, Kolevar served as Chief of Staff to Deputy

Secretary of Energy Kyle McSlarrow from January, 2003 to January, 2005. In this

position, he supported and advised the Secretary and Deputy Secretary on policy,

regulatory, and legislative matters as well as Departmental program management.

In addition to serving as chief of staff to the Deputy Secretary, Kolevar worked as

a senior policy advisor to the Secretary of Energy on security and technology issues.

His accomplishments while serving at the Department of Energy included

chairing the Department of Energy National Security Working Group and serving

as an advisor to the U.S.-Canada Task Force investigating the 2003 blackout. Before

joining the Department of Energy, Kolevar spent over ten years serving as U.S. Senate staff in the offices of Senators Spencer Abraham (R–Mich.) and Connie Mack

(R–Fla.). He is a graduate of the University of Michigan.

Chairman LAMPSON. Thank you, Mr. Kolevar. Mr. Shope, five

minutes.

STATEMENT OF MR. THOMAS D. SHOPE, PRINCIPAL DEPUTY

ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR FOSSIL ENERGY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Mr. SHOPE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, Members

of the Committee, it is my honor to appear before you today to

present the Office of Fossil Energy’s proposed budget for fiscal year

2008.

57

Fossil Energy’s $863 million budget request for fiscal year 2008

will allow the Office to support the President’s top initiatives for

energy security, clean air, climate change, and coal research, as

well as DOE’s strategic goal of protecting our national and economic security by promoting a diverse supply and delivery of reliable, affordable, and environmentally sound energy.

Let me begin the presentation of our budget with coal, our most

abundant and lowest cost domestic fossil fuel. Coal today accounts

for nearly one quarter of all of the energy and more than half of

the electricity produced in the United States. Because coal is so important to our energy future, our proposed budget of $448 million

for the President’s Coal Research Initiative, related fuel cell R&D,

and program direction accounts—it accounts for more than half of

our total budget.

Our overarching goal is to conduct research and development

that will improve the competitiveness of domestic coal in future energy markets, allowing the Nation to tap the full potential of its

abundant fossil energy resources in an environmentally sound and

affordable manner.

This year’s request completes, three years ahead of schedule, the

President’s commitment to invest $2 billion on clean coal research

over ten years. Our Coal Research Initiative is broken down into

the following components. We are requesting $73 million for the

Clean Coal Power Initiative, a cooperative, cost-shared program between the government and industry to demonstrate emergent technologies in coal-based power generation, so as to help accelerate

commercialization. Work on promising technologies selected in two

prior solicitations will continue in fiscal year 2008, and we plan to

announce a third solicitation during the year.

The first of a kind, high priority FutureGen project will establish

the capability and feasibility of co-producing electricity and hydrogen from coal with near-zero atmospheric emissions, including carbon dioxide. FutureGen’s proposed budget of $108 million for fiscal

year 2008 will be used to support detailed plant design and procurement and other preliminary work.

Technology development supporting FutureGen is embodied in

our Fuels and Power Systems program. The program’s proposed

budget for fiscal year 2008, of $245.6 million, will fund research

and development for carbon capture and sequestration, membrane

technologies for oxygen and hydrogen separation, advanced combustion turbines, fuel cells, coal-to-hydrogen conversion, and gasifier-related technologies.

The high priority Carbon Sequestration Program, with a proposed budget for fiscal year 2008 of $79 million, is developing a

portfolio of technologies with great potential to reduce greenhouse

gas emissions. The goal is to achieve substantial market penetration after 2012. In the long-term, the program is expected to contribute significantly to the President’s goal of developing technologies to substantially reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

In addition, the network of seven regional carbon sequestration

partnerships and the International Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum, established by DOE in 2003, will continue their important work, including vital, diverse, geologic CO2 storage tests.

58

Research and development carried out by the Coal-to-Hydrogen

Fuels program, funded at a proposed $10 million, will make the future transition to a hydrogen-based economy possible by reducing

the costs and increasing the efficiency of hydrogen production from

coal.

We have requested $62 million for fiscal year 2008 to continue

the important work of the Solid State Energy Conversion Alliance,

the goal of which is to develop the technology for low-cost scalable

and fuel-flexible fuel cell systems.

Consistent with the 2006 and 2007 budget requests, the Petroleum Oil Technology and Natural Gas Technologies Research and

Development programs are proposed to be terminated in fiscal year

2008. However, the Office of Fossil Energy will continue to carry

out important responsibilities in the oil and natural gas sector,

such as management of the Ultra-Deepwater and Unconventional

Resources Research Program mandated by the Energy Policy Act of

2005.

In addition, Fossil Energy will continue to authorize natural gas

imports and exports, collect and report data on natural gas trades,

operate the Rocky Mountain Oilfield Testing Center, and oversee

the Loan Guarantee Program for the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline.

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, this completes

my prepared statement on our research and development activities,

and I would be happy to answer any questions.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Shope follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THOMAS D. SHOPE

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, it’s a pleasure for me to appear before

you today to present the Office of Fossil Energy’s (FE) proposed Budget for Fiscal

Year 2008

Fossil Energy’s $863 million budget request for Fiscal Year 2008, one of the largest FE requests made by this Administration, will allow the Office to achieve two

fundamental objectives: first, to support the President’s top priorities for energy security, clean air, climate change and coal research; and second, to support the Department of Energy’s strategic goal of protecting our national and economic security

by promoting a diverse supply and delivery of reliable, affordable, and environmentally-sound energy.

More specifically, the proposed budget emphasizes early initiation of an expansion

of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve; rapid development of technologies to manage

and dramatically reduce atmospheric emissions of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide from fossil fuel use in power generation and other industrial activity; and design

and other preparatory work on the FutureGen project to combine in one plant the

production of electric power and hydrogen fuel from coal with near-zero atmospheric

emissions.

THE PRESIDENT’S COAL RESEARCH INITIATIVE

I will begin the detailed presentation of our proposed budget with coal, our most

abundant and lowest cost domestic fossil fuel. Coal today accounts for nearly onequarter of all the energy—and about half the electricity—consumed in the United

States. Because coal is so important to our energy future, our proposed budget of

$448 million for the President’s Coal Research Initiative, related fuel cell R&D and

R&D by federal employees within program direction accounts for more than half our

total budget.

I should mention here that our FY 2008 Budget focuses our research and development on activities that support the President’s Advanced Energy Initiative and key

provisions of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. These activities will be conducted largely through cost sharing and industry collaboration. As a result of the evaluations

under the Research and Development Investment Criteria, and the Program Assessment Rating Tool, activities throughout the program emphasize research and development for technologies that will be used in the FutureGen project.

59

The goal of the overall coal program, which includes the President’s Coal Research

Initiative, is to conduct research and development that will improve the competitiveness of domestic coal in future energy markets. The Administration strongly supports coal as an important component of our energy portfolio. This year’s budget request completes the President’s commitment to invest $2 billion on clean coal research over 10 years, three years ahead of schedule. Our coal budget request is broken down into the following components.

CLEAN COAL POWER INITIATIVE

We are requesting $73 million in Fiscal Year 2008 for the Clean Coal Power Initiative (CCPI), a cooperative, cost-shared program between the Government and industry to demonstrate emerging technologies in coal-based power generation so as

to help accelerate commercialization. CCPI allows the Nation’s power generators,

equipment manufacturers and coal producers to help identify the most critical barriers to coal use in the power sector. Technologies to eliminate the barriers are then

selected with the goal of accelerating development and deployment of applications

that will economically meet environmental standards while increasing plant efficiency and reliability. Work on promising technologies selected in two prior solicitations will continue in Fiscal Year 2008, and we plan to announce a third solicitation

during the year, which will focus on advanced technology systems that capture carbon dioxide for sequestration and beneficial reuse.

Some activities of the Clean Coal Power Initiative will help drive down the costs

of Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) systems and other technologies

for near-zero atmospheric emission plants that are essential to the FutureGen concept.

FUTUREGEN

FutureGen is a high-priority project that will establish the capability and feasibility of co-producing electricity and hydrogen from coal with near-zero atmospheric

emissions including carbon dioxide. FutureGen is a public/private partnership designed to integrate technologies that ultimately will lead to new classes of plants

that feature fuel flexibility, multi-product output, electrical efficiencies of over 60

percent, and near-zero atmospheric emissions. FutureGen’s goals include electricity

at costs no more than 10 percent above power from comparable plants that are incapable of carbon sequestration. The capture and permanent storage of atmospheric

carbon emissions is a key feature of the FutureGen concept, as is the capability to

use coal, biomass, or petroleum coke. The project should help retain the strategic

value of coal—the Nation’s most abundant and lowest cost domestic energy resource.

FutureGen’s proposed budget of $108 million for Fiscal Year 2008 will be used to

support detailed plant design and procurement, as well as ongoing permitting, preliminary design and site characterization work.

To help fund both the CCPI and FutureGen projects in Fiscal Year 2008, our proposed Budget redirects $58 million in unexpended sums and $257 million in deferred appropriations from the original Clean Coal Technology program. Specifically,

the Budget proposes to transfer $108 million of the $257 million deferral to the

FutureGen project, and cancel the remaining $149 million from the deferral. Of the

unobligated balances carried forward at the start of FY 2008, $58 million is transferred to the Clean Coal Power Initiative (CCPI).

FUELS AND POWER SYSTEMS

Technology development supporting FutureGen is embodied in the core research

and development activity of the Fuels and Power Systems program. The Fuels and

Power Systems program’s proposed budget for Fiscal Year 2008 is $245.6 million.

Of this total amount, $183.6 million will fund research and development for carbon

capture and sequestration, membrane technologies for oxygen and hydrogen separation, advanced combustion turbines, coal-to-hydrogen conversion, and gasifier-related technologies. The remaining balance of $62 million will support Fuel Cells.

The program breaks down as follows:

ADVANCED INTEGRATED GASIFICATION COMBINED CYCLE

With proposed funding of $50 million for Fiscal Year 2008, the Advanced Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle program will continue to concentrate efforts on

gas stream purification to meet quality requirements for use with fuel cells and conversion processes, on impurity tolerant hydrogen separation, on elevating process efficiency, and on reducing the costs and energy requirements for oxygen production

through development of advanced technologies such as air separation membranes.

60

ADVANCED TURBINES

A funding request of $22 million will allow the Advanced Turbines program to

continue its concentration on the creation of a turbine-technology base that will permit the design of near-zero atmospheric emission IGCC plants and a class of

FutureGen-descended plants with carbon capture and sequestration. This research

emphasizes technology for high-efficiency hydrogen and syngas turbines and builds

on prior successes in the Natural Gas-based Advanced Turbine Systems Program.

ADVANCED RESEARCH

The Advanced Research program bridges basic and applied research to help reduce the costs of advanced coal and power systems while improving efficiency and

environmental performance. The proposed $22.5 million budget for Advanced Research will fund projects aimed at a greater understanding of the physical, chemical,

biological and thermo-dynamic barriers that currently limit the use of coal and other

fossil fuels.

CARBON SEQUESTRATION

The Carbon Sequestration program, with a proposed budget for Fiscal Year 2008

of $79 million, is developing a portfolio of technologies with great potential to reduce

greenhouse gas emissions. This high-priority program’s primary concentration is on

dramatically lowering the cost and energy requirements of pre-and post-combustion

carbon dioxide capture. The goal is to have a technology portfolio by 2012 for safe,

cost-effective and long-term carbon mitigation, management and storage, which will

lead to substantial market penetration after 2012. In the long-term, the program is

expected to contribute significantly to the President’s goal of developing technologies

to substantially reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The Carbon Sequestration program’s activities in Fiscal Year 2008 will concentrate on research and development projects for carbon dioxide (CO2) capture and

storage, as well as measurement, monitoring and verification technologies and processes.

In coordination with the current partnerships, the program will determine the

‘‘highest potential’’ opportunities for the initial expedited round of large scale sequestration tests in saline, coal, and/or oil and gas bearing formations. This work

will begin with a physical characterization of the surface and subsurface, reservoir

modeling, and NEPA review.

The Partnerships will also move on to the next phase of the Weyburn project,

where CO2 is being injected into a producing oil field. Weyburn’s success would deliver both decreased carbon emissions and increased domestic oil production.

Finally, DOE formed the international Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum

(CSLF) in 2003 to work with foreign partners on joint carbon sequestration projects,

and to collect and share information. That work will in continue in FY 2008.

Several members of the CSLF have also signed on to the FutureGen project, and

others have signaled strong interest in joining. FUELS Research and development

carried out by the Coal-to-Hydrogen Fuels program, funded at a proposed $10 million, will make the future transition to a hydrogen-based economy possible by reducing the costs and increasing the efficiency of hydrogen production from coal. This

program is an important component of both the President’s Hydrogen Fuel Initiative

and the FutureGen project.

FUEL CELLS

Within Fuel Cells, we have requested $62 million for Fiscal Year 2008 to continue

the important work of the Solid State Energy Conversion Alliance, the goal of which

is to develop the technology for low-cost, scalable and fuel flexible fuel cell systems

that can operate in central, coal-based power systems as well as in other electric

utility (both central and distributed), industrial, and commercial/residential applications.

RESEARCH BY FEDERAL STAFF

In addition to the funding levels reflected for Fuels and Power Systems, there is

$20 million provided within the Program Direction account that directly supports

the President’s Coal Research Initiative, plus $1 million for fuel cells. This funding

supports federal staff directly associated with conducting the research activities of

specific Fuels and Power Systems subprograms.

PETROLUEM AND NATURAL GAS TECHNOLOGIES

Consistent with the FY 2006 and FY 2007 Budget Requests, the Petroleum—Oil

Technology and Natural Gas Technologies research and development programs will

be terminated in FY 2008.

61

The Oil and Gas group will manage the Ultra-Deepwater and Unconventional Resources Research Program mandated by the Energy Policy Act of 2005. However, I

should point out that the 2008 Budget proposes to repeal this legislation, consistent

with the FY 2007 Budget Request.

In addition, FE will continue to authorize natural gas imports and exports, collect

and report data on natural gas trade, and operate the Rocky Mountain Oil Field

Testing Center.

FE will also oversee the loan guarantee program for the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline.

STRATEGIC PETROLEUM RESERVE

The Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) exists to ensure America’s readiness to respond to severe energy supply disruptions. The Reserve reached its highest inventory level—700 million barrels of oil—in 2005 the Energy Policy Act of 2005 directs

DOE to fill the SPR to its authorized one billion barrel capacity, as expeditiously

as practicable. Additionally, in the 2008 Budget, the President proposed expanding

the Reserve’s capacity to 1.5 billion barrels. Our budget request of $332 million for Fiscal Year 2008—almost double last

year’s request—will fund the Reserve’s continued readiness through a comprehensive program of systems maintenance, exercises, and tests, as well as beginning expansion to one billion barrels at existing and new sites and NEPA work to expand

to 1.5 billion barrels. DOE will begin immediately to fill the reserve to its current

capacity of 727 million barrels through purchases of oil with available balances as

well as through placement of the Department of the Interior’s royalty in-kind oil

into the SPR.

NORTHEAST HOME HEATING OIL RESERVE

The Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve was established in July 2000 when the

President directed the Department of Energy to establish a reserve capable of assuring home heating oil supplies for the Northeast states during times of very low inventories and significant threats to immediate supply. The Reserve contains two

million barrels of heating oil stored at commercial terminals in the Northeast and

is in good condition. The current five-year storage contracts expire in September

2007. A request for bids was issued in February 2007. The proposed FY 2008 budget

requests $5.3 million for continued operations.

NAVAL PETROLEUM AND OIL SHALE RESERVE

The Fiscal Year 2008 budget request of $17.3 million for the Naval Petroleum and

Oil Shale Reserve (NPOSR) will allow it to continue environmental remediation activities and determine the equity finalization of Naval Petroleum Reserve 1 (NPR–

1); operate NPR–3 until its economic limit is reached, and while operating NPR–

3, maintain the Rocky Mountain Oil Field Test Center.

Because the NPOSR no longer served the national defense purpose envisioned in

the early 1900s, the National Defense Authorization Act for FY 1996 required the

sale of the Government’s interest in Naval Petroleum Reserve 1 (NPR–1). To comply

with this requirement, the Elk Hills field in California was sold to Occidental Petroleum Corporation in 1998. Subsequently, the Department transferred two of the

Naval Oil Shale Reserves (NOSR–1 and NOSR–3), both in Colorado, to the Department of the Interior’s (DOI) Bureau of Land Management. In January 2000, the Department returned the NOSR–2 site to the Northern Ute Indian Tribe. The Energy

Policy Act of 2005 transferred administrative jurisdiction and environmental remediation of Naval Petroleum Reserve 2 (NPR–2) in California to the Department of

the Interior. DOE retains the Naval Petroleum Reserve 3 (NPR–3) in Wyoming

(Teapot Dome field).

ELK HILLS SCHOOL LANDS FUND

The National Defense Authorization Act for FY 1996 authorized the settlement of

longstanding ‘‘school lands’’ claims to certain lands by the State of California known

as the Elk Hills Reserve. The settlement agreement between DOE and California,

dated October 11, 1996, provides for payment, subject to appropriation, of nine percent of the net sales proceeds generated from the divestment of the Government’s

interest in the Elk Hills Reserve. Under the terms of the Act, a contingency fund

containing nine percent of the net proceeds of the sale was established in the U.S.

Treasury and was reserved for payment to California.

To date, DOE has paid $300 million to the State of California. The first installment payment of the settlement agreement was appropriated in FY 1999. While no

appropriation was provided in FY 2000, the Act provided an advance appropriation

of $36 million that became available in FY 2001 (second installment). The next four

installments of $36 million were paid at the beginning of FY 2002, FY 2003, FY

62

2004, and FY 2005 respectively. A seventh payment of $84 million was made in FY

2006.

The Fiscal Year 2008 budget proposes no funding for the Elk Hills School Lands

Fund. The timing and levels of any future budget requests are dependent on the

schedule and results of the equity finalization process.

FOSSIL ENERGY’S BUDGET MEETS THE NATION’S CRITICAL ENERGY

NEEDS

In conclusion, I’d like to emphasize that the Office of Fossil Energy’s programs

are designed to promote the cost-effective development of energy systems and practices that will provide current and future generations with energy that is clean, efficient, reasonably priced, and reliable. Our focus is on supporting the President’s top

priorities for energy security, clean air, climate change, and coal research. By reevaluating, refining and refocusing our programs and funding the most cost-effective

and beneficial projects, the Fiscal Year 2008 budget submission meets the Nation’s

critical needs for energy, environmental and national security.

Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Committee, this completes my prepared statement. I would be happy to answer any questions you may have at this time.

BIOGRAPHY FOR THOMAS D. SHOPE

Thomas D. Shope is Chief of Staff for the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of

Fossil Energy. The Office of Fossil Energy is charged with conducting technology research, development and demonstration programs that will ensure that the United

States can continue to rely on clean, affordable energy from our traditional fuel resources. Specific responsibilities within Mr. Shope’s purview include the management of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve; oil and natural gas research and policy;

and the President’s $2 billion Coal Research Initiative, which includes the $950 million FutureGen Program, to create a prototype zero-emissions coal fired power plant.

In his position, Mr. Shope serves as the principal advisor to Assistant Secretary Jeffrey D. Jarrett.

In July of 2002, Shope began his tour of duty in Washington, DC, serving as the

Chief of Staff for the U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement. Shope served as OSM’s liaison to Secretary Gale Norton

and her senior staff within the Department of the Interior. Mr. Shope guided and

directed the operations of the OSM in fulfilling its role of regulating active coal mining operations as well reclaiming old abandoned mine lands. Mr. Shope played a key

role in the efforts to reform and reauthorize the Abandoned Mine Land program and

in OSM’s significant enhancement of its technology transfer activities to State and

tribal regulatory authorities and other stakeholders.

