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

55–667 PDF 2010

S. HRG. 111–330 

ENERGY BILLS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

ON

S. 737 H.R. 2729 

S. 1617 H.R. 3165 

S. 2744 H.R. 3246 

S. 2773 H.R. 3585 

H.R. 957 

DECEMBER 8, 2009 

( 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico, Chairman 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

RON WYDEN, Oregon 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey 

BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, Arkansas 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

EVAN BAYH, Indiana 

DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan 

MARK UDALL, Colorado 

JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska 

RICHARD BURR, North Carolina 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas 

JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah 

JIM BUNNING, Kentucky 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

BOB CORKER, Tennessee 

ROBERT M. SIMON, Staff Director 

SAM E. FOWLER, Chief Counsel 

MCKIE CAMPBELL, Republican Staff Director 

KAREN K. BILLUPS, Republican Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington, Chairman 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

RON WYDEN, Oregon 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

EVAN BAYH, Indiana 

DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan 

MARK UDALL, Colorado 

JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire 

JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho 

RICHARD BURR, North Carolina 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas 

JROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah 

JIM BUNNING, Kentucky 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

BOB CORKER, Tennesse 

JEFF BINGAMAN and LISA MURKOWSKI are Ex Officio Members of the Subcommittee 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

STATEMENTS 

Page 

Cantwell, Hon. Maria, U.S. Senator from Washington ........................................ 1 

Johnson, Kristina M., Under Secretary of Energy, Department of Energy ........ 5 

Stabenow, Hon. Debbie, U.S. Senator From Michigan ......................................... 4 

APPENDIXES 

APPENDIX I 

Responses to additional questions .......................................................................... 33 

APPENDIX II 

Additional material submitted for the record ........................................................ 45 

(1) 

ENERGY BILLS 

TUESDAY, DECEMBER 8, 2009 

U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY, COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES, Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:35 p.m. in room 

SD–366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Maria Cantwell presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARIA CANTWELL, U.S. 

SENATOR FROM WASHINGTON 

Senator CANTWELL. The U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and 

Natural Resources, Subcommittee on Energy, will come to order. I 

want to thank my colleagues for being here today to hear testimony 

on a list of legislative bills. 

H.R. 957, the Green Energy Education Act of 2009. 

H.R. 2729, to authorize the designation of national environmental research parks. 

H.R. 3165, the Wind Energy Research and Development Act of 

2009. 

H.R. 3585, the Solar Technology Road Map Act. 

S. 737, a bill to amend the Energy Independence and Security 

Act of 2007, to authorize the Secretary to conduct research and development demonstration to make more biofuels compatible with 

small non-road engine and for other purposes. 

S. 1617, to require the Secretary of Commerce to establish a program for awards of grants to states to establish revolving loan 

funds for small and medium sized manufacturers to improve energy efficiency. 

S. 2744, a bill to amend the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to expand 