A native of Munhall, Pennsylvania, Shope received his B.S. degree in Economics

at West Virginia University in Morgantown, WV. He then earned his J.D. degree

from Duquesne University School of Law in Pittsburgh. After working with the Allegheny County District Attorney’s Office and the Pittsburgh law firm of Friedman

& Friedman, Shope joined the Department of the Interior in February of 1991 as

an Attorney Advisor in the Solicitor’s Office. During his tenure with the Solicitor’s

Office, Shope’s practice centered on various mining and environmental issues. Mr.

Shope was extensively involved in the Department’s Trusteeship in Natural Resource Damage Assessment and Restoration matters, where he served as the case

attorney on various prominent projects including the Nation’s largest Superfund related project, the Tri-State Mining District of Missouri, Kansas and Oklahoma.

Throughout his career, Shope has been recognized for his ability to maintain and

promote sensitive relations with Congress, State and tribal governments, industry

and environmental groups.

DISCUSSION

Chairman LAMPSON. Thank you, Mr. Shope.

At this point, we will open our first round of questions, and I am

going to recognize myself for five minutes, but I will yield to the

Chairman of the Science Committee, Mr. Gordon.

THE GLOBAL NUCLEAR ENERGY PARTNERSHIP (GNEP)

Chairman GORDON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is a very

good panel, and this is very informative.

63

Dr. Orbach, you are the only member of the panel I have had a

chance to work with, and I want to say that I am impressed with

your enthusiasm and knowledge of the job, and I look forward to

working with you.

Mr. Spurgeon, I have talked with a variety of folks inside and

outside the nuclear industry, and by and large, I get the feeling—

well, I don’t get the feeling, they have said very specifically that

they are not happy with the GNEP program, that they feel like you

set—well, I won’t say you, but that there have been moving targets

set, that there really hasn’t been adequate basic research done before the potential to make multi-billion dollar type investments,

which might mean that we won’t maximize those investments, and

don’t feel like there is enough emphasis being put on Yucca and

storage.

Do you feel that any of that is valid?

Mr. SPURGEON. Well, obviously, the emphasis on Yucca, there is

nothing in this program that does anything to take away from the

emphasis on Yucca Mountain. Yucca Mountain is critical to any regime that we look at for nuclear energy going forward, as the ultimate repository for nuclear—spent nuclear fuel.

But what we are doing with GNEP is creating a waste form, and

removing the long-lived transuranic elements that create the longterm issue of fuel.

Chairman GORDON. So, you think you have done adequate basic

research now?

Mr. SPURGEON. Sir, what—we have more research to do, but understand, we have been reprocessing fuel throughout the world for,

you know, for 30, 40 years. There are active reprocessing plants,

recycle facilities in existence in all of the other fuel cycle nations,

so the technology is something that has been commercialized. What

we are doing is taking it to the next level, taking it to the next

level of efficiency, and taking it to the next level of proliferation resistance. In that, we are still doing research, and that is a big part

of what the budget request is all about.

Chairman GORDON. Good. I don’t mean to be discourteous. Five

minutes doesn’t last very long, and I am going to be submitting

questions to you and to the other panel members, so that we can

better understand what you are doing, and better do our job, and

I hope that you will all be prompt in getting us responses.

EFFICIENCY STANDARDS CONCERNS

Mr. Karsner, in your prepared statement, you acknowledge that

the backlog of equipment efficiency standards and the test procedures that has developed over the last 12 years, with a little explanation for why and how this backlog has started, and why it has

continued. Over the last 12 years, how many efficiency standards

have been promulgated?

Mr. KARSNER. I can return to you the precise number for the

record. I think it is under ten over the last 12 years.

Chairman GORDON. What about one?

Mr. KARSNER. Okay.

Chairman GORDON. Does that sound about right? The Central

Air Conditioning and Heat Pumps, maybe one out of sixteen.

64

Mr. KARSNER. My impression was that there were more than a

single standard that had been promulgated, but I——

Chairman GORDON. Do you have staff or anyone here that could

help you with that?

Mr. KARSNER. We don’t have the number for the last 12 years.

Chairman GORDON. Okay.

Mr. KARSNER. We will have to report back for the record.

[The information follows:]

Chairman GORDON. Okay. It is my understanding it is one. So,

how many more does that leave you to have to promulgate?

Mr. KARSNER. We have submitted a schedule to Congress to promulgate up to 17 over the next five years, and that should deal

with both the backlog and the Energy Policy Act requirements.

Chairman GORDON. Now, in that aren’t you already well overdue?

Mr. KARSNER. There was recently a GAO report published that

said we were overdue on every one of the standards for the 34 that

had been prescribed for the last 30 years. So the Department has

acknowledged that particular problem, submitted a schedule to

deal with that backlog, and since that schedule was sent to Congress last year, we have been 100 percent on time for every deadline that we have submitted.

Chairman GORDON. Mr. Karsner, I am sure you already know

this. You know, even without being sworn in, it is a felony to misVerDate 11-MAY-2000 08:14 Jan 17, 2008 Jkt 033610 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\WORKD\E&E07\030707\33610 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
65

lead or not tell the truth to a Congressional committee, so let me

just ask you, have you felt any pressure, in the short time you have

been there, not to move forward and promulgate these rules in an

expeditious way?

Mr. KARSNER. I have felt the opposite pressure. It is a top line

priority of Secretary Bodman, and it is a top line priority of my Office, and we will continue that pressure to meet those deadlines

and——

Chairman GORDON. Has OMB slowed you down any on this?

Mr. KARSNER. There is a procedure to go through concurrence.

The process is very time-intensive, and therefore, we have recently

submitted legislation to the Hill so that we could shrink and collapse the critical path, particularly where we can cultivate consensus.

Chairman GORDON. So, you are being told full speed ahead, do

it as quickly as you can. Is that correct?

Mr. KARSNER. And we are being given the highest priority attention that the—that this program can have by both the Secretary

and the Office of General Counsel.

Chairman GORDON. Yet in 12 years, you have only promulgated

one rule, you are behind by statute in all the others.

Mr. KARSNER. Yes.

Chairman GORDON. And I think the Energy Policy Act directed

the Department to meet statutory timelines, you are behind in

those, too, aren’t you?

Mr. KARSNER. With all due respect, sir, it is obvious the Department is behind, not just 12 years, 30 years. So something systemic

is problematic through multiple generations and Administrations,

and we are seeking to fix that.

Chairman GORDON. Well, we hope you can. It is important for

the country, and I will also be submitting some questions for you.

How is my time? No, no, no. I don’t want to——

Chairman LAMPSON. Go ahead and finish, and we will start the

clock over when I start mine.

Chairman GORDON. No, that is okay. If I am over my five minutes, then I will——

Chairman LAMPSON. You are not. Please go ahead.

BIOENERGY RESEARCH CENTERS

Chairman GORDON. Okay. Dr. Orbach, I am interested in the

Bioenergy Research Centers, which I think are important, and I

am glad you have moved forward with, but it is sort of a new area

for you. It is going from research to actual implementation there.

And you are talking about bringing in private investors. I would

like to learn a little more about that. You know, what kind of

stakes are they going to get in this, what kind of return are they

going to get for their investment, and if it doesn’t work out, what

is going to happen with these Centers afterwards?

Dr. ORBACH. We are currently actually evaluating the proposals

that have come in, which indeed have included the private sector.

We have given them a five year commitment for $25 million a year,

and the understanding that we have is that after the five years,

we will assess whether they have been successful. It is a new concept—you are quite right—for us, and so, we are looking both at

66

procedures at effectiveness, and whether we can deliver on the investment.

That is the reason why we want the private sector involved. We

want this to get to market.

Chairman GORDON. Well, I think it is a type of experiment that

we need to be making, and as I said earlier, you seem to be on top

of your game, and I hope this will be successful.

Thank you for joining us today.

Dr. ORBACH. Thank you.

Chairman LAMPSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. At this time, in

the spirit of fairness, I think I will recognize the Ranking Member

on the Full Science Committee, Mr. Hall.

Mr. HALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

And to Mr. Shope, I don’t have my—I can’t see that far. I wish

you would bring that table a little closer to us, if you would.

Mr. Shope, I have some questions that I need to ask you, sir. I

want to talk to you about—do you know what I am about to ask

you about?

Mr. SHOPE. I am anxiously awaiting.

THE ULTRA-DEEPWATER AND UNCONVENTIONAL ONSHORE

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM

Mr. HALL. The ultra-deep provision that I put in the last four

budgets, I put it in four times as a Democrat, and Republicans accepted it. This last time, I put it in as a Republican, and the Democrats accepted it. We have passed it and sent it to the President.

He signed it, and now, there is a move on to take it out of the

budget, and to take it out of the budget, you have to have a bill

go through here, and I love the President. I would absolutely jump

in the fire for him, but every now and then, I don’t agree with him,

and I think he is wrong in trying to move the ultra-deep legislation

and take it off the books, because it doesn’t cost anything, it is

going to get reserves that are known there. It involves technology

from schools and universities. It is more of a research bill that it

is an energy bill, but it pays for itself in known quantities of energy that are there. We just can’t get them up, but we are going

to get the technology to get some up. It doesn’t cost anybody anything. It is not a gift to Exxon or the big people, because they are

not the ones that really look for it, and they can buy their own

technology if they want to. Independents can’t, but independents

will do most of this work.

And it is just a win-win deal, and I have not been able to impress

anybody over the White House with that situation, but everybody

else I know pretty well agrees with me.

Now, I guess what I want to ask you, and I know your budget

calls for the repeal of the Ultra-Deepwater and Unconventional Onshore Research and Development Program, and that is, I think, is

the President’s request, and maybe, the gentleman that he got from

OMB, that is there advising him. And wonderful guys, admire

them, respect them both, but—and I don’t hate the sinners, I just

hate their sin on this type thing, that is a quote from Billy

Graham, it is a pretty good, all old guys are good to quote, you

know.

67

I want to ask you, though, and EI assessment of EPAct concluded that this was one of only a few that would increase supply

and pay for itself through increased royalties. I just don’t know any

way to better, it is going to get over $1 billion more in 12 years

than we have to spend for it, and we get maybe 70 years of energy

out of it. I cannot understand why anybody would want to repeal

this.

They sent it, to of all people, Ed Markey, to repeal it, about three

months ago or four months ago or five months ago. Democrats and

Republicans alike gathered together and killed that bill, cleared off

a place and killed it right there on the floor about four months ago.

I hope we are going to do the same thing this time, and I don’t

think we will have a lot of repercussions from over there, but I

just, you know, it pays for itself, and until that happens, it is the

law of the land, and it is to be funded on a yearly basis.

Can you please tell me what the status of that funding is at this

time?

Mr. SHOPE. Yes, Congressman. And I appreciate and understand

your comments.

There is a difference of opinion, however, from the Administration, as to whether there are adequate incentives for the industry

to do this research on its own, and there are costs associated, in

the sense of foregone revenues, that will be going towards the program.

So, we have submitted legislation to repeal that provision of

EPAct once again this year. That being said, we fully intend to

comply with the law as it exists, and that currently includes operation of this program. We did issue the contract to RPSEA last

year in December. We have established the advisory committees,

the two advisory committees that are required. Members are now

being appointed to these committees, and the program is moving

forward with all due diligence and full force, until it is repealed by

this body.

Mr. HALL. Please convey to George Herbert Bush’s son that I am

trying to help him, you know, like the little Scout helped the lady

across the street, but she didn’t want to go across the street, but

I am trying to help him here, and trying to get a supply of energy

that might keep our children, your kids and your grandkids from

having to fight a war, because this country will fight for energy,

and we don’t have to. We have it right here, if we could just reach

out there and get it.

I want to read, and I am not being a smart-aleck with you or

anything, but Section 99H. Funding, Oil and Gas Lease Income,

you are familiar with that section, aren’t you? I think there are

seven places in there where it uses the word, and we have put it

in here this way, and used the word ‘‘shall,’’ not ‘‘may,’’ or direct

that we prefer that they do that. It says, ‘‘and after distribution of

any such funds as described in subsection (c), $50,000,000 shall be

deposited in the Ultra-Deepwater and Unconventional Natural

Gas.’’ You know where that is.

Mr. SHOPE. Yes, sir.

Mr. HALL. A little bit on down there later, it says ‘‘under this

part without fiscal year limitation, to remain available until expended.’’ Even on the next page, it says, in section (d) under AllocaVerDate 11-MAY-2000 08:14 Jan 17, 2008 Jkt 033610 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\WORKD\E&E07\030707\33610 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
68

tion, from the federal ‘‘Fund under subsection (a)(1) in each fiscal

year shall be allocated as follows.’’ Later, it says ‘‘32.5 percent shall

be for activities under section 999A.’’ A little later, ‘‘7.5 percent

shall be for activities under section’’—it is not ‘‘may’’ or precatory

words, or we hope you will. It says ‘‘shall,’’ and I think we are

going to defeat the bill that he has sent over here. It doesn’t give

me any pleasure to do that. It is painful for me to have to try to

do that, but I think we are going to be able to do it, and maybe

we get underway with this, and I would like to work with you in

working this out, because it might prevent a whole generation of

youngsters from having to get on a troopship and go take some energy away from someone when we have got plenty right here at

home that is clean.

Thank you, sir. I respect you and I appreciate it. I yield back my

time, sir.

Chairman LAMPSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I now yield myself five minutes, and I want to continue that same line, if I may.

I don’t mean to be piling on either, but RPSEA happens to be in

my Congressional district, and it is something that is important to

an awful lot of folks there, and I join Mr. Hall.

When he first introduced that legislation many years ago, and

also the work to continue the effort now, because we do recognize

that it is an important piece of legislation.

Mr. HALL. I am even glad you are back.

Chairman LAMPSON. Thank you very much. I am too.

And obviously, the President thought that it was important, because he did sign it into law, and that is where I wonder about the

difference of opinion.

We did receive a letter from the Department and proposed legislation last week, asking that this section of the law be rescinded,

and given the enormous hydrocarbon resources in these fields, it is

foolish. So, what reasons does the Department have for eliminating

the Ultra-Deep program, especially in light of its elimination of oil

and gas research?

Mr. SHOPE. Congressman, the Administration believes that there

are adequate incentives, particularly with the current price of oil,

for industry to invest in this research and development.

While there certainly is a recognition about independent operators, it is always a concern that they don’t have the ability to spend

these types of dollars. The service industry that supports them certainly does, and the Administration believes that when you have to

look at the total availability of dollars, as to where our highest priority work needs to be done with taxpayer funded dollars, this program, certainly, there are other incentives to have that work accomplished, aside from using taxpayer dollars to do it.

Chairman LAMPSON. So, it is the belief that there is an adequate

research being done by those companies now. If Congress doesn’t

rescind this law, and I don’t expect it is to do that, you made the

comment, and let me ask again, will the Department carry out this

research as it is instructed to do so by law?

Mr. SHOPE. Let me be perfectly clear, Congressman. We absolutely will do that. We are currently doing it, as I mentioned. We

are fully supportive——

69

Chairman LAMPSON. Then can you tell me why OMB is holding

up the money?

Mr. SHOPE. The money? Well, right now, the RPSEA contract

is—money is starting to flow soon, so we have the plan that is in

action, RPSEA is preparing the plan for review.

Chairman LAMPSON. Is it the Administration’s position that it is

complying with the law, then, fully, right now, the OMB has released all the money it is supposed to have?

Mr. SHOPE. It has released adequate funds to begin that process.

Chairman LAMPSON. It hasn’t released the funds that the law is

saying that it should. The Administration proposes to cancel out oil

and gas research, and apparently, the reasoning that this R&D,

with the reasoning that it can be done by industry alone, yet given

the cost of oil and gas research, only the biggest oil companies can

afford to do this research, and deploy the newest technologies in

the most technically challenging fields, so how can smaller firms leverage federal resources for oil and gas research?

Mr. SHOPE. Congressman, again, we believe that for independent

operators, particularly the service industries that provide those

services to not only the independents but larger firms as well, will

be able to provide adequate investment, and continue research and

development.

Chairman LAMPSON. Can you elaborate on areas where industry

maybe isn’t currently conducting research, or——

Mr. SHOPE. I don’t—no particular—no particulars are coming to

mind right now, Congressman. Of course, we——

Chairman LAMPSON. Any real industry effort to explore methane

hydrates that you are aware of?

Mr. SHOPE. There are international efforts that are ongoing with

respect to methane hydrates. The Department has funded some research in the past, and that research will be coming to a conclusion, and the information that we will be able to yield from that

research will further the research and development of hydrates.

Chairman LAMPSON. I hope that you will convey the emphasis

that at least Mr. Hall and I have placed on this. We think that it

is something that is important. I personally am disappointed with

the manner in which it has been handled at this point, and certainly would like to see things change, and change very quickly.

And at this point, I will recognize the Ranking Member, Mr. Inglis, for his questions.

THE AMERICAN COMPETITIVENESS INITIATIVE

Mr. INGLIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Dr. Orbach, the—as I recall, the Congress made a commitment

to doubling funding within ten years. Is that right? And I am trying to figure out where we are on that schedule.

Several years ago, and I wonder, and this is a seven percent increase, something tells me if it were gradual over that time, it

would have to be a 10 percent increase in order to hit the ten

years, but—doubling within ten years. Where are we with that

commitment?

Dr. ORBACH. The President’s commitment to double the funding

for the physical sciences is on track. The President’s request for ’07

70

was a 14 percent increase, and then, a trajectory out to doubling.

And so, the President’s request for ’08 represents that trajectory.

Mr. INGLIS. So, you think we can get there.

And the Congress made a commitment, too. Not while I was

here, but——

Dr. ORBACH. There was, to my knowledge, the Congress and the

President signed an authorization for the National Science

Foundation——

Mr. INGLIS. Right.

Dr. ORBACH.—to double its budget. The President’s initiative, the

American Competitiveness Initiative, focuses on the physical

sciences, which includes the National Science Foundation, the Office of Science, and also, the core research in NIST.

Mr. INGLIS. Right. So, you are content that we are on schedule.

We are——

Dr. ORBACH. Yes, I am.

Mr. INGLIS. Could always use more, I suppose, but for instance—

I won’t make you answer that. But now, let us see, the—now, Mr. Karsner spoke of the $1.2 billion, same sort of question. The President’s Hydrogen Initiative, we

are on track there? We are—have we actually appropriated all of

the $1.2 billion, or where do we stand on that?

Mr. KARSNER. This would be the year that we would fulfill the $1.2 billion, and we are on track.

Mr. INGLIS. So, the President’s budget request would put us on

track.

Mr. KARSNER. Correct.

Mr. INGLIS. The question is whether we follow through here in

the House to deliver on that.

Mr. KARSNER. That is correct, sir.

Mr. INGLIS. The $1.2 billion. And of course, here is hoping that

that is not the end of the initiative, right? We are not going to be

content at $1.2 billion? In other words, we have got to get, we have

got to break through, I suppose, as the——

Mr. KARSNER. I wouldn’t—it is the end of the initiative, the five

year, $1.2 billion, but it is clearly not the end of the hydrogen program, and its robust future, that we expect it to continue growing

to meet its technological readiness milestones, which are necessary

over the next decade.

Mr. INGLIS. Right. Helpful.

NUCLEAR POWER

Mr. Spurgeon, what is—what holds us back from nuclear power,

really pursuing nuclear power in this country?

Mr. SPURGEON. Well, I think we are doing it at this point. The

Energy Policy Act of 2005 was a major breakthrough, relative to

starting to eliminate some of the barriers that have been standing

in the way of having new nuclear power.

There has been an uncertainty of the regulatory process heretofore, and when you are talking about major $3 to $4 billion investments, you have got to have pretty good certainty that if you

start down this path and try to finance this kind of a project, that

you are, in fact, going to be able to get a license to construct and

eventually operate the facility.

71

So, the Standby Support Provision in the Energy Policy Act is

very important in that. That is basically an insurance policy that

protects the sponsor against regulatory and/or litigation delays.

New reactor types, standardization, is something that we have

needed in this industry. That is something that we now do have,

and we are supporting. What the Department is being is really a

catalyst for leveraging our public money to encourage private activity in the nuclear arena. So, we have been operating under the

2010 program as a 50/50 cost-share.

So we are supporting the first plants through the regulatory

process. We are also supporting the—both from a standardization,

but from the early site permit standpoint, we are trying to get the,

some of the environmental issues off the table before the major

commitments for funds are made.

And then, finally, the last piece of this puzzle is to provide, eventually, nuclear energy is authorized to be part of the loan guarantee program that would go forward, which looks for ways to then

allow plants to be financed, perhaps with a greater degree of debt,

as opposed to equity, which lowers the cost to the consumer substantially, for the cost of bus bar electric power.

So, we have the tools now, and those tools are working. We have

some 30 new nuclear plants that are in one stage or another of consideration, many of them in your region.

Mr. INGLIS. Yes, sir. Yeah.

Mr. SPURGEON. And we look forward to the first applications for

a new nuclear plant this fall.

Mr. INGLIS. Okay. Thank you, sir.

Chairman LAMPSON. Mr. McNerney. Recognized for five minutes.

ENERGY STORAGE

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to congratulate the board. Your testimony has been interesting and informative, and I understand the difficulty of producing

a budget under these constraints. I have some questions though.

Mr. Kolevar, I heard both you and Dr. Orbach refer to the need

for energy storage, for superconductors, and for the distribution of

electric power, but your budget shows an eight percent decrease.

Now, I clearly understand the need for a good distribution system,

both in terms of reliability, as we have seen in the Northeast a couple of times in the last decade, but also in terms of distributing

wind energy and solar energy that are intermittent sources. So,

how can you reconcile a decrease in the budget with the increasing

need for research and development in that area?

And also, is there any plan for construction of distribution systems incorporating this new technology, or is this still a paper exercise?

Mr. KOLEVAR. Congressman, the decrease in the fiscal year 2008

budget is reflected in other programmatic activities, particularly in

the High Temperature Superconductivity program. In the Energy

Storage program, in that activity within the Office, the fiscal year

2008 budget proposes a doubling of resources. As I mentioned in

the testimony for pursuing both large-scale utility size applications

and then smaller R&D applications that would benefit principally

distributed energy systems and distributed electrical systems.

72

We do see these technologies in use today in limited applications.

There is a lot more work that needs to be done. The Office of Electricity Delivery and the Office of Science collaborate on storage activities. Generally speaking, while we partner on these, you will see

the line drawn with respect to the timeframes involved. The work

undertaken in Dr. Orbach’s program is consistent with his program

more of a long-term focus.

The work that we have done in the Office of Electricity Delivery

has been really to demonstrate now the feasibility of storage programs, test them into the system, validate their capability, continue to support those applications to increase the feasibility of

these applications. And having pushed a couple of these out in

demonstration programs over the last two years, I expect that the

program will spend more time on research and development, with

an eye toward rolling out some newer energy storage systems, such

as flow batteries, in the next seven to ten years.

Mr. MCNERNEY. So, is that consistent with the decrease in the

budget?

Mr. KOLEVAR. Well, with respect to energy storage, sir, it is consistent with the increase proposed by the President for these activities, a little over a doubling of the moneys involved.

GEOTHERMAL ENERGY RESEARCH

Mr. MCNERNEY. Okay. I am going to move on.

Mr. Karsner, I am very concerned about the zeroing out of the

geothermal studies and research. My understanding is that there

is a report from the MIT that shows up to 25 percent of our nation’s electrical energy can be produced from geothermal sources in

the United States, and this would form a baseline, as opposed to

some other forms of renewable energy.

So, what is the justification for zeroing out that part, or that research area?

Mr. KARSNER. Well, the study that you refer to specifically, the

Tester study on enhanced geothermal systems, obviously wasn’t out

or taken into account when this budget was formulated in excess

of 20 months ago, but—so to comment further on that, the historic

and conventional geothermal technology that has been the focus of

the program, as a legacy of a program, is not applied to the enhanced geothermal systems potential identified in that study.

It really amounts to about 15 gigawatts of energy nationwide.

That 15 gigawatts is being right now very proactively exploited in

the marketplace, very profitably by participants in the marketplace, largely based on Energy Policy Act provisions in policy that

induced greater development and exploitation of the convention

geothermal.

We will not foreclose on the possibility of emerging technologies,

and we are reviewing the results of that study, to see if it is worthy

of integrating into future considerations.

Mr. MCNERNEY. How is my time, Mr. Chairman?

Chairman LAMPSON. Thank you very much. Mr. Bartlett from

Maryland, five minutes.

73

ETHANOL POTENTIAL AND SUSTAINABILITY

Mr. BARTLETT. Thank you very much. Five minutes, five panelists, thank you very much for cooperating with short answers.

I might note, Dr. Orbach, that seven percent exponential growth,

does double in ten years, so you are on target.

We are producing enough ethanol to make a minimal contribution to reducing our dependence on gasoline, but it has had an

enormous effect on corn prices. They have doubled from $2.11 in

September to $4.08 in December. Tortillas are increased in price in

Mexico, and they aren’t able to buy as many, and my dairymen are

dying because of these high prices.

Who is looking at the potential in your bioengineering research

and sustainability? Is that your responsibility or somebody else’s?

Dr. ORBACH. It is the Department’s responsibility, and we——

Mr. BARTLETT. I would just encourage you to look at potential

and sustainability, because you know, the fact that you can do it

doesn’t mean that you are going to have enormous amounts of energy in the future. We still have to eat, and you know, that is going

to compete with the need for these, for this energy production.

MORE ON NUCLEAR POWER

Mr. Spurgeon, how many years do we have to operate a nuclear

power plant to get back the fossil fuel energy it took to build it?

Mr. SPURGEON. I don’t have that number——

Mr. BARTLETT. If you don’t have that number at your

fingertips——

Mr. SPURGEON.—right off the top of my head, but it is not that

long, sir.

Mr. BARTLETT. Well, could you please get that number for the

record, please?

Mr. SPURGEON. I certainly will.

[The information follows:]

74

Mr. BARTLETT. I get wildly divergent numbers as to how long

that takes, and I would like to have it from the experts, what it

really is.

Mr. SPURGEON. Be glad to give it to you, sir.

Mr. BARTLETT. Thank you. Thank you very much.

POWER PLANT SITING

Are you looking at siting future power plants in populated areas,

so that we can use the excess heat for district heating and with

ammonia cycle cooling for refrigeration in the summertime, rather

than rather stupidly siting them where we have to use drinking

water and cooling towers to dissipate precious energy?

Mr. SPURGEON. Most of the new plants that are being considered

today are located, or designed to be located, or planned to be located, I should say, at the site of existing reactor facilities. Most

of our reactor sites were originally designed to accommodate more

units than currently exist on those sites. So, this will be the first

steps——

Mr. BARTLETT. I hope that when we are really siting new plants,

that we look at putting them where people live. By the way, if I

sleep four feet from the nuclear power plant in one of our submarines, I have less radiation than if I am laying out on the beach.

And we really need to be siting these in populated areas, so we can

use the district heat. It is really pretty dumb to use drinking

water, evaporate drinking water to dissipate heat that we desperately need in a world that is going to be increasingly energy deficient.

75

ENERGY CONSERVATION

Mr. Karsner, I had the privilege of leading a nine Member delegation to China just over the break at Christmas and New Year’s.

I celebrated New Year’s in China. And they began their conversation on energy by talking about post-oil. They seem to get it. We

are having trouble getting it. And they have a five point program,

the first point of which is conservation. You didn’t mention that.

Is conservation included in your efficiency, or who has responsibility for promoting conservation in our country?

Mr. KARSNER. Well conservation and efficiency, of course, are

very closely linked. Conservation, getting less from less, efficiency,

getting more from less. And but the idea is using less in both instances.

So, we do have a responsibility. Our Office was formerly named

the Office of Conservation, before it was changed to the Office of

Efficiency.

Mr. BARTLETT. Good. Well, you know, conservation is two people

riding in the car. Efficiency is using a Prius rather than an SUV.

So, they are different, but both of them have the same goal, that

is, using less energy, and still live comfortably.

ELECTRO-MAGNETIC PULSE (EMP) PREPAREDNESS

Mr. Kolevar, you are responsible for energy distribution. How

much energy will you be able to distribute after a robust EMP

laydown? And I note there was an article just a couple of days ago

about the threat from China and EMP laydown. Sir, is the answer

none?

Mr. KOLEVAR. The answer would be zero electrical energy.

Mr. BARTLETT. You are correct, sir. And I would submit that this

ought to be a very high priority. A single weapon that made it 300

miles high over the center of our country would shut down all electric productivity for the foreseeable future. Am I not correct?

Mr. KOLEVAR. I do not dispute that. I don’t know those numbers

specifically, but the impact would be dramatic.

Mr. BARTLETT. Yes. Thank you very much.

POTENTIAL COAL SUPPLY

Mr. Shope, you mentioned coal. We have 250 years of coal. If you

just increase, use two percent, which we will have to do better than

that, that shrinks to 85 years. If you use some of that energy to

convert the coal into a liquid or a gas, you have now shrunk to 50

years, and since energy is now fungible, and it moves on a world

market, if we share our 50 years of coal, just two percent increase

with the world, that shrinks it to 12.5 years. That is not much, is

it?

Mr. SHOPE. I am not sure I understand your question, Congressman.

Mr. BARTLETT. Well, you know, we brag we have 250 years of

coal.

Mr. SHOPE. Right.

Mr. BARTLETT. So, then, don’t worry about energy for the future.

But if you increase its use only two percent, that 250 years shrinks

to 85 years. And since you can’t fill your chunk of the car with coal

76

and go down the road, you are going to have to convert it to a liquid or a gas. Now—and if you use the energy to do that from coal,

you are now down to about 50 years, and since all energy today

moves on a global marketplace, and we are going to share that 50

years of coal with the world, now it shrinks, four into 50, it is 12.5.

So, now we are down to 12.5 years.

That doesn’t leave me very sanguine that coal is going to solve

our energy future. Am I wrong?

Mr. SHOPE. Well, Congressman, of course, with respect to coal,

that is one of the main things we are working on, is making it

more efficient, the use of it more efficient, and that is what our program is geared towards, is to get more energy out of the coal reserves we have, and we do have ample coal supplies in the United

States. I think——

Mr. BARTLETT. You think 12.5 years at only two percent growth

is ample, okay? I am not sure it is ample.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman LAMPSON. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Bartlett.

I am apologizing to all of our Members for the timeliness of this,

because of this joint session that is about to start, we are going to

try to rush through these as quickly as we can.

I will call next on Mr. Lipinski.

THE INTERNATIONAL LINEAR COLLIDER

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would appreciate if

the panel members could answer some written questions that I am

going to submit.

Right now, I just want to raise three issues. The last one is the

only one I will ask a question on, but I just wanted to first say,

to Mr. Shope, I am concerned that the $79 million is not enough

for carbon sequestration, and I just want to raise that issue, and

follow up with some questions on that.

Mr. Karsner, I just wanted to mention that Representative Inglis

and I have reintroduced our H Prize Act this year, to authorize the

Secretary of Energy to establish monetary prizes for technological

advancement in hydrogen energy. I think it is a smart way to go

about doing it. I am happy to see that there is a significant increase in hydrogen research also in the budget this year.

But the thing I really wanted to talk about and ask the question

is to Dr. Orbach. And I want to thank you and the Department for

advocating for the International Linear Collider, specifically housing it there at Fermilab in Illinois. I think this can bring great benefits, and it is very significant for the United States to be able to

house this collider in the United States. I have spoken with Congressman Hastert on this issue. Fermilab is located in his district.

I talked to Dr. Oddone, who is the Director at Fermilab. Could you

elaborate a little bit, briefly, on the progress of bringing ILC to

Fermilab, and the significance for our country of doing that?

Dr. ORBACH. Well, it will be very significant if we can bring it

here. What we are doing in our ’08 budget is doubling the amount

of funds for R&D for the superconducting cavities and the other

elements that would go into the International Linear Collider. We

are in the process of developing an international agreement, or an

international relationship that would enable us to correlate our

77

R&D with the research and development in Asia and in Europe, so

that we can make it truly international.

We are just beginning to work out the details of that, and we

hope that that will lead in a few years to the availability of the

building blocks for the International Linear Collider.

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you. I will yield back.

Chairman LAMPSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Lipinski, and

now, I will recognize Ms. Biggert, the former Chairman of our subcommittee.

MORE ON THE GLOBAL NUCLEAR ENERGY PARTNERSHIP

(GNEP)

Ms. BIGGERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have got a couple

questions I hope I can get in.

Mr. Spurgeon, you know, I have said many times before that I

support the vision of GNEP, namely, to develop and deploy technologies, reduce the volume and toxicity of nuclear waste by recycling and maximizing the energy extracted from our uranium supplies.

I am concerned, and I am not convinced that the Department is

proceeding in a way that really is going to build public or Congressional support for this important program, and that really does

worry me. As you know, I would be a lot more comfortable with

DOE’s plans if the Department had completed a comprehensive

systems analysis.

And I know that you mentioned in your testimony that you are

working on a systems analysis, on a variety of deployments systems alternatives. And you are conducting a program environmental assessment, I know, because there was one that was held

in Joliet right near my district.

So, why can’t the DOE conduct a similar programmatic systems

analysis to help build support for the vision of GNEP, and why do

you still believe that the commercial scale demonstration is the

best way to proceed, rather than the engineering scale demo, especially since there hasn’t been a comprehensive systems analysis?

And I know that, you know, there was a cut in the budget last

year by the Appropriations Committee, because there hadn’t been

this analysis, and we just have to get going. It really concerns me

that you say, what, 15 years before we are going to be set, and you

know, I think this is so crucial to our energy demands, and to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

Mr. SPURGEON. I agree with you, ma’am. We do need to get

going, and that is the whole point of the program. We are conducting a comprehensive systems analysis. Some of the decisions

are relative to precise scale, will be an outcome of that. We are proceeding with the generic environmental impact statement, programmatic environmental impact statement, in order to move the

process forward, and we are engaging industry, because there is a

great deal of worldwide expertise in this arena.

So, we are underway with cooperative programs currently, with

Russia, with France, with Japan, and we intend to exploit the

worldwide knowledge in this area, in order to leverage our own

program, to be able to take advantage of the technology that does

exist, so we don’t have to reinvent all of the wheels here locally.

78

Ms. BIGGERT. Well, I guess we need that, since we are 25 years

behind.

Mr. SPURGEON. Yes, sir. Yes, ma’am. We certainly do.

Ms. BIGGERT. But you still haven’t answered my question,

about——

Mr. SPURGEON. In terms of the scale?

Ms. BIGGERT. Yes.

Mr. SPURGEON. We believe that there are many pieces that need

to be demonstrated yet, and that is what the R&D program is all

about, associated with this program. There are pieces that need to

be demonstrated at the prototypic or demonstration scale, and that

is what we intend with part of this budget. And tests that will

demonstrate the entire process.

There are other pieces of the program. Because they are so similar to existing facilities, like some that I know you have visited,

that are ready for commercial scale deployment. Now, the precise

capacity will be determined as a result of our this year’s evaluation, and the systems analysis. It can, though, be built, these facilities can be built in a modular fashion that allows us to get started

and expand to commercial scale as we go.

So, that is your—the conclusion is not reached. The intent is to

move it as fast as we can, consistent with good science.

THE RARE ISOTOPE BEAM

Ms. BIGGERT. All right. I just want to thank Dr. Orbach for the

ACI. I think you and Dr. Bodman have really pursued that, and

the research and physical sciences, and thank you so much.

I can’t leave this hearing without asking you about RIA or RIA–

Lite. I know that it is still in the President’s budget. If you could

just tell me the status of that.

Dr. ORBACH. We will be, in fiscal year 2008, having a competition

for the design of what we now call the Rare Isotope Beam, and that

design competition will be the same as the siting. That is, whoever

proposes the best design, that is where it will be built.

We have, in—when you receive the outyear budgets, when they

go to Congress, you will find PED money in the out years for the

beginning the process, but the design right now is in a competitive

situation, and that is what we are pursuing.

Ms. BIGGERT. Thank you. I yield back.

Chairman LAMPSON. Thank you. Ms. Giffords.

SOLAR ENERGY

Ms. GIFFORDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Karsner, briefly. I was pleased to see the President’s ’08

budget when it came to solar. I believe there is about an 81 percent

increase, $148 million. Coming from Arizona, a state with an abundance of sunshine, it is certainly very good news.

I am curious about the President’s initiative. I am curious if it

is on track, the obstacles that possibly you are facing, and whether

or not by 2015, we are truly going to have photovoltaic cells that

are competitive with other types of power. So, if you could please

address that, I would appreciate that.

79

Mr. KARSNER. I believe it is not only on track. I believe it holds

great potential for getting ahead of that 2015 timetable, particularly in places with—where we can unlock solar resources like Arizona and the Southwest, not just through photovoltaics, but you

might note that we have also increased funding for concentrated

solar power, which can increase base load generation, and shape

the power, in collaboration with the expected results from storage

capacity that we expect from Dr. Orbach’s efforts.

Ms. GIFFORDS. Thank you. I yield back.

Chairman LAMPSON. All done? Thank you very much.

Well, I want to thank everyone, and as we bring this meeting to

a close, particularly each and every one of our witnesses for testifying before the Subcommittee. I think it has been a very informational hearing for everyone here, and our witnesses have given this

committee a better understanding of DOE’s plans and priorities for

the coming year.

If there is no objection, the record will remain open for additional

statements from the Members, and for answers to any of the follow-up questions that the Committee may ask of the witnesses.

Without objection, so ordered.

This hearing is now adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 11:05 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

(81)

Appendix:

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

82

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by Raymond L. Orbach, Under Secretary for Science, U.S. Department of

Energy

Questions submitted by Chairman Nick Lampson

Q1. This Committee is concerned about future of U.S. high energy physics and the

prospects for siting the International Linear Collider on U.S. soil. While it is of

paramount importance that the U.S. maintain its global leadership in this and

many other scientific fields, Congress will undoubtedly exercise extreme caution

in moving forward with the development of facilities that may cost the taxpayers

billions. We need only look back as far as the Superconducting Super Collider

to see the pitfalls that must be avoided as the ILC concept ripens.

Q1a. Where does the ILC currently rank in the Department’s priorities of proposed

projects and facilities?

A1a. The Office of Science Facilities for the Future of Science, A Twenty Year Outlook report, issued in November 2003, ranked the International Linear Collider

(ILC) as the top priority in the mid-term category.

Q1b. What is DOE’S timeline for development of the ILC, and how does this compare

to the timeline laid out by the research community?

A1b. The Department of Energy’s Order 413.3A provides a rigorous series of milestones, known as Critical Decisions, to provide checks and balances and controls for

the management of construction projects. The Office of Science’s success in managing large construction projects like the Spallation Neutron Source has stemmed

from rigorous observance of these milestones, enforced by intensive use of both internal and external reviews. The Critical Decisions process is among our key tools

for determining the readiness of construction projects, correctly costing and scheduling the projects, and keeping them on time and within budget. The Office of

Science takes the requirements of Order 413.3A very seriously.

Briefly, the major milestones are as follows: Critical Decision–0—Approve Mission

Need, Critical Decision–1—Approve Alternative Selection and Cost Range, Critical

Decision–2—Approve Performance Baseline, Critical Decision–3—Approve Start of

Construction, and Critical Decision–4—Approve Start of Operation of Project.

Every construction project must meet requirements for approval of Mission Need,

Alternative Selection and Cost Range, and Performance Baseline before a start of

construction can be approved.

The ILC has not yet passed the Critical Decision–0 (CD–0) milestone—that is,

Mission Need for the ILC has not yet been established. The Department is at a very

early stage in this project planning. Several requirements must be met before CD–

0/Mission Need can be determined. Among them is an assessment of the scientific

opportunities potentially represented by the ILC. This assessment will await analysis of early physics results from the Large Hadron Collider, which are now expected about 2010–2011. The technical feasibility of core technologies will also have

to be demonstrated.

The Global Design Group (GDE), a self-organized group drawn from the international research community for the ILC, issued its Reference Design Report in

February 2007. This report includes the desired scientific scope of the project and

a very early stage cost estimate using international methodology and assuming that

construction would occur from 2012 to 2019.

A decision to go forward with the ILC is not imminent. Even assuming an eventual positive decision to build an ILC, its schedule will almost certainly be lengthier

than the GDE assumptions. Completing the R&D and engineering design, negotiating an international structure, selecting a site, obtaining firm financial commitments, and building the machine could take us well into the mid-2020s, if not later.

Q1c. What are the current preliminary cost estimates for the ILC?

A1c. We do not yet have a preliminary cost estimate for the ILC that has been commissioned, reviewed, and validated by the Department. The Global Design Effort

(GDE), a self-organized group drawn from the international research community for

the ILC, issued a ‘‘Reference Design Report’’ in February 2007. This report includes

a very early stage cost estimate based on international methodology which is, however, very different from that used by DOE in costing projects. For example, the

GDE estimate does not include cost for detectors at the facility, construction escalation or inflation, contingency, engineering design, or a number of other costs that

DOE incorporates into Total Project Cost. While the GDE Report is helpful in proVerDate 11-MAY-2000 08:14 Jan 17, 2008 Jkt 033610 PO 00000 Frm 00086 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\E&E07\030707\33610 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
83

viding the basic outlines of the scientific scope and initial design parameters of the

project, it does not provide sufficient information on such key elements as proof of

core technology to allow a reliable cost estimate at this time.

Q1d. Will the Department take steps to record the history of the failed SSC project

and develop from that a ‘‘Lessons Learned’’ document?

A1d. There have been a number of ‘‘lessons learned’’ reports on the Superconducting Super Collider (SSC) and other large-scale science projects. The Office

of Science is well aware of the lessons from the SSC experience and has identified

five areas that need very close attention for any such new project. These five areas

include: establishing a fully international basis for the project from the start; securing the broad support of the wider scientific community for the project; establishing

agreed upon practices for costing, including how to handle issues like project

changes and escalation; and establishing clear and strong management structures

with well defined reporting lines. The fifth area is close attention to any larger national or international events that might impact project costs or alliances. These

‘‘lessons learned’’ will be carefully applied in developing the global ILC R&D effort.

Q1e. What steps have been taken to educate Congress and the public on the relevance

of Elementary Particle Physics, and the ILC specifically?

A1e. The call for better public outreach on the goals of particle physics in general

and the ILC specifically has been clearly made by Congress and others. The Department has funded a number of publications in this area.

A notable contribution to informed public discussion is the 2006 National Research Council (NRC) report Revealing the Hidden Nature of Space and Time:

Charting the Course for Elementary Particle Physics (also sometimes known as the

‘‘EPP 2010 Report’’). The report discusses the reasons in layman’s language for

maintaining U.S. leadership in elementary particle physics, explains the scientific

opportunities potentially represented by an ILC, and recommends U.S. investments

in R&D for the ILC.

In addition, several initiatives by the elementary particle physics community have

improved and expanded public communication over the past few years.

Symmetry Magazine (http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/cms/) was founded in

2004 and presents a broad, human account of the aspirations and achievements of

high energy physics.

The Quantum Universe report (http://www.interactions.org/quantumuniverse/

qu/) is an exciting and readable account of the dramatic new questions facing the

field. Its sequel, Discovering the Quantum Universe (http://www.interactions.org/

quantumuniverse/qu2006/), lays out the exciting opportunities to be addressed by

the ILC and the ILC’s relationship to the Large Hadron Collider soon to begin at

CERN in Switzerland. The ILC Reference Design Report recently issued by the GDE

includes a 30-page illustrated companion document, Gateway to the Quantum Uni- verse (http://media.linearcollider.org/ilc¥gatewayquantumuniverse¥draft.pdf), that

explains the potential benefits of the ILC in non-technical language and outlines the

steps forward to achieve it.

In recognition of the need to explain the scientific basis for the ILC to a wider

public, the GDE has set up a network of communicators in the U.S., Europe, and

Asia. In addition to the Gateway document referred to above, they publish a weekly

ILC Newsline (http://www.linearcollider.org/cms/) that features recent news, advances in the accelerator R&D, and articles of general interest relating to project

organization and outreach activities.

Q1f. What steps have been taken in the development of the ILC plan to include the

private industries that will ultimately be contracted to build and operate the

ILC? Are you planning to develop an industrialization plan?

A1f. Two years ago, a not-for-profit organization called the Linear Collider Forum

of America (LCFOA) was formed by representatives from small and large U.S. companies. LCFOA provides a formal network for committed members to reach out to

their counterparts across U.S. industry to educate them about the technologies

being developed for the ILC and the potential opportunities for new business.

LCFOA holds two to three meetings per year and has recently hosted a symposium

and reception in the House Science Committee room to provide information and initiate a dialogue with Members of Congress and their staff.

LCFOA is planning a symposium in mid-May that will bring representatives of

industry, government, and the research community together to help identify areas

where the accelerator technology can provide benefits that seed new industrial activity, research, and commercial applications. This symposium is organized around five

themes: the use of linear accelerators for medicine and industry; applications of the

84

superconducting accelerating technology; high power radio frequency sources;

nanoscale instrumentation; and detector technologies with new imaging applications. The LCFOA symposium is part of a globally coordinated activity to develop

partnerships between industry and the research community.

Q1g. What steps have been or will be taken to assemble a team for a U.S. bid to

host the ILC?

A1g. The GDE Reference Design Report assessed the viability of sample sites in the

U.S. (near Fermilab), Japan, and Europe. These sites varied in detail, but all were

found to be viable and of comparable cost to construct.

The Fermilab site builds upon the extensive infrastructure already in place at the

existing laboratory. Fermilab is taking the lead in developing the expertise necessary to prepare a bid to host the ILC, and has established a regional community

committee to support the ILC planning process and serve as a local outreach group

to describe the benefits and impacts an ILC could bring.

Q2a. The Office of Science funds some $800 million a year in grants. But it has been

said that only one of ten proposals for funding to DOE Office of Science get

funded. Do you believe this is the right proportion? If not, where should that

proportion be in the next five years?

A2a. The Office of Science grant funding is about $600 million per year primarily

to colleges and universities. These grants are awarded through open competitive solicitations for proposals. A rigorous scientific peer review process is the standard

practice for the Office of Science in order to ensure the highest quality research is

funded. The standard for funding proposals should be the quality of the proposal

and not the proportion of proposals funded.

Thirty-two percent of the more than 1,600 new grant proposals received during

FY 2005 were funded. Approval rates for grant renewals of funding for the second

and third years of three-year grants and for supplemental awards were significantly

higher, at about 90 percent. Combined, about half of the proposals received during

FY 2005 were funded. While funding decisions for about 20 percent of the more than

1,800 new grant proposals received during FY 2006 are still pending. I anticipate

that once all grant decisions are made, approval rates for proposals received during

FY 2006 will be similar to those in FY 2005. I believe that this is a healthy, competitive percentage of proposals funded.

Q2b. How do you balance new construction versus upgrading of existing facilities

and university grant funding?

A2b. To ensure that the most scientifically promising research and enabling research tools are supported, each program in the Office of Science engages in longrange planning and prioritization; regular, external, independent review of the supported research and scientific facilities to ensure quality and relevance; and evaluation of program performance through establishment of and subsequent measurement against goals and objectives.

These activities rely heavily on input from external sources; including workshops

and meetings of the scientific community, advice from federally chartered advisory

committees, intra-DOE and interagency working groups, and reports from other

groups such as the National Academy of Sciences. The reports and advice received

often include recommendations on new scientific opportunities through research or

new instruments and on appropriate levels of funding to develop the plans, priorities, and strategies for the program and to help maintain an appropriate balance

among competing program elements, from new construction and upgrades of existing facilities to new research initiatives and university grant funding.

Based on these inputs and other factors, including Department mission need and

Administration priorities, each program is responsible for planning and prioritizing

all aspects of supported research and facilities and for conducting ongoing assessments to ensure a comprehensive and balanced portfolio.

Questions submitted by Chairman Bart Gordon

Q1. The FY08 budget request proposes the development of three Bio-Energy Research

Centers through the Office of Science. Given the Office of Science long-standing

role supporting basic research and the physical sciences, this could be considered

a big leap into the realm of applied energy technology development. The plan

is to run these centers like a ‘‘biotech startup’’ with substantial private investment. Private investors have their own parameters for what they consider to be

a worthwhile investment that may or may not be compatible with what the Department envisions for these programs. The Committee would also like to ensure

85

that the centers maintain activities distinct from one another, and do not duplicate existing efforts.

Q1a. Why would private investors be compelled to put their ‘‘skin in the game’’?

What kind of return on investment can investors expect to see and in what

timeframe? Does this arrangement require negotiating unique intellectual property contracts?

A1a. The three Bioenergy Research Centers will support comprehensive, multi-disciplinary fundamental research that is expected to provide the scientific foundation

for development of cost-effective biofuels and bioenergy production. The nature of

the basic research to be supported by these centers is believed to be high-risk to

the private sector. Its high potential pay-off, however, is expected to attract private

investors. The solicitation for proposals for the Centers was announced in August

2006. Proposals were due February 1, 2007 and are currently undergoing peer review. The specific nature of these private investments and the timeframe for a return on investment is not prescribed in the Funding Opportunity Announcement.

The Centers will be encouraged to explore collaborative opportunities with private

investors through the licensing of technology arising at the Centers and through entering into a variety of partnering agreements according to the contract provisions

that will be included in the agreement for the operation of the center.

Q1b. How would the research at these centers differ from what is conducted at other

labs and within industry? How will these centers be distinct from one another?

A1b. These Centers are designed to fill a critical void in the Nation’s efforts to develop and deploy cost-effective, commercially viable methods for producing cellulosic

ethanol and other biofuels by focusing on basic research. Unlike industry-sponsored

research in this area, which typically aims at incremental improvements to current

technologies, the Centers are aimed at fundamental breakthroughs. Many experts

in this field believe strongly that, absent transformational breakthroughs in basic

science, it will be extremely difficult, and probably impossible, to develop a viable

biofuels economy. Present-day conversion methods are simply not efficient enough,

and incremental improvements will not meet the need. Experts largely agree that

until we can produce ethanol from cellulose, ethanol will not be cost-effective. But,

breaking down cellulose into sugars is a challenging problem. At the same time,

many scientists believe that the biotechnology revolution and today’s advanced systems biology at the cutting edge hold out the promise of real solutions.

DOE can provide advanced scientific resources to address the biofuels challenge

which no other institution, research organization, or funding agency, private or public, can match.

In the Funding Opportunity Announcement the Department did not specify any

particular technology focus for the Bioenergy Research Centers. Rather, we deliberately requested applicants to provide their best scientific roadmap. While we did

put a certain emphasis on cellulosic ethanol (and liquid transformation fuels generally), we largely left the research focus open. We are looking to the best scientific

minds to identify the best approaches and we will not know the specific focus and

approach of each Center until we have selected the three awardees.

Whatever the outcome of the solicitation, however, there are many advantages to

deploying multiple Centers. First, the existence of three Centers will create competition in the race for real solutions to our energy security needs-and experience has

shown competition to be an enormous incentive for scientific performance and research success. Second, multiple Centers will enable us to make maximum use of

the talent available to address this problem and, third, will enable us to explore

multiple avenues to a solution at the same time, thereby potentially hastening success. And, finally, even as the Centers compete, they will also be able to learn from

one another, especially as we facilitate and review their management with an eye

to maximizing ‘‘best practices.’’

Q1c. What are the long-term prospects for these labs after their initial research goals

are met, or deemed otherwise unattainable? Will they cease to operate or continue indefinitely with DOE funding?

A1c. The FOA offers no DOE commitment beyond the initial five-year period and

requests that the research program described in the application be limited to this

period. Applicants were not allowed to request construction funds and were instructed to plan for having the Center fully operational within one year of the

award being made, so that completion of specific short-term objectives could be

made during the five years of the award.

86

Q1d. Please provide a breakdown of all the teams submitting proposals for the Bioenergy Research Centers and, if possible, the current state of bid selection.

A1d. Applications for the Bioenergy Research Centers are currently undergoing scientific merit review. DOE does not release information on ongoing financial assistance activities, not even the identities of applicants. Once selections are made, expected in summer 2007, the names of the selected applicants will be announced.

Q2a. Section 1102 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 mandates that the Department

set aside 0.3 percent of funds for research, development, demonstration and

commercial application for authorized educational activities. It was intent of

both the House and Senate that this Fund be established and the funds in it

be expended starting in FY 2006. We are now well into FY 2007 and the Department has not dedicated funding, has not been able to tell Congress what

is spent on research, development, demonstration, and commercial applications, or what is spent on the allowable science education activities under Section 1102 and 983 of EPACT. Can we expect these activities to be underway

in time for teachers to receive training this summer under this program?

A2a. I appreciate your interest and support of the Department’s contribution to

math and science education in the U.S. We intend to reach the 0.3 percent funding

level for authorized educational activities, if in fact we are not already exceeding

that amount. We are currently in the process of determining the Department’s total

funding for research, development, demonstration, and commercial applications activities and also the total amount the Department spends on education activities.

We will provide those figures to you as soon as they are available.

Q2b. If not, what is preventing this program from moving forward?

A2b. DOE is moving forward on the authorized activities contained in Sections 1102

and 983 of the Energy Policy Act that have received appropriated funding from Congress. We are in the process of establishing a plan for the development of new programs that take advantage of the Department’s unique capabilities for science education through experiential learning opportunities. Once we have an approved plan

in place for new and enhanced programs as well as peer reviewed evaluation of

those programs, the Administration will propose an appropriate funding level and,

if funded by Congress, programs like those envisioned in the Energy Policy Act will

move forward.

Questions submitted by Representative Ralph M. Hall

Q1. I understand you are trying to balance funding between facilities and core research, can you please explain what you base your funding decisions on and

what your plan is for the out years?

A1. The Office of Science scientific user facilities and its core research programs are

inextricably linked. Without balanced investments in both facilities and research,

we would run the risk of limiting scientific productivity, missing windows of opportunity to advance areas of scientific research and innovation, and decreasing the Office of Science’s effectiveness in addressing DOE mission needs. Therefore, our

spending plan attempts to carefully balance priorities in facilities and core research

to promote a healthy and productive program.

To help maintain appropriate balance among competing elements of program,

such as the balance of funding between facilities and core research program, each

program in the Office of Science engages in long range planning and prioritization;

regular external independent reviews of the supported research to ensure quality

and relevance; and evaluation of program performance through establishment of

and subsequent measurement against goals and objectives. These activities rely

heavily on input from external sources, including workshops and meetings of the scientific community, advice from the federally chartered advisory committees, intraDOE and interagency working groups, and reports from other groups like the National Academy of Sciences. The reports and advice provided often include recommendations on appropriate levels of funding to develop research and facility

plans, priorities, and strategies.

Each Office of Science program considers these external inputs and is responsible

for planning and prioritizing all aspects of supported research, conducting ongoing

assessments to ensure a comprehensive and balanced portfolio, supporting the core

university and national laboratory programs, and maintaining a strong facility infrastructure to support its mission.

The Office of Science will continue to invest in its world-leading user facilities,

which serve as valuable research tools for U.S. science and are critical to the effecVerDate 11-MAY-2000 08:14 Jan 17, 2008 Jkt 033610 PO 00000 Frm 00090 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\E&E07\030707\33610 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
87

tive accomplishment of our varied and complex missions. About 50 percent of the

users at our facilities come from universities and are funded by the Office of Science

or other federal agencies. In the out years, with the growth proposed in the American Competitiveness Initiative, I expect to make substantial progress on many of

the new facility and facility upgrade projects outlined in ‘‘Facilities for the Future

of Science: A Twenty Year Outlook,’’ with the goals of maintaining at least an orderof-magnitude lead in scientific capability over other facilities world-wide, and of operating our suite of user facilities at or near optimum levels. At the same time, I

also plan to grow our core research funding steadily at universities and national laboratories and to increase support for existing and promising new research in areas

important to DOE mission needs and identified by advisory groups and workshops

like the Basic Research Needs workshops which the Office of Science has been conducting for the past several years.

Q2. What is the status of ITER? How long does our funding commitment last for,

and when are we expecting to see results?

A2. The seven ITER Parties, including the United States, signed the ITER Agreement on November 21, 2006. The Agreement provides the legal framework for the

ITER phases of construction, operation, deactivation, and decommissioning. U.S. domestic and international ITER activities are well underway to complete the ITER

design and prepare for the start of construction. The U.S. Contributions to ITER

Project, which supports the construction phase of ITER, has a nine-year funding

profile with a cap of $1.122 billion. It is a Major Item of Equipment project that

was first introduced in the FY 2006 Budget Request to Congress. International

ITER Project activities in FY 2007 and FY 2008 will establish overall design and

schedule baselines that may affect the U.S. Contributions to ITER Project. DOE expects to establish the cost and schedule performance baselines for the U.S. Contributions to ITER Project in late FY 2008. The U.S. contributions consist of in-kind

equipment, personnel who will work in the international ITER Organization, and

cash for the ITER Organization central fund. The preliminary schedule for the U.S.

Contributions to ITER Project concludes in FY 2014. Afterward, the ITER Organization is scheduled to complete assembling and commissioning the ITER facility between 2014 and 2016. It is anticipated that research operations at ITER will begin

in about 2017 and extend over a 20-year period. Funding for decommissioning would

be furnished annually during the 20-year operation period. Deactivation would commence around 2037. The funding for deactivation would be furnished during a fiveyear period starting when ITER is shutdown around 2037.

Q3. What do you see as the future of the elementary particle physics program in the

United States and future of domestic facilities?

A3. Overall, the U.S. will play a leadership role in the physics of the Large Hadron

Collider when it begins producing data in 2008 and in world leading research programs in neutrino physics and dark matter as well as a pivotal role in the development of next generation accelerators through its strong program of technology R&D

for future accelerators. This research program will be carried out largely through

strong collaborations involving both U.S. universities and the DOE national laboratories. Office of Science High Energy Physics user facilities will be concentrated at

Fermilab after the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (SLAC) B-factory completes

operations in 2008.

The current plan is to continue running the Fermilab Tevatron through the end

of fiscal year 2009. This is based on input from the Particle Physics Project

Prioritization Panel (P5), a sub-panel of the High Energy Physics Advisory Panel,

in December 2005. The schedule for turning on the Large Hadron Collider (LHC)

continues to evolve, and new results from the Tevatron are regularly being published. P5 will meet this summer to consider whether their recommendation needs

to be revised on the basis of new information.

While the Tevatron collider program will be completed by the end of the decade,

other accelerator-based facilities at Fermilab will continue. In particular, the accelerator-based neutrino program, which employs Fermilab’s powerful proton beam,

will continue to be a world-leading center investigating the science of the neutrino.

The flagship experiments in this program, MINOS and NOvA, are expected to run

well into the later part of the next decade.

As to the longer-term future, although we may eventually be able to make a

strong scientific case for the ILC, it is premature to make that determination at this

time. While there has been some progress through initial international efforts, much

work remains to be done before the U.S. is in a position to make informed evaluations and decisions. Even assuming a positive decision in the future to build an ILC,

its schedule and cost will almost certainly exceed the optimistic projections. ComVerDate 11-MAY-2000 08:14 Jan 17, 2008 Jkt 033610 PO 00000 Frm 00091 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\E&E07\030707\33610 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
88

pleting the R&D and engineering design, negotiating an international structure, selecting a site, obtaining firm financial commitments, and building the machine could

take us well into the mid-2020s, if not later. Within this context, the Department

has started to re-engage the U.S. particle physics community in a discussion of the

future of particle physics by asking the question: were the ILC not to turn on until

the middle or end of the 2020s, what are the right investment choices to ensure the

vitality and continuity of the field during the next two to three decades and to maximize the potential for major discovery during this period?

89

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by Dennis R. Spurgeon, Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy, U.S. Department of Energy

Questions submitted by Chairman Bart Gordon and Subcommittee Chairman Nick Lampson

Q1. The Department released the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) Strategic Plan this year. However, neither this plan nor the DOE Budget Request

provides sufficient justification for the significant increases in funding requested

for GNEP. The plan calls for research and development of advanced reprocessing technologies, commercial deployment of evolutionary reprocessing technologies, and the commercial deployment of a fast reactor. In two years, the Secretary is to make a Record of Decision regarding the path forward to the commercializing of reprocessing and recycling. This is a pretty short period of time.

Q1a. How does the Department plan to spend a four fold increase in funding for

GNEP in one year?

A1a. The FY 2008 budget request for the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership

(GNEP) supports spending primarily in two areas: research and development (R&D)

involving experimentation and advanced computation and simulation ($297 million)

and, proposed facility definition and conceptual design ($92M).

The R&D category includes funding for university programs supporting GNEP ($48.5M), continued work to improve our knowledge and confidence in advanced fuel

cycle technology, including spent fuel separations, transmutation fuel, systems analysis, advanced computer simulation, and nuclear and materials science and engineering.

The facility funding covers laboratory-led conceptual design activities for the Advanced Fuel Cycle Facility, a research facility to be located at a DOE site; and industry-assisted studies on both a consolidated fuel treatment center and an advanced burner reactor. The remaining $6 million of the FY 2008 budget request

from the Office of Nuclear Energy for GNEP would go to support transmutation

education and other support activities.

Q1b. What is the balance in funding between the R&D activities and the commercialization activities?

A1b. The Department plans to use $45M of the FY 2008 budget request for industry

to complete conceptual design studies of facilities suitable for commercialization; to

document cost, schedule, risk, and needed technology; and to develop an economic

analysis that shows how costs would be shared between government and business.

Of the $297 million requested in FY 2008 for R&D funding, approximately $133M

supports work to address scale up and end-to-end testing in order to move from laboratory to commercial scale. This includes funding to invest in both physical and

intellectual infrastructure needed to support initiatives for closing the fuel cycle.

Q1c. In two years, industry can basically perform studies such as environmental impacts for siting these facilities, designing these facilities, and economic analysis

for the facilities; how much are we going to spend on studies?

A1c. The Department plans to support multiple industry studies with the $45 million of FY 2008 funds, as outlined above. The ongoing siting studies for potential

locations for GNEP facilities will be completed with FY 2007 funds.

Q1d. GNEP as proposed will spend billions of dollars to develop the Advanced Burner Reactor. Do you envision that this reactor would be a U.S. export product?

A1d. The advanced burner reactor is planned to be developed to destroy

transuranics from spent nuclear fuel and simultaneously produce electricity. It is

important to note that it is the Department’s goal that, through GNEP, that the majority of Advanced Burner Reactor costs would be funded by industry (including development and construction). The Advanced Burner Reactor could be produced as

a U.S. export product to other fuel cycle states.

Q1e. Could the Advanced Burner Reactor envisioned by GNEP ever be converted to

a breeder reactor?

A1e. The Advanced Burner Reactor is currently planned to be designed and licensed

to consume plutonium and other transuranic elements. As such, it would not be

built to breed plutonium. Changing the internal configuration of such a reactor from

a burner to a breeder configuration would be difficult, although not impossible. BeVerDate 11-MAY-2000 08:14 Jan 17, 2008 Jkt 033610 PO 00000 Frm 00093 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\E&E07\030707\33610 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
90

cause GNEP envisions using this technology only within fuel cycle states where

similar technology is already in place, proliferation concerns would be minimal.

Q2. Some in the DOE have argued that in order to lead the debate on how nuclear

technologies are deployed worldwide, the U.S. needs to lead in all aspects of the

nuclear fuel cycle. This argument has some merits, but the rate of deployment

of nuclear technologies in the U.S. and worldwide needs to be considered. While

there is interest on the part of the nuclear industry, not one of these utilities has

actually submitted a license application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Q2a. What gives the DOE such confidence that the nuclear industry is going proceed

with such a rapid deployment of nuclear power plants that we need to start

commercial reprocessing in the very near future, when the industry itself has

indicated that a good estimate of the rate of deployment of nuclear power

plants will not be known until 2020 at the earliest?

A2a. Since the signing of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct), it is our understanding that the NRC has received letters of intent from 15 companies stating that

they plan to submit applications for combined construction and operating licenses

(COLs) for up to 33 reactors by 2008. The first COL is expected to be issued by late

2010 and a new advanced light water reactor would be operational by the 2015–

2016 timeframe. Based on the success of EPAct incentives in evoking these letters

of intent and the completion of the final design tasks through the Nuclear Power

2010 projects, we believe that the power companies will have the confidence they

need to begin building the next generation of new nuclear plants.

Q2b. What indication do you have that the U.S. nuclear industry is committed to

commercial reprocessing?

A2b. Several private sector nuclear industry respondents clearly stated that they

were interested in participating in the development of domestic commercial reprocessing facilities in response to the Department’s August 2006 Request for Expression of Interest in GNEP Facilities.

Q3. DOE seemingly concluded that fast reactors are the only reactor type that can

effectively burn nuclear waste. It is not clear that the Department has thoroughly examined the capability of other technology options such as the high temperature gas cooled reactors.

Q3a. Can you please be specific as to how much has been spent and any documentation that has supported the examination of other waste burning technologies

such as high temperature gas cooled reactors?

A3a. A wide variety of fuel cycle strategies were investigated as part of the Department’s Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative (AFCl) and predecessor programs with annual funding of roughly $5 million over the time period of 2001–2006. Approximately $3 million in FY 2005 and $2 million in FY 2006 was devoted specifically

to examining the gas cooled reactor (GCR) deep burn concept.

Extensive studies were conducted of the waste management impacts of alternative

fuel cycle strategies. A key finding of these studies was that the transuranic (TRU)

elements (primarily Pu, Am, Np, and Cm) present in light water reactor (LWR)

spent nuclear fuel (SNF) are the primary contributors to the waste characteristics

that pose the greatest disposal challenges (e.g., long-term heat load, peak repository

dose, and radio toxicity). Thus, a critical goal of the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) strategy is to exclude these materials from the waste in its final form.

In a closed fuel cycle, the TRU are separated from the SNF and transmuted into

fission products with more amenable waste characteristics; this process is commonly

called ‘actinide burning’.

The Department has evaluated the burning potential of existing LWRs, advanced

LWRs, advanced fast reactors (FRs), accelerator-driven systems, and the complete

spectrum of Generation-IV reactor concepts (including high temperature gas cooled

reactors and fast reactor alternatives). The key distinguishing feature for burning

potential is the neutron energy spectrum—thermal or fast.

Extensive studies of multiple recycles in thermal LWRs were conducted in 2001–

2005. The general conclusion was that LWRs could be utilized for the initial recycle

of plutonium, as currently employed in France. However, each recycle of the TRU

becomes progressively more difficult and would be limited by fuel handling issues.

A modest heat load/radio toxicity benefit was observed for a variety of LWR recycle

strategies, however, a complementary fast spectrum system would still be required

to complete the burning mission and yield more significant benefits.

In summary, the burning potential of various reactor systems, including high temperature GCRs, has been evaluated. Thermal recycle systems could achieve partial

91

burning of recycle TRU, but would require a follow-up fast reactor to complete the

burning mission. GNEP continues to investigate these mixed (thermal/fast) technology options as alternate deployment strategies, with concurrent development of

a sodium-cooled fast reactor technology as the baseline approach.

Q3b. Which labs have been involved in this work?

A3b. The U.S. laboratories performing the advanced fuel cycle analyses include Argonne National Laboratory, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Idaho National Laboratory, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Los Alamos National Laboratory,

Oak Ridge National Laboratory, and Sandia National Laboratory.

The LWR recycle analysis was conducted in collaboration with the French CEA

Laboratory to assure that the most recent international experience with LWR recycle fuels and mixed oxide experience was reflected.

The high temperature gas-cooled thermal reactor fuel cycle analysis was conducted by Argonne National Laboratory and Brookhaven National Laboratory in

close collaboration with General Atomics. The Oak Ridge National Laboratory and

the Idaho National Laboratory have also been involved in the fuels work for this

reactor type.

Q3c. Should more be spent on further work in this regard?

A3c. The FY 2008 budget request for GNEP supports continued investigation of

mixed (thermal/fast) technology options as alternative deployment strategies. The

extensive LWR recycle studies previously conducted were motivated by the fact that

LWRs will continue to dominate the U.S. nuclear fleet for the next several decades.

Using LWRs for a partial burning mission would require the development and demonstration of recycle fuels. Furthermore, some modifications to conventional LWRs

would be required to allow widespread application of recycle fuels. If high temperature gas-cooled reactors are deployed extensively for either process heat applications

or electricity production, their suitability for a partial burning mission would also

be considered.

Q4. For reasons of balance of trade and U.S. influence on the non-proliferation front,

it is important for there to be a healthy U.S. owned nuclear industry. As does

DOD, DOE should consider the health of the U.S. owned nuclear industry when

making procurement decisions. There is growing concern about DOE issuing nuclear research and development contracts to foreign owned or based nuclear companies that in turn receive research and development contracts from their own

respective governments.

Q4a. Is reciprocal treatment afforded to U.S. companies?

A4a. Speaking only for the Office of Nuclear Energy (NE), the overwhelming majority of DOE’s Nuclear Energy Research and Development (R&D) funding goes to

American laboratories and universities. They are free to sub-contract work with foreign entities. NE seeks to ensure that research dollars find their way to the people

and facilities that can best do the work at the lowest cost. This tends to favor domestic R&D except in cases where suitable facilities do not exist, such as fast reactor test programs, or where a specific expertise or facility lies outside the United

States. A special situation exists in the Generation IV program, where U.S. R&D

is augmented by research funded by other countries, with all participating countries

sharing the results of the research.

Developing recycling facility concepts and designs requires expertise and practical

experience that is in very short supply in the United States, as we have not designed or operated such facilities on a commercial scale in decades. In this case,

DOE may rely in part upon foreign-owned companies that are typically subsidized

by their governments. Domestic companies may participate in this work and in so

doing develop more domestic capability.

Q4b. What is your assessment of the current state of the U.S. owned nuclear industry?

A4b. With the lack of nuclear plant orders in the United States since 1978, there

has been a consolidation in the nuclear industry, and many nuclear plant component manufacturers, suppliers, and construction companies are no longer in that

business.

Although the Nuclear Steam Supply System vendors, Westinghouse and General

Electric, have continued selling reactors overseas and servicing the currently operating reactors worldwide, many U.S. companies have not been similarly engaged

and have not maintained their American Society of Mechanical Engineers N-stamps

(quality assurance programs) which are needed for manufacturing nuclear plant

92

components. A large number of nuclear plant components will have to be procured

overseas. The prime example of this situation is that U.S. companies no longer have

the domestic capability to make the large ring forgings needed for major nuclear

components such as reactor pressure vessels. In fact, there is only one company

worldwide that can produce these forgings, The Japan Steel Works.

With announcements by 15 power companies of their intentions to submit applications to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for combined Construction and Operating Licenses for as many as 33 new nuclear reactors, U.S. manufacturers are getting ready to reacquire, or acquire for the first time, their N-stamps, but it will take

some time before the number of domestic companies holding N-stamp certification,

in the low one-hundreds today, is as high as when our current nuclear plants were

being built, just below 500.

As the market for new reactor orders solidifies and these companies retool, many

of the components of nuclear power plants are expected to be built in the United

States. Until such manufacturing capacity is expanded domestically, however, components for some of the new U.S. reactor plants, especially large pressure vessels,

steam generators, and pumps, will have to be built overseas.

Q4c. Does NE have any policy of giving U.S. owned companies any preference in

competition over R&D contracts?

A4c. Much of DOE’s research portfolio is aimed at support or stimulation of a public

interest, as opposed to buying R&D for the direct benefit of DOE, and thus is issued

as a financial assistance instrument and not as a procurement contract. This differentiates DOE somewhat from DOD, which does R&D for the creation of weapons

systems and the like through procurement contracts. More commonly, DOE issues

contracts for the management and operation of National Laboratories that conduct

research, or DOE issues financial assistance instruments. DOE’s National Laboratories are, of course, based in the U.S. and conduct virtually all of their operations

in the U.S. We discuss the statutory policies applicable to financial assistance instruments in the next section.

Q4d. Are there particular laws, regulations or policies that prevent DOE from giving

preferential treatment to U.S. owned nuclear firms in procurements?

A4d. There are no laws, regulations, or policies that explicitly prohibit DOE from

giving preferential treatment to U.S. firms in procurements for nuclear research and

development contracts. However, the Competition in Contracting Act of 1984 generally requires that agencies procure goods and services using full and open competition, and restrictions must be justified as necessary to meet the agency’s needs

or as falling within the Act’s stated exceptions. With regard to nuclear energy, the

Energy Research, Development, Demonstration, and Commercial Application Act of

2005 (Title IX of the Energy Policy Act of 2005) contains two provisions that requires DOE, at the very least, to consider foreign participation:

• Section 952(c) of the Act mandates that DOE shall carry out a Nuclear Power

2010 Program. Specifically, Section 952(c)(2)(C) further states that the administration of the program shall include ‘‘participation of international collaborators in research, development, and design efforts, as appropriate.’’

• Section 953 of the Act, Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative, mandates the conduct

of a program to evaluate proliferation-resistant fuel recycling and transmutation technologies. Section 953(c) specifically provides: ‘‘In carrying out the program, the Secretary is encouraged to seek opportunities to enhance the

progress of the program through international cooperation.’’

Notably, Section 2306 of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPAct 92), and its implementing regulations at 10 C.F.R. 600.500 et seq., required an affirmative finding

that a financial assistance award is in the economic interest of the United States,

and a further finding that the foreign country under whose laws the foreign firm

is organized affords U.S. firms comparable participation and investment opportunities and provides adequate protection of U.S. intellectual property rights. However,

the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 05) does not contain any similar provision, nor

does it prescribe any blanket preference for U.S. firms for research and development

programs. Current DOE programs derive most, if not all, of their direction from

EPAct 05. Hence, the requirements of Section 2306 of EPAct 92 and its implementing regulations are largely inapplicable to ongoing programs.

In addition, when we issue a research and development financial assistance or

procurement award, the Bayh-Dole Act 35 U.S.C. 200 et seq. requires that small

businesses, university, and non-profit awardees retain ownership of new inventions

subject to a preference in any exclusive licensing of companies who agree to substantially manufacture in the United States. For awardees not subject to the BayhVerDate 11-MAY-2000 08:14 Jan 17, 2008 Jkt 033610 PO 00000 Frm 00096 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\E&E07\030707\33610 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
93

Dole Act, DOE owns all new inventions unless a waiver is granted. In negotiating

patent waivers, we seek to have provisions that maximize benefit to the U.S. economy such as by seeking U.S. manufacture of any commercial exploitation of the new

inventions.

Q5. The relationship between the Next Generation Nuclear Plant (NGNP) and GNEP

is not clear, making it difficult to discern a comprehensive nuclear policy from

the department.

a. Please outline the relationship between the NGNP project and GNEP?

b. Of these which is an industry priority?

c. Are you confident that U.S. companies will be willing to assume the cost-share

of NGNP?

A5. One of the key objectives of the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) is

to make nuclear power an attractive alternative to fossil fuels for developing countries around the world. Because the power generation requirements are limited for

these countries, they will likely need smaller reactors. A Very High Temperature

Reactor (VHTR), such as the one being developed under the Next Generation Nuclear Plant (NGNP), is a small modular reactor design that could be very well suited

to meet the objectives of GNEP for global deployment of nuclear power to developing

countries.

In the meantime, a continuing priority of the Department is the Nuclear Power

2010 program which seeks to bring new nuclear reactors online in the very near

term. Domestically, NGNP is not currently considered a competitive base load electrical power generation technology. Therefore, continued research and development

is needed before it is of greater interest to the nuclear power industry. The petrochemical industry and other energy and product manufacturing industries are the

most likely to be interested in NGNP as a heat source for energy intensive processes. At this time, these industries, while expressing interest, have not expressed

a willingness to invest equally with the government in the licensing and deployment

of NGNP. They are interested in the government’s pursuit of this technology with

possibly a small percentage cost share. The Department remains committed to the

timeframe laid out in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 for development of the NGNP

and is seeking to increase industry cooperation.

Questions submitted by Representative Ralph M. Hall

Q1. You point out that 45–50 1,000 megawatt nuclear reactors must be built over

the next 25 years to maintain nuclear’s 20 percent share of electricity generation.

Q1a. Will our current fleet last this long?

A1a. Most of the existing 103 U.S. nuclear plants are expected to continue operating for the next 25 years. As of today, forty-eight of these nuclear reactors have

received license renewals for an additional twenty years of operation with another

eight currently under review by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).

Should the entire fleet of currently operating nuclear plants receive only a single

twenty-year license renewal, the first retirement would be expected in 2029. By

2032, 12 reactors totaling 8,000 megawatts of capacity will have been retired leaving

in place 92 of the original 104 reactors with 94,000 megawatts of capacity. The rate

of reactor retirements then accelerate in subsequent years with half of the current

nuclear fleet retired by 2040 and only a handful of nuclear plants operating in 2050.

Q1b. Will we have to build 45–50 new plants and, in addition, replace our current

103?

A1b. The ‘‘45–50’’ gigawatts (GW) range does not include additional new plants

needed to replace retiring nuclear plants. The 45–50 new plants address the increase in electricity demand over the next 25 years (through 2032). Additional new

plants will be needed to replace the current operating plants when they are retired

in order to maintain nuclear’s share of electricity generation.

Q2. Is the Nuclear Power 2010 program on-schedule? Between this program and

EPACT, are they sufficient to bring on-line the necessary nuclear generation we

need?

A2. The Nuclear Power 2010 program is on schedule. This program and the incentives from the Energy Policy Act of 2005 will help offset the technical and financial

risks facing the ‘‘first movers’’ in building new nuclear power plants, and offer a significant catalyst to get power companies to build new nuclear capacity. Over a dozen

power companies have announced their intentions to apply for combined ConstrucVerDate 11-MAY-2000 08:14 Jan 17, 2008 Jkt 033610 PO 00000 Frm 00097 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\E&E07\030707\33610 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
94

tion and Operating Licenses (COLs) for over 30 nuclear units. The reactor designs

chosen, all being greater than 1,000 megawatts, represent as much as 46 gigawatts

of new capacity.

While it remains uncertain how many new nuclear plants will be built, as new

nuclear plants are successfully placed into service on schedule and within projected

budgets, we can expect more orders to follow. However, these new orders are always

contingent on market conditions including factors such as the rate of growth in electricity demand, fossil fuels costs, manufacturing and construction infrastructure capability, and relevant environmental regulations.

Bringing 50–60 reactors on line before 2032 would dictate a pace of as many as

five per year over a 10–15 year period. Such a pace could be challenging, especially

if there is a delay in follow-on orders, as utilities await successful start-up of the

first few reactors and expansion of the United States manufacturing and construction infrastructure.

Q3. One of the goals of the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative is to provide for proliferation-resistant technologies to recover the energy content in spent nuclear fuel.

Q3a. Is this program creating this technology or does it already exist and this program is expanding on it?

A3a. The basis for a proliferation-resistant fuel cycle are the separations processes

for light water reactor spent nuclear fuel that do not isolate pure plutonium; fabrication of fuels and targets from the separated actinides for fast reactor transmutation; and recycle of spent fast reactor fuel, again without separating pure plutonium.

The technologies described above for a proliferation-resistant fuel cycle have been

demonstrated only in small-scale tests conducted at the national laboratories, but

the results are encouraging. AFCI is not limiting the technology to domestic use;

if applied world-wide, international proliferation risks would be greatly reduced.

Q3b. Is the 80 percent reduction in the volume of waste an accurate estimate?

A3b. The 80 percent reduction in waste volume resulting from application of the advanced fuel cycle technologies under development in AFCI/GNEP is a reasonable estimate based on current knowledge and experience, as well as numerous assumptions regarding the nature of the wastes and the waste management processes used.

Q3c. Would this waste require the same conditions for burial at Yucca as the waste

that is currently slotted to go there?

A3c. Assuming deployment of GNEP technologies and facilities as currently envisioned, it is expected that the volume, heat load and radio-toxicity of waste to be

disposed in a geologic repository will be reduced. The conditions for disposal of this

waste have not yet been analyzed in detail, although it is possible the waste packages could be smaller and, because of reduced heat content, more densely concentrated.

Question submitted by Representative Daniel Lipinski

Q1. Argonne National Laboratory in Illinois receives a significant portion of the

funds for GNEP. Can you elaborate on the Department’s plan to utilize the research at Argonne Lab to support GNEP as it moves forward?

A1. From its earliest beginning with the first nuclear pile at Stagg Field at the University of Chicago in 1942, the history of the U.S. civilian nuclear power program

has been supported and driven by the technical expertise at the Argonne National

Laboratory (ANL) and its associated facilities. The ANL expertise has been involved

in virtually all U.S. reactor concepts built, or envisioned, up to this time. In particular, ANL is currently supporting the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership’s

(GNEP) advanced spent fuel reprocessing and reactor design projects. ANL currently receives about ten percent of the GNEP funds in FY 2007 to support these

important areas. In addition, ANL is home to the Advance Fuel Cycle Initiatives’

national technical director for separations and the campaign manager for advanced

waste forms and waste management. ANL’s participation and contribution to the

GNEP effort is planned to evolve as the GNEP program is implemented.

95

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by Alexander Karsner, Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, U.S. Department of Energy

Questions submitted by Subcommittee Chairman Nick Lampson

Q1. Administration support for renewable electricity technologies, such as solar PV

and wind, is much appreciated as concerns about foreign energy dependence and

climate change continue to increase. However, there is concern that the administration seems to be picking winners, rather than providing broad-based support

across the entire spectrum of renewables technologies.

Section 931 of EPACT 2005 specifically directs DOE to conduct a program of

research, development, demonstration, and commercial application for geothermal energy.

Why don’t the Department’s FY07 and FY08 budget requests reflect the directions given in EPAct for geothermal energy?

A1. Since the 1970s, the Department of Energy has conducted a research and development program in geothermal technology valued in excess of $1.3 billion. That investment has helped to produce the strong market for geothermal energy we see

today. Projects under construction, or which have both Power Purchase Agreements

and are undergoing production drilling, amount to 489 megawatts in eight western

states. Also, the industry now benefits from provisions in EPACT providing tax

credits and a streamlined leasing process.

Q2. The Department’s 2003 Strategic plan included geothermal energy research as

part of its efforts to ‘‘improve energy security by developing technologies that foster a diverse supply of reliable, affordable, and environmentally sound energy. . .’’ Geothermal power was part of DOE’s ‘‘long-term vision of a zero-emission future in which the nation does not rely on imported energy.’’ But more recently, the Department of Energy seems to not agree with this assessment.

Q2a. What has happened in the past three years to apparently change the Department’s views of the geothermal resource base and its potential?

A2a. In recent years, the Department’s Geothermal Program has achieved key research objectives for conventional hydrothermal technology development. Geothermal power production from high-temperature, shallow resources is now a relatively mature energy technology. Projects under construction, or which have both

Power Purchase Agreements and are undergoing production drilling, amount to 489

megawatts (mw) in eight western states. Additionally, the Western Governors Association geothermal task force recently identified over 100 sites with an estimated

13,000 MW of near-term power development potential.

Q2b. The Department indicated in 2003 that there were many technological challenges to achieving production from the vast geothermal resource base. Does the

Department now consider these challenges are solved [sic], have new information that indicates its prior assessments of geothermal resources are incorrect

[sic], or has the Department concluded that federal efforts and technology development cannot overcome them?

A2b. Our geothermal program has achieved its key research objectives for conventional hydrothermal technology, and has provided substantial incentives that support the near-term development of the technology and deployment of the large geothermal resource base.

The Department believes that recent substantial incentives, many authorized by

the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT), will do more to support development of the

conventional hydrothermal resources than technology development efforts. For example, geothermal now has both an investment tax credit and a production tax

credit that will improve the technology’s competitive position. (Qualifying facilities

can claim one or the other, but not both.) EPACT also contains provisions that

streamline and accelerate the geothermal leasing process.

Q3. The recent MIT report, ‘‘The Future of Geothermal Energy’’ has generated significant interest in the potential for Enhanced Geothermal Systems. During the

DOE budget hearing on March 7, 2007, you mentioned that DOE had not had

the benefit of the MIT report in formulating the FY08 budget request.

96

Q3a. Having now had the opportunity to review the MIT report, does it in any way

change DOE’s assessment of the potential benefits to be gained from geothermal

R&D?

A3a. The MIT report, titled, ‘‘The Future of Geothermal Energy,’’ specifically points

to the potential benefits of Enhanced Geothermal Systems (EGS) as a long-term energy option for the Nation and it is a significant and important academic contribution. On June 7&8, EERE conducted a workshop with industry, also entitled ‘‘The

Future of Geothermal Energy,’’ to consider the findings of the report and hear from

stakeholders on research & development trends in the industry.

Q3b. How does DOE view the potential of geothermal resources, especially EGS resources now? Does DOE believe EGS merits the R&D funding support recommended by the MIT report?

A3b. The Department is using some of the FY 2007 geothermal funding to conduct

a technology assessment of EGS to help industry prioritize its technology needs.

Q4. Congress recognized the need for R&D and deployment of new advanced hydropower technologies, when in Section 931 of EPAct 2005, it directed [sic] Secretary to conduct a program of research, development, demonstration and commercial application for Advanced hydropower technologies to enhance environmental performance and yield greater energy efficiencies.

Q4a. Why don’t the Department’s FY07 and FY08 budget requests reflect the directions given in EPAct for hydropower?

A4a. The hydropower industry has demonstrated the ability to achieve efficiency optimization, and fish survivability performance targets without further DOE direct

investment. In the fiscal year 2006 Appropriations Conference Report, the conferees

recommended $495,000 for hydropower research and directed the Department to

‘‘complete integration studies and close out outstanding contracts in advanced hydropower technology.’’

Q4b. At a time when the U.S. is looking to maximize all of its renewable resources

because of the growing effect of climate change, why has the Department terminated the hydropower R&D program?

A4b. The Department terminated its hydropower program in fiscal year 2005, consistent with congressional direction over the previous years. The Department completed an assessment of undeveloped U.S. hydropower resources, the technologies

needed to develop the resources, and the feasibility of developing the resources, and

determined that the Department had contributed the necessary tools to industry to

pursue development of these hydropower resources.

Q5. Preliminary assessments indicated that the ocean off U.S. coastlines represents

a vast potential source of clean, renewable energy.

Q5a. Historically, what R&D activities, if any, has DOE conducted in the area of

ocean power (including wave, tidal, current, and ocean thermal technologies)?

A5a. The Department had a program that ended in 1994, that evaluated Ocean

Thermal Energy which did not indicate commercial viability. DOE is currently supporting a small project on wave energy technology R&D with one company and has

previously supported projects for ocean current and tidal technologies via the Small

Business Innovation Research Program.

Q5b. Given the early developmental stage of many of the technologies to tap the

ocean as an energy resource, why has DOE declined to request RD&D funding

to advance these technologies?

A5b. The Department is monitoring domestic and worldwide progress in ocean energy technologies in collaboration with the Electric Power Research Institute and

the International Energy Agency. Some countries with higher resource potential

than the United States, relative to their overall energy needs, are active in ocean

energy R&D. Ocean wave and current technologies are still in their infancy stage,

with a small number of demonstration systems operating worldwide. The Department will continue to consider emerging technologies like ocean energy in evaluating its R&D programs based on assessment of national potential of these energy

resources, results of R&D, expected technology progress, and the potential benefit

from competing investments.

97

Questions submitted by Chairman Bart Gordon

Q1. There is enormous potential in deploying energy efficient technologies throughout

industry, low-income households and the Federal Government itself. Yet programs designed to do exactly that (i.e., Federal Energy Management Program,

Weatherization programs, Industrial Technologies) are being cut back.

Why is there an apparent lack of recognition by DOE of the need for greater emphasis on improving energy efficiency?

A1. The Department considers energy efficiency as a critical component of our balanced portfolio. The Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) programs related to energy efficiency comprise approximately 46 percent of the total

EERE proposed FY 2008 budget (including program direction and support funds).

The Department is pursuing multiple programs to improve energy efficiency. Our

Federal Energy Management Program is actively promoting the use of Energy Savings Performance Contracting (ESPC) across all federal agencies—awards have increased from $36 million in 2004, to $124 million in 2005, to a record $321 million

in 2006. The Department provides education and outreach on nation-wide utility incentive policies; best practices on demand-side management programs; and is integrating energy efficiency into utility, State, and regional resource planning activities. To assist market adoption of efficiency measures, our Industrial program is

pursuing a number of voluntary energy savings programs. Our ‘‘Save Energy Now’’

program sends energy experts to the nation’s most energy-intensive manufacturing

facilities to conduct assessments on how these businesses can save energy.

The Department is providing funding, tools, and technical assistance to support

voluntary energy savings programs on the local level through efforts such as Rebuild America and the State Energy Program. Through these programs, many states

retrofit and update existing local government buildings, offices, and schools and also

inform the public about the importance of energy conservation. In addition, our

Building Technologies Program is implementing an integrated and aggressive plan

to achieve cost-neutral Zero Energy Homes by 2020, and commercial buildings by

2025. In addition, the Department helps accelerate the adoption of efficient building

technologies and products in the market through the EnergyStar® rating system.

Q2. The Department’s abysmal record on promulgating appliance efficiency standards is now well known by Congress, consumers, industry, and even appliance

manufacturers. It has come to the Committee’s attention that even those standards that DOE has promulgated thus far are considered even by some industry

representatives to be ineffective in saving energy and reducing consumer’s electricity costs. Though the exact reasons for the delays and the promulgation of

weak standards are not at all clear, the Committee appreciates that some attention is now being paid toward rectifying the situation at the Department.

Q2a. Please list all appliances for which DOE is required to promulgate standards.

A2a. Statutory requirements to promulgate standards cover the following categories

of appliances. Note that some of the appliance rule-makings may be bundled together for efficiency, so the number of final rule-makings may be lower. The Department is on schedule to complete 23 of the standards by June 2011 and one additional by 2015 (automatic ice makers).

98

Determinations are underway in the following categories:

• Battery Chargers and External Power Supplies (Determination Analysis)

• High Intensity Discharge Lamps (Determination Analysis)

Q2b. To date, how many standards have been promulgated since the Administration

took office in January 2001?

A2b. No efficiency standards final rules have been promulgated since 2001. In the

18 years prior to the January 31, 2006 report to Congress, the Department issued

12 standards for products other than those directed in statute. Congress has set

standards in legislation as recently as the EPACT05 standards for 15 additional

products.

Q2c. Of those standards that have been set or proposed by DOE, please specify when

the standards take effect, how the new standards improve on existing standards, and the projections for energy and cost savings.

A2c. The proposed rule for Distribution Transformers was issued on August 4, 2006.

The proposed standards would take effect in 2010, approximately three years after

the planned issuance of the final rule. The Department’s proposed level for liquidimmersed and medium dry voltage distribution transformers would save 2.4 Quads

of cumulative energy over 29 years (2010–2038). In addition, the cumulative national net present value of total consumer costs and savings from 2010–2038 ranges

from $2.52 billion to $9.43 billion, depending on discount rates. The proposed rule

would improve on existing standards for transformers.

The proposed rule for Residential Furnaces and Boilers was issued on October 6,

2006 with a standard effective date of 2015.

The Department’s proposed standard level for residential furnaces and boilers

would save 0.41 Quads of cumulative energy over 24 years (2015–2038). In addition,

the cumulative national net present value of total consumer costs and savings from

2015–2038 ranges from $650 million to $2.48 billion. The proposed rule also proVerDate 11-MAY-2000 08:14 Jan 17, 2008 Jkt 033610 PO 00000 Frm 00102 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\E&E07\030707\33610 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
99

vided an initial roadmap for states to petition the Department for exemption from

preemption of the federal standards. The Department recognizes the potential for

additional energy savings that may be achieved under appropriately exempted state

standards.

Q2d. Please provide the same data for alternate proposals that were rejected by

DOE.

A2d. First to be clear, the Department has not yet issued a final rule for furnaces

and boilers or distribution transformers. We are still in the process of analyzing the

proposed rules in light of comments received. In the notices of proposed rule-making, the Department considered several factors for economic justification, including

safety and regional financial impacts. The highest standard level for Distribution

Transformers evaluated is estimated to save 9.8 quads of energy but is estimated

to impose a net cost on consumers of $9.4 billion to $14.1 billion (2004$) in present

value terms at three percent and seven percent discount rates, respectively. The

lowest standard level considered is estimated to save 1.8 quads and would save consumers between $2.2 billion and $7.4 billion (2004$) in present value terms at three

percent and seven percent discount rates, respectively.

Q2e. Please provide details on the perceived limit in statutory authority to develop

stricter standards that would ultimately save consumers billions?

A2e. The Energy Policy and Conservation Act directs the Department to establish

and amend energy conservation standards such that they achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified. Generally, to determine whether a standard is economically justified, Congress directs that the Department determine that the benefits of any proposed

standard exceed its burdens to the greatest extent practicable. Under the statute,

the Department cannot propose stricter standards if in so doing burdens exceed consumer benefits.

Q2f. What is the process for setting these standards, which federal agencies or entities are involved in this process, and who makes the final decision on setting

a standard?

A2f. As prescribed by the Energy Policy Conservation Act (EPCA), energy efficiency

standards generally are established by a three-phase public process: advance notice

of proposed rule-making (ANOPR), notice of proposed rule-making (NOPR), and

final rule. DOE seeks public comment during both the ANOPR and NOPR phases

of the rule-making process. The last step in the rule-making process is the publication of a final rule in the Federal Register. The final rule promulgates standard levels based on all of the analyses and explains the basis for the selection of those

standards. It is accompanied by the final Technical Support Document.

In each rule-making, DOE must comply with all applicable laws, regulations, and

executive orders. In addition to the statutory criteria that must be considered in

these rule-makings, the Department also analyzes and responds to public comment.

Additionally, the Department conducts reviews for the following 13 requirements:

1. Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, ‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review’’

2. Regulatory Flexibility Act

3. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

4. National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

5. E.O. 13132, ‘‘Federalism’’

6. E.O. 12988, ‘‘Civil Justice Reform’’

7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

8. Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act of 1999

9. E.O. 12630, ‘‘Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally

Protected Property Rights’’

10. Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001

11. E.O. 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’

12. Section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974

13. Congressional Notification

The Secretary of Energy makes the final decisions regarding all the Department’s

rule-makings.

100

Questions submitted by Representative Ralph M. Hall

Q1. You talk about the technical feasibility for wind energy to generate 20 percent

of our nation’s electricity and to produce more than 300 gigawatts of production

capacity to our urban load centers.

Q1a. What is the time-frame for this goal?

A1a. The time-frame for achievement of twenty percent production by wind will be

determined by the private sector in response to market signals.

Q1b. I have noticed that the President’s budget did not include an extension of the

production tax credit. Do you see this as an impediment to reaching 20 percent

and 300 gigawatts?

A1b. Reaching the technical feasibility point of twenty percent generation by wind

will ultimately be determined by the private sector in response to market forces.

The Department works collaboratively with the Department of Treasury (which has

jurisdiction on these issues) on tax policy issues.

Q2. In the FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership, you say the technologies that result

from it could lead to substantial oil savings if adopted by industry participants.

Is there a plan in place to encourage adoption?

A2. The Partnership focuses on the high-risk research needed to develop the necessary technologies, which helps reduce costs and address barriers. However, commercialization is ultimately industry’s decision. In addition, the program’s university-oriented activities create graduate education opportunities working with new

technologies and encourage undergraduate engineering students to gain experience

with hybrid systems technology and advanced combustion engines. This training

and experience can help ensure the work force has the necessary expertise to help

industry such technologies to industry.

Q3. You mention in your testimony that R&D on combustion engine efficiency will

allow ‘‘a car that previously got the CAFE average of 27 miles per gallon on gasoline could potentially get 37 miles per gallon with an advanced, clean diesel.’’

Q3a. Please explain what you mean by this.

A3a. Advanced diesel engines can provide a 25–40 percent improvement in fuel

economy relative to the average conventional gasoline engine of today, based on the

vehicle type and application. As part of a DOE diesel engine development project

for a light truck/SUV application, a fuel economy improvement of over 45 percent

was demonstrated. Hybridization of gasoline passenger vehicles potentially show

similar range increases in efficiency improvements. The mile per gallon figure stated above is an estimate and will vary depending on vehicle type and duty cycle.

Q3b. Is R&D being conducted on gasoline engines?

A3b. Yes, R&D is being conducted on gasoline engines with the goal of improving

their efficiency by 10 to 20 percent. Such R&D focuses on improving the combustion

process for higher efficiency, developing catalysts to reduce emissions from leanburn gasoline engines for passenger vehicle application, and enabling more efficient

use of ethanol.

Q4a. What biomass conversion technologies are available today for the production of

cellulosic ethanol?

A4a. The conversion technologies that are available today can be categorized into

two major types of processes, which each involve several types of feedstocks:

1. Biochemical conversion processes combine chemical pretreatments, enzymatic hydrolysis and fermentation to convert sugar from cellulosic feedstocks

into ethanol.

2. Thermochemical conversion processes aim to first convert the cellulosic feedstocks into synthesis gas or oil, and then convert these intermediate products

into ethanol either through fermentation or a catalytic reaction.

Q4b. How long will it take for these conversion technologies to become cost effective

for mass production?

A4b. The Department’s research and development aims to make both biochemical

and thermochemical technologies cost competitive by 2012.

Q4c. How are we going to move from 10-percent scale demonstrations to full-scale

deployment by 2012?

101

A4c. The Program’s RD&D reduces the overall cost and risk to the biomass industry, and improves the likelihood of obtaining financing for full-scale commercial facilities. Overall knowledge gained from the 10 percent scale solicitation and the

commercial scale Section 932 projects, enzyme and ethanologen development R&D,

and the program’s other RD&D is aimed at accelerating the ability of the biomass

industry to design cost-competitive cellulosic ethanol plants to meet the President’s

AEI 2012 goal.

Q4d. How will this be achieved while fulfilling the goal of making these cellulosic

based biofuels widely available to the public at reasonable cost to all Americans?

A4d. We believe that the combination of the accelerated DOE Biofuels RD&D programs, the President’s legislative proposals to implement the proposed Alternative

Fuel Standard (AFS) and the increasing cooperation with USDA, DOT and other

key federal agencies to facilitate ethanol deployment—are part of a coherent approach needed to bring the costs in line with competing fuels. Then the market will

bring the benefits of cellulosic ethanol based fuels to the public on a large scale

within the next decade.

Q5. We’ve heard the President speak of switchgrass, corn stover, and wheat straw

as feedstocks for cellulosic ethanol. Is enzyme research the Department is undertaking going to be applicable across the spectrum of feedstocks?

A5. Yes. The enzyme research supported by EERE’s Biomass Program and the Department’s Office of Science target a diverse range of feedstocks including

switchgrass, corn stover, wheat straw, as well as wood chips. In recent years, the

Biomass Program’s research focused on using a combination of pretreatment and enzymes with corn stover as a model agricultural residue. This work is now beginning

to focus on switchgrass as a model energy crop. One of the Program’s main R&D

objectives is to develop more efficient enzymes for lignocellulosic feedstocks (e.g.,

woodchips) and make them a part of an integrated process that minimizes ethanol

costs. To this end, some of the Energy Policy Act, Section 932 selectees will work

with leading enzyme companies to create tailored enzyme preparations for their

feedstocks of interest. Additionally, a new solicitation with the objective of increasing enzyme efficiency is in the planning stages at DOE. It is envisioned that the

projects awarded from this solicitation will result in enzyme systems that are cost

effective for a variety of feedstocks.

Questions submitted by Representative Daniel Lipinski

Q1. The FY08 budget request calls for an increase of 38.8 percent over FY06 levels

for hydrogen technology R&D. How does the Department intend to spend these

funds?

A1. The Department’s budget request of $307 million reflects the President’s Hydro- gen Fuel Initiative commitment of $1.2 billion over five years (FY04 to FY08) to accelerate R&D in hydrogen and fuel cell technologies. The increased funds in the

FY08 request compared to the FY06 appropriations will be spent on basic science

research through the Office of Science (an 83.1 percent increase) and on focused applied R&D through the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (an increase of 38.8 percent).

Q2a. I am disappointed that the FY08 request has zeroed out funding for geothermal. Recently there has been a great deal of interest in deep drilling for

geothermal energy.

I am curious to know whether, in making the decision to zero out geothermal

funding, there were any discussions about deep drilling potential?

A2a. Our geothermal program has achieved its key research objectives and has provided substantial incentives that support the near-term development of the technology and deployment of the large geothermal resource base. The FY 2007 operating plan for the Department included $5 million to support geothermal power coproduced with oil and gas demonstration efforts, for an evaluation of enhanced geothermal systems to help industry prioritize its technology needs, and to bring to

completion selected projects on exploration, drilling, and/or conversion technologies.

Q2b. Has there been consideration for a demonstration-scale project of an underground repository that you would mine for power generation on the surface?

A2b. Yes, with support from the Department, the world’s first heat mining (also

called enhanced geothermal systems (EGS) project, where technology is used to creVerDate 11-MAY-2000 08:14 Jan 17, 2008 Jkt 033610 PO 00000 Frm 00105 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\E&E07\030707\33610 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
102

ate a geothermal reservoir, was undertaken at Fenton Hill, New Mexico, in 1976.

The initial work demonstrated the feasibility of extracting energy through heat mining.

Questions submitted by Representative Mark Udall

Q1a. Given the challenging national goals being set by Congress and the President

for increasing the role of renewable energy in our energy mix, what are the

long-term science and technology needs for solar, wind and biofuels?

A1a. The Department has undertaken a thorough review of these needs in the series of workshops around the topic of ‘‘Basic Research Needs to Assure a Secure Energy Future.’’ The entire series of reports includes work on hydrogen, biofuels, solar,

nanotechnology, etc. and is available at this website: http://www.sc.doe.gov/bes/. These workshops contributed to the budget and policy formation processes that resulted in the Advanced Energy Initiative and the American Competitiveness Initiative.

Activities noted in the Advanced Energy Initiative (AEI) include lowering the cost

of producing cellulosic ethanol, improving the performance of lithium-ion batteries

and improving the cost and performance of wind and solar technologies. The introduction of these advanced technologies in the marketplace will lower the costs of

producing electricity from these renewable energies and will facilitate the growth of

a productive manufacturing base and an active marketplace for renewable energy

technologies.

As identified in the AEI, long-term science and technology needs for solar center

around increasing conversion efficiency and lowering costs, including the development of novel compound semiconductors, polymers, and nanostructured devices.

Work is also needed in photoelectrochemical materials and devices. Solar thermal

electric systems need further work in materials, especially thermal storage materials and high temperature working fluids. Thermochemical cycles are also of interest for producing fuels such as hydrogen. Improved polymers are needed for low

temperature solar thermal applications.

Key activities for wind technologies will focus on research, development and testing for improving the performance, cost effectiveness and reliability of large and distributed wind energy systems. For wind turbines, further long-term work is needed

for meso-scale atmospheric modeling to improve forecasting; for the aerodynamics

of wind turbine blades such as turbulence, separation, stall, as well as improved materials and designs for turbine blades, gear-boxes and hubs; and for power electronics for converting power to 60 cycle line voltage.

For biofuels, further work is needed on both biochemical approaches for producing

biofuels, i.e., from cellulosic biomass—such as enzymatic hydrolysis, particularly for

systems that can ultimately enable pretreatment, hydrolysis, and fermentation in

a single tank, and on thermochemical approaches for producing biodiesel, jet fuel,

ethanol, and other fuels.

Q1b. Does the President’s budget for EERE strike the proper balance between investment in short-term R&D (e.g., improving and deploying today’s technology,

processes, etc.) and investment in long-term R&D on ‘‘game-changing’’ technologies (e.g., new biomaterials, PV nanostructures, etc.)?

A1b. Yes. The President’s budget request for EERE strikes the proper balance of

short-term RD&D investments and longer-term inquiries. In addition, the work of

EERE is complemented and coordinated with that in the Office of Science to maximize the benefit of the taxpayer’s investments.

Q1c. Please describe the process of collaboration between EERE and the Office of

Science, if any.

A1c. In addition to the activities mentioned above, EERE and the Office of Science

(SC) collaborate in a variety of ways, including technical workshops, roadmaps,

structured activities between SC and EERE, use by EERE-supported researchers of

SC facilities, and joint solicitations. On July 31, 2006, the Department transmitted

to Congress, pursuant to Section 994 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, a coordination

plan detailing a variety of these joint activities, including a number of workshops

conducted on basic science needs for EERE-related applied research.

Q1d. Is there an established process whereby basic research conducted under OS

programs feeds seamlessly into applied research under the auspices of EERE?

A1d. Yes. As discussed in the Section 994 report presented to Congress, the Department periodically reviews science and technology activities, and provides an updated

103

coordination plan every four years. EERE also plans with SC, and manages a number of Small Business Innovation Research and Small Business Technology Transfer

program (SBIR/STTR) activities for SC. Currently, EERE is managing six topics for

SC, with an annual value of approximately $15 million.

Q1e. Is the ‘‘balance’’ referenced above appropriate to strike within EERE? Or should

such a balance between short- and long-term research be struck between EERE

and OS?

A1e. Both. As part of its balanced portfolio, EERE pursues near-, mid-, and longterm investment strategies for its applied research. The Office of Science is focused

on basic research, but new technical platforms discovered through basic research

can have a significant impact on EERE technologies in both the near-term and longterm. We have strived to achieve a balance between the EERE and SC investments

to ensure technologies are proceeding steadily from the lab to applied R&D and to

the marketplace.

104

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by Kevin M. Kolevar, Director, Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy

Reliability, U.S. Department of Energy

Questions submitted by Chairman Nick Lampson

Q1. I applaud your efforts to develop a comprehensive electric grid visualization capability to allow improved federal response during emergencies such as hurricanes and to identify regional and local impacts of energy disruptions. I understand that the new transmission grid monitoring system that is now operational

at DOE enables situational awareness in the Southeastern United States.

• What is your plan to extend this visualization capability across the United

States?

• Could additional funding and other resources, if they were brought to bear,

help accelerate this process?

A1. I appreciate your interest in this important effort. Wide-area situational understanding is a key factor in managing the preparedness for and response to destructive events. The Department is partnering with the Department of Homeland Security, national laboratories, and industry to develop this strategic tool to enable realtime status of the electric grid and to help identify the interdependencies with other

critical energy sectors. Although the visualization tool is now operational only for

the Southeastern United States, we are working with other major utilities in multiple regions of the country to expand real-time status information on a national

level. Additional funding would accelerate the process.

Q2. In order for intermittent energy sources such as wind and solar to play a significant role in our electricity supply system, we must develop technologies to store

the electricity when it is produced, then draw on it when we need it. As I understand it, storage is one of the major obstacles to more widespread adoption of

renewables. There is a significant increase in R&D funds for Energy Storage,

but a commensurate decrease in funding for Renewable and Distributed Systems

Integration.

• Can you talk about the difference between the Energy Storage and the Renewable and Distributed Systems Integration programs and why one is being increased and the other cut?

• Can you comment on how energy storage can improve the value of renewable

generation to the electric system?

• Why is funding for renewables integration falling even as the Administration

is requesting huge funding increases for technologies like solar photovoltaics?

A2. In FY 2006 and FY 2007, the energy storage program has focused on demonstrating and monitoring the performance of current state-of-the-art energy storage

technologies in partnership with the California Energy Commission (CEC) and the

New York Energy Research and Development Agency (NYSERDA). In FY 2008, the

Office proposes to research and develop the next generation storage concepts to

lower cost and improve energy density. Under the Renewable and Distributed Systems Integration activity the Office proposes to coordinate and oversee a variety of

demonstration projects that integrate renewables, distributed generation, storage,

and advanced controls. This is in response to the recognition of the critical link between energy storage and renewables.

The decrease in funding for the Renewable and Distributed System Integration

program reflects the completion of turbine and engine research, which will now

transition to systems integration.

Energy storage can significantly increase the integration of renewable sources of

energy into the electric system. Storage increases the reliability of intermittent resources like wind and photovoltaics, allowing these sources to become relatively constant sources of power. Renewable power produced in off-peak periods can be stored

and used during periods of greater demand, thus making renewables dispatchable.

Likewise, energy storage can bridge the gap during decreased periods of renewable

production and, when combined with appropriate electronics, it can also eliminate

short-term flutters that decrease power quality and impact digital equipment on the

grid.

The Department has not had a dedicated integration program that brings together

renewables, distributed energy, and storage with advanced communications. In FY

2008 the Office transitioned the focus of the Distributed Energy Research activities

to Renewable and Distributed Systems Integration. The decrease reflects the comVerDate 11-MAY-2000 08:14 Jan 17, 2008 Jkt 033610 PO 00000 Frm 00108 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\E&E07\030707\33610 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
105

pletion of distributed generation (microturbines, reciprocating engines) activities to

reflect the desire of the Department to have a stronger role in renewable integration. In FY 2007, a solicitation was initiated that requested projects focusing on renewable systems integration such as photovoltaics.

Q3. One way to meet increased electricity demand is for utilities to build more wires

and add more generation, but there is also enormous potential that we have

barely begun to tap to increase the efficiency options for the grid itself, including

high temperature superconductors, demand-side management technologies, distributed generation and others.

• Why is overall R&D funding in these areas being cut?

• Could you discuss how your office is pursuing options that will better utilize

the existing infrastructure?

• Which national labs are involved in these efforts?

A3. We agree that there is enormous potential to increase the efficiency of the grid

itself through high temperature superconductors, demand-side management technologies, and distributed energy technologies. The overall cut in the Office’s R&D

funding occurred in two areas, High Temperature Superconductivity and Renewable

and Distributed Systems Integration. The cut in High Temperature Superconductivity funding reflects the phasing out of motor research and completing flywheel

cooperative agreements. The decrease in funding for the Renewable and Distributed

System Integration program reflects the completion of turbine and engine research,

which will now transition to systems integration.

The Office is pursuing three other paths in addition to High Temperature Superconductivity to improve/optimize the existing infrastructure. These include real-time

monitoring and control of the grid, advanced energy storage, and systems integration research and demonstrations. Real-time monitoring and controls allow for faster

operations, which increases reliability, and reduced reserve margins. Energy storage

is critical overall to advancing renewables and improving grid operations. Renewable and Distributed Systems integration research is also demonstrating how to best

optimize grid asset utilization.

Many of the national laboratories support our research activities. The principle

laboratories include: Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Sandia National Laboratory,

Idaho National Laboratory, Pacific Northwest National Laboratories, Lawrence

Berkley National Laboratory, and Los Alamos National Laboratory. The National

Energy Technology Laboratory, a federal procurement office, provides project management activities for the Office.

Questions submitted by Representative Ralph M. Hall

Q1. In your testimony, you say that, ‘‘Superconductivity holds the promise of addressing capacity concerns by maximizing use of available ‘footprint’ and limited

space, while moving power efficiently and reliably.’’ You also state that it,

‘‘. . .supports advanced substation and interconnection designs. . .using less

space and improving the security and reliability of the electric system.’’

• Given the importance of High Temperature Superconductivity, can you please

explain the reasoning behind the requested 35 percent decrease in funding

from the FY06 level?

A1. The cut in High Temperature Superconductivity reflects the phasing out of

motor research and completing flywheel cooperative agreements. Approximately onethird of the $45 million requested for the High Temperature Superconductivity

(HTS) subprogram in FY 2007 will be spent on research of wire technologies: 2G

wire development, dielectrics, cryogenics, and cable systems. This represents a decrease from FY 2006, when approximately half of the HTS subprogram’s funding

was spent on these technologies, because these projects have successfully met milestones, proven out their technological capabilities, and now move to the demonstration phase of development. In contrast, the Office expects to spend approximately

two-thirds of the HTS subprogram’s funding on HTS applications in FY 2007, which

is an increase from FY 2006 when just half of the funding was spent in this area.

Since these applications, which include motors, have not performed as well, we will

now focus more research dollars on achieving similar successes as have been seen

with the wire technologies. Thus, the Department is focusing on a near-term critical

need within the electric system to not only increase current carrying capacity, especially in urban areas, but also to relieve overburdened cables elsewhere in local

grids.

106

Q2. In regards to the Infrastructure Security and Energy Restoration activity, FY08

recommends a decrease from FY07. Given the importance of this activity in protecting the Nation’s critical energy infrastructure and assisting State and local

governments with energy disruption preparation and response, please explain

the reasoning behind the reduced funding request.

A2. Although there is a slight decrease of $219,000 in the FY 2008 budget request

from the FY 2007 request, the Department still considers its obligations to protect

the Nation’s critical energy infrastructure under the Homeland Security Presidential Directives 7 and 8 to be extremely important. The Department’s involvement

with current critical energy infrastructure programs and its commitment to assisting State and local governments with disruption preparation and response is and

will continue to be a priority. There is presently less of a need for as much outside

support. Therefore, this decrease reflects the reduction of laboratory staff by one in

order to accommodate program priorities.

Q3. I understand that Transmission Reliability R&D, Energy Storage R&D,

Gridwise, Gridworks and most projects in Electricity Distribution Transformation R&D programs are transferred to the Visualization and Controls subaccount as of FY07. The FY08 request for this sub-account is $25.3 million, but

the budget for these five activities in FY06 was $83.9 million. Please explain

this.

A3. The Visualization and Controls sub-account included the transfer of high-priority projects from the Transmission R&D, Gridwise, and Gridworks programs. In

FY 2006, the budget for these three (3) activities was $22.6 million. The FY08 request for the Visualization and Controls sub-account has been increased to $25.3

million, which includes additional funding for cyber security research. Most of the

projects in the Electricity Distribution Transformation R&D program have been

transferred to the Distributed Systems Integration sub-account.

Questions submitted by Representative Daniel Lipinski

Q1. The FY08 request for High Temperature Superconductivity R&D is significantly

reduced from the FY06 and FY07 requests. At one time this issue was viewed

as a great investment for potentially large energy efficiency gains.

• What is Department’s plan to continue research in this field?

• Does the Dept. no longer see the promise in the technology that it had previously, or are the major research questions essentially resolved?

A1. High Temperature Superconductivity (HTS) holds tremendous promise for

maximizing delivery capacity in existing rights-of-way while minimizing energy

losses. Over the past 20 years, the Department has stewarded federal resources to

carry this technology from inception to commercialization. In the last year, we began

to witness the returns on this investment with the demonstration of short-length

HTS cables at multiple sites in New York and Ohio. These projects reaffirmed the

potential benefits of this revolutionary technology. In FY08, the Department plans

to use available funds to continue support for core research in second-generation

wire development, as well as to sponsor projects that enable installation of longerlength HTS cables and other applications that address many of the research questions that remain unresolved. The cut in High Temperature Superconductivity funding reflects the phasing out of motor research and completing flywheel cooperative

agreements.

107

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by Thomas D. Shope, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fossil Energy, U.S. Department of Energy

Questions submitted by Chairman Nick Lampson

Q1. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 established a research program for Ultra-deepwater and Unconventional Natural Gas and petroleum exploration. This is a

program that Congress clearly cares about, and the President apparently approved of by signing it into law. However, the Department sent a letter to Congress asking to rescind this section of law, and failed to include funding in the

FY 2007 Operating Plan, effectively killing this program. Furthermore, you are

proposing to cancel out oil and gas research altogether, apparently with the reasoning that this R&D can be done by industry alone. This is surprisingly shortsighted on the part of the Administration given the enormous hydrocarbon resources in these fields, and the fact that, because of cost and technical complexity of extracting these resources, only the biggest of oil companies can afford

to do the research and deploy the technologies. These large companies simply

have priorities elsewhere.

Q1a. What reasons does the Department have for eliminating the Ultra-deep program, especially in light of its elimination of oil and gas research?

A1a. The Administration’s request to repeal this program is based on the fact that

oil and gas are mature industries that have every incentive, particularly at today’s

prices, to enhance production and continue research and development of technologies on their own. There is no need for taxpayers to subsidize oil companies in

these efforts. The Administration’s Research and Development Investment Criteria

direct programs to avoid duplicating research in areas that are receiving funding

from the private sector. We believe that independent producers, as well as the majors, will continue to purchase innovative technologies developed by service companies.

Q1b. If Congress does not rescind this section of law will the Department carry out

this very vital research program as it is instructed to do by law?

A1b. Yes, the Department is currently implementing the program according to the

requirements of the law and will continue to do so unless the law is repealed.

Q1c. Why have no funds been apportioned to the National Energy Technology Laboratory for carrying out the activities assigned to it in Subtitle J of EPAct

2005?

A1c. The $50 million available under Subtitle J in FY 2007 has been apportioned

to NETL. NETL has begun work to produce the first annual research and development plan, which is required under the subtitle before research solicitations can be

issued. Development and review of this plan, including review by two Federal Advisory Committees, is proceeding.

Q1d. How could smaller firms leverage federal resources for oil and gas research?

A1d. Small firms will be eligible for research awards under the Subtitle J program.

They may submit research proposals themselves or team with other organizations

such as research laboratories or universities to apply for federal funds. Small firms

may want to pay special attention to the portion of the solicitation for proposals that

will deal with the technology challenges of small producers, one of the research

areas specified by the law.

Questions submitted by Representative Ralph M. Hall

Q1. In the President’s 2007 State of the Union speech he stated that ‘‘It’s in our vital

interest to diversify America’s energy supply—the way forward is through technology,’’ that we must increase the supply of alternative fuels,’’ and that we

should ‘‘dramatically reduce our dependence on foreign oil.’’ One of the most

promising ways to achieve these goals is through development of coal-to-liquids

facilities.

• Why is there so little funding recommended in the FY 2008 budget for coalto-liquids programs?

• How does DOE justify this lack of funding of such a critical technology?

108

A1. Although past Department efforts and some congressionally directed funding

has focused on production of liquid fuels from coal, the FY 2008 Budget does not

support these activities. Coal to liquids is a mature technology with evolutionary advances and incremental improvements possible, and therefore is not consistent with

the Research and Development Investment Criteria. Past government funded programs have resulted in improved processes, catalysts and reactors, but there were

no realized economic benefits because the technology was still not economic given

other business risks and considerations, indicating that the obstacle was more due

to market factors than technical issues. These coal-to-liquid processes can produce

clean, zero-sulfur liquid fuels that are cleaner than required under the Tier II fuel

regulations. The fuels are compatible with petroleum fuels and can utilize the same

distribution infrastructure.

The Office of Fossil Energy in DOE carries out an extensive research and technology development in coal gasification and hydrogen from coal. The targets of these

programs are improved technology for clean coal-based power generation systems

(for example, integrated coal gasification combined-cycle) and hydrogen production

from coal, including DOE’s FutureGen project. Because of technology overlaps between CTL fuel systems and coal gasification-based power and hydrogen production

systems, nearly all of the President’s FY 2008 budget for the DOE programs in coal

gasification and coal fuels ($65 million) and a significant portion of the $27 million

for advanced research support research and technology development that is relevant

to the production of CTL fuels.

A major concern regarding deployment of CTL technology is the potential impact

on greenhouse gas emissions. The FY 2008 Budget provides $86 million for research

directed at carbon capture and sequestration. This work is relevant to addressing

the uncertainties regarding the viability of CTL fuels production if carbon dioxide

emissions need to be controlled. The Sequestration Program is focused on applications for coal gasification power generation and hydrogen production.

Q2. OMB and the Natural Research Council of the National noted that substantial

benefits accrue from the DOE coal R&D program and from the continued use

of coal in the energy mix. However, OMB and NRC have repeatedly criticized

DOE for failing to establish a consistent measurement system for the future benefits of its coal research program, the distribution of these benefits between the

public and private sectors, and the methodology and assumptions used in estimating program costs and benefits.

• Why has DOE been lax in developing these measures and what steps will be

taken to remedy this deficiency in FY 2008?

• Does DOE’s continuing failure to adequately estimate the benefits of its coal

programs jeopardize future funding for these programs?

A2. DOE has made significant efforts in recent years to develop a methodology for

estimating the benefits of its research and development (R&D) activities that can

be implemented on a consistent basis across all programs. Results from these efforts

are included in the FY 2008 budget submission to Congress. The Department is

working to improve consistency across programs in the methodology and assumptions used in estimating program costs and benefits. The assumptions and methods

underlying the modeling efforts have significant impacts on the estimated benefits.

Results could vary significantly if external factors differ from the baseline case or

alternative scenarios assumed for this analysis.

At the heart of the methodology is the National Energy Modeling System (HEMS),

which DOE/EIA uses for its Annual Energy Outlook. The DOE offices of Nuclear

Energy, Fossil Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, and Electricity

Supply and Energy Reliability use a consistent NEMS framework in conducting benefits analysis. Thus consistent policy assumptions are applied to all programs. Each

of these DOE programs are evaluated against a consistent set of ‘‘success’’ and ‘‘no

success’’ assumptions, and all benefits reporting for DOE programs are based on a

consistent set of metrics for economic, environmental, and energy security impacts.

In December 2006, a group of external peer reviewers assessed the consistent policy

scenarios applied to all of these DOE programs. In addition to addressing comments

from the reviewers, DOE is also working to develop consistent methodologies for

gathering cost and performance data for energy systems and for projecting this data

into the future.

There are two major challenges that DOE is continuing to deal with in its efforts

to improve its benefits estimates:

1. Making benefits estimates intuitive and understandable to its stakeholders,

in spite of the large number of major assumptions needed to predict how an

109

advanced energy technology might perform and compete over the next 50

years.

2. Dealing with the inherent risk associated with R&D. One simply cannot

state with certainty how likely high-risk R&D, especially for major programs,

such as the near-zero atmospheric emissions coal plant (including CO2 capture and storage), is to meet its time and performance goals. A further complication is that in order to estimate the benefits of an advanced energy system, it must be competed against other advanced systems that also have significant risk associated with meeting cost and performance goals.

The first item is largely a communication challenge, and we are working on new

ways to display and explain our results. The second is an extreme methodological

challenge.

The Department is currently pilot testing several risk methodologies and will be

evaluating the results throughout FY 2007.

We do not believe that the methodological challenges to improve R&D benefits estimates should jeopardize programmatic funding. In some cases a ‘‘rough’’ estimate

of benefits can be made that is sufficient to justify that support for certain R&D

should be a priority. For example, relatively simple analysis that considers the degree to which greenhouse gases will need to be reduced over time, and the limited

number of options for effecting major greenhouse gas reductions, strongly suggests

that a variety of options will be necessary to tackle this problem, and that reducing

the cost of these options will have huge societal benefits. R&D to reduce the cost

of coal-fueled electricity generation that includes carbon capture and storage is

clearly one of the more promising options.

Q3. FutureGen is one of the projects at the forefront of the new technology effort.

Central to the success of FutureGen is the ability to sequester CO2 emissions.

Has the department explored possible storage sites for this sequestered CO2?

A3. Yes, as part of the FutureGen site selection, possible storage sites for the sequestered CO2 from FutureGen is being explored via a competitive site selection

process through a solicitation that was issued on March 7, 2006, by the FutureGen

Alliance, our industry partner. Twelve sites in seven states submitted proposals to

host the FutureGen site. These sites had to pass qualification criteria to be given

further consideration against a set of rigorous site evaluation criteria. The

FutureGen Alliance selected four finalist sites from that group: Mattoon, IL;

Tuscola, IL; Heart of Brazos near Jewett, TX; and Odessa, TX. A final site selection

by the Alliance is expected to be made later this year after the completion of the

environmental review process under the National Environmental Policy Act.

Q4. Assuming it will be possible to inject the CO2 into the ground, what type of legal

and regulatory framework needs to be in place in order to ensure that these types

of plants will be built, and provide for safe long-term storage of large scale, long

lived sequestered CO2?

A4. It will be necessary to have legal and regulatory frameworks developed specifically for carbon capture and storage projects. Frameworks can either be adopted or

adapted from existing regulatory frameworks. The Department of Energy has been

working with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Interstate

Oil and Gas Compact Commission (IOGCC) in the review and development of regulatory frameworks for Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS).

CCS can be divided into four areas: capture, transportation, injection, and longterm storage of CO2. It has been suggested that the existing regulations under the

Clean Air Act could be adopted to permit modifications necessary to capture CO2

from power plants. Transportation of CO2 via pipelines, rail and trucks is currently

regulated under federal and State statutes through their respective transportation

agencies and, therefore, no new regulations for the transport of CO2 are necessary.

Frameworks for the injection and long-term storage of CO2 in geologic formations

could be developed from existing analogous regulations such as the Safe Drinking

Water Act (SDWA) Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program, which are currently implemented by federal or State environmental and/or oil and gas divisions.

CO2 injections for enhanced oil and gas recovery are currently permitted as UIC

Class II operations. The EPA has recently issued guidance to the EPA regions and

states that would allow the deep saline tests under the Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnerships to be permitted as Class V, experimental projects. The lessons

learned from these research projects will provide the technical data to permit future

full scale CO2 injection projects either under the existing UIC framework or as a

new well classification. Regulations for the long-term storage and liability could be

110

modeled after the UIC program but will need to be developed before sequestration

can be adopted as a commercial opportunity to mitigate Greenhouse Gases.

Q5. The Administration has indicated its strong interest in the development of new

and alternative sources of energy. One of the goals of this new technology would

be to reduce carbon emissions.

• In looking at the situation today, what would you estimate the cost to be for

a power plant to install current CO2 capture and sequester technology?

• What is the availability of such technology? Is it easily obtained?

A5. The capture costs will vary depending on the type of power plant and if the

plant is existing or a new build. The costs to install the technology include capital

costs for equipment and operational costs and can be displayed as increased in the

cost-of—electricity, incremental plant capital cost, and cost of CO2 avoided and captured. The following table gives estimated current costs. Actual costs could vary significantly based on the specific plant configuration.

The increased costs of electricity for capturing and storing CO2 are significant and

the Fuels and Power Systems Program is undertaking extensive R&D to reduce

these costs. The current costs of these particular scenarios are explained in more

detail in the paragraphs below.

Post-combustion CO2 Capture:

Installing CO2 capture on a new super-critical pulverized coal power plant using

current state-of-the art amine scrubbing technology (capable of capturing 90+ percent of CO2 emissions) results in an incremental total plant capital cost (TPC) equal

to $1,294/kW. This corresponds to an incremental increase in cost of electricity

(COE) of 4.7cents/kWh (from 6.4 cents/kWh to 11.1 cents/kWh) equivalent to $63/

ton CO2 avoided and $41/ton CO2 captured [1]. The current state-of-the-art amine

scrubbing is based of the Econamine FG+ carbon dioxide capture process being developed by Fluor Corporation. Significant technical and economical improvements in

amine scrubbing have been made in the past 10 years with the leading technology

developers being Fluor Corporation and Mitsubishi.

Pre-combustion CO2 Capture:

Installing CO2 capture on a new integrated gasification combined cycle power

plant using current state-of-the-art Selexol scrubbing technology (capable of capturing 90+ percent of CO2 emissions) results in an incremental total plant capital

cost (TPC) equal to -$625/kW. This corresponds to an incremental increase in cost

of electricity (COE) of 2.5 cents/kWh (from 7.5 cents/kWh to 10.0 cents/kWh) equivalent to $33/ton CO2 avoided and $26/ton CO2 captured.

As of 2004, there are more than 30 small amine scrubbing plants currently capturing CO2 from flue gas sources (post NGCC and PC) to be used as feed sources

for enhanced oil recovery, the chemical industry and the food/beverage industry. The

size of the current installations range between 100 and 1,000 ton CO2 captured per

day-significantly smaller than that required for a full-size PC power plant removing

17,000 ton CO2/day. Although Fluor Corporation is offering the Econamine FG+ at

this full-scale, it is clear that some commercial development is still required to extend the envelope of commercial availability into the region required by large scale

power plants.

111

The current state-of-the-art for Selexol Scrubbing is based of the designs developed by UOP. There are 55+ worldwide Selexol Scrubbing processes removing CO2

from natural gas—the process is considered to be commercially available at the size

required for a full-scale Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle power plant.

Q6. Section 1407 of EPACT authorized $100 million a year for three years for high

temperature Oxyfuel technology. It was to go to two small and two large Oxyfuel

coal plants, both new and retrofits. The DOE has never funded that section nor

is there any money in the budget for Oxyfuel technology.

• Why has section 1407 not been funded and why is there no focus on retrofits?

A6. The Clean Coal Power Initiative (CCPI) is the primary vehicle used by the Department of Energy to fund demonstration scale advanced coal technology projects

such as the high temperature Oxyfuel technology demonstrations authorized under

section 1407 of EPACT 2005. In FY 2008, the Department expects to complete the

CCPI Round 3 solicitation and proposal evaluations. Both new projects and retrofits

are eligible to apply for funding as part of this vehicle. The solicitation will be followed by project selections to assemble the initial portfolio of advanced technology

systems with carbon capture for sequestration and beneficial reuse. In addition, the

FY 2008 coal budget request includes $5 Million for Oxyfuel/Oxycombustion R&D

to continue the work begun in FY 2007 and earlier.

Questions submitted by Representative Jerry F. Costello

Q1. Can you please give an update of the status of the FutureGen project?

A1. The project is moving forward on schedule. We have completed the first phase

of the project, which included completion of the initial conceptual design and the

initiation of the environmental review process as required under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). In addition, under the first phase, a competitive site

selection solicitation was issued on March 7, 2006, by the FutureGen Alliance, our

industry partner. Twelve sites in seven states submitted proposals to host the

FutureGen site. The FutureGen Alliance selected four finalist sites from that group:

Mattoon, IL; Tuscola, IL; Heart of Brazos near Jewett, TX; and Odessa, TX. We are

aiming to complete the NEPA process this year to be followed by a final site selection by the Alliance. We expect to continue preliminary design of the facility as well

as further site characterization on the specific site when it is selected. The project

is on target for a 2012 start date for operations.

Q2. In FY 2007 the Administration requested $54 million for the FutureGen project.

Since the FY 2006 enacted level for the project was $18 million, does the Department intend to make up the $36 million shortfall needed to keep the project on

schedule?

A2. The Administration has requested and Congress has appropriated funds needed

to keep the project on schedule, consist with the project funding plan described in

the 2004 FutureGen report to Congress. This funding stream includes $18 million

in FY 2006 and $54 million in FY 2007.

Q3. As you know, the President’s budget proposal for FY08 seeks to eliminate funds

needed for FutureGen in the out years. How can it keep its construction deadline?

A3. The President’s FY 2008 budget for FutureGen is $108 million, consistent with

the project funding plan. We are moving forward with the project activities with

construction to begin in FY 2009 and start-up of operations in 2012. We intend to

request the necessary funds in the out years consistent with this project schedule.

Q4. Please explain why DOE reduced the number of carbon sequestration projects

around the country and how DOE will decide which projects to cut. How does

the FY07 Operating Plan change this?

A4. The Office of Fossil Energy has been focusing its efforts on implementation of

twenty-five field validation tests through the Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnerships (RCSP) Phase II initiative. These tests are designed to validate promising

geologic formations in their regions to store CO2. The tests are testing the

injectivity, modeling the fate, and measuring the response of the CO2 in the formations. In addition, these tests are developing the protocols for site characterization,

monitoring, infrastructure development, operations, and closure that will be used to

develop future large scale field tests. The information collected in these tests will

support the development of Phase III, Large-Volume Testing, and provide informaVerDate 11-MAY-2000 08:14 Jan 17, 2008 Jkt 033610 PO 00000 Frm 00115 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\E&E07\030707\33610 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
112

tion that can be used to inform future commercial Carbon Capture and Storage

sites.

In FY 2008, the Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnerships (CSRP) Field Validation Testing activities (Phase II) will complete and publish results for several of

the 25 geologic sequestration tests involving CO2 injection and monitoring, mitigation, and verification (MMV) operations in saline formations, depleted oil and gas

fields, and unmineable coal seams. The Department will prioritize among its Phase

II tests, beginning with those that offer the greatest potential benefits. The initial

focus will be weighted toward saline formations, since they are expected to offer the

greatest capacity for geologic carbon sequestration. The Department will also initiate an expedited schedule for the multi-year Phase III of the Regional Partnership

Program. In FY 2008, Phase III work will include the conduct of four large scale

field tests, including completion of the NEPA Process for selected sites, and other

work. In coordination with the current partnerships, the program will determine the

‘‘highest potential’’ opportunities for the initial expedited round of large scale sequestration tests in saline, coal, and/or oil and gas bearing formations. Due to the

increased funding level in FY 2007, the Department of Energy (DOE) was able to

initiate Phase III in FY 2007, further expediting the schedule for these highest priority tests. The Department will continue to apply a prioritization process to expedite the most important Phase II and Phase III tests. Several of the Phase 11 tests

are being strategically conducted to support Phase III activities. In addition to the

knowledge gained by the Phase II tests, the initial work on well construction and

characterization may support the Deployment Phase should one of the sites used for

Phase II testing provide the necessary environment for Large-Volume Deployment

Testing.

The DOE will continue these field validation (Phase II) tests through FY 2008.

Starting at the end of FY 2007 and through 2008 the DOE will complete National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) activities and initiate four large volume sequestration tests through the Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnerships. This will include the site characterization and infrastructure development for storage projects

that will inject up to one million tons of CO2 per year for several years. It is possible

that injection could occur in FY 2008. We are also working closely with the EPA

to assess requirements and procedures for permitting future commercial geologic sequestration deployments.

Q5. Since last July, all the DOE Carbon Sequestration Partnerships have been contributing to a thoroughly vetted capacity methodology that will result in a DOEproduced atlas identifying areas in the U.S. which have sequestration capacity.

This atlas is scheduled to be published in May of this year.

• Are you aware of any shortcomings with the DOE Partnerships to identify and

collect data on geographic areas?

• Second, do you believe additional funding is needed to identify more sequestration sites in the United States?

A5. The Atlas represents Phase I (2003–2006) of the Regional Carbon Sequestration

Partnerships assessment of geological storage capacity. The Department of Energy

(DOE) is using existing funding to work on both historical and field data collection.

During Phase II, which will last until 2009, the Partnerships are gathering additional information on geologic formations throughout the United States. This includes open source data gathered from Federal and State Geologic Surveys and proprietary data from industry partners. The information collected during Phase II will

be used to update the capacity estimates throughout the United States and revise

and issue an updated version of the Atlas in 2009. DOE expects to continue the effort to characterize additional geologic formations after 2009 during Phase III of the

program. In addition, the data collected during the Phase II field validation tests

and Phase III large volume sequestration test will be used to validate the capacity

estimates presented in the Atlas. DOE will continue to use its resources to develop

technologies and evaluate whether projects will be able to inject and store the necessary volumes to make this a commercial technology to mitigate future greenhouse

gas emissions.

DOE has shown that adequate capacity exists through the United States to store

hundreds of years of future emissions and additional geographic regions will be incorporated into the DOE assessment by the end of Phase III of the Regional Carbon

Sequestration Partnerships Program.

113

Questions submitted by Representative Daniel Lipinski

Q1. Is the $79 million request for carbon sequestration enough to ensure that the

proposed FutureGen plant can be constructed with this necessary technology? Do

you believe DOE is allocating enough resources and moving quickly enough to

develop this crucial technology that will lead to reducing our emissions of CO2?

A1. The FutureGen Project, as part of its site selection, has conducted initial site

characterization of the geologic formations that will store the CO2 generated during

its operation. The plant is schedule to be operational in 2012. The $86 million in

the 2008 Budget (including $7 million of R&D by federal employees under the Program Direction line item), plus the $105 million in the 2007 Operations Plan under

the Continuing Resolution (including $5 million of R&D by federal employees under

the Program Direction line item) is sufficient funding to complete NEPA activities

for four Large Volume Deployment Tests by FY 2008 and also for its Core Program

to continue with development of Monitoring, Mitigation, and Verification (MMV)

and other relevant technologies. With these activities, the sequestration technology

should be advance enough to be part of FutureGen and also utilize FutureGen for

technology verification.

DOE has accelerated four Large-Volume Deployment Tests in coordination with

the Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnerships. Funding from FY 2007 will be utilized to initiate these tests so that starting at the end of FY 2007 and through 2008

the DOE will complete National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) activities and initiate four large volume sequestration tests. This will include the site characterization and infrastructure development for storage projects that will inject up to one

million tons for CO2 per year for several years.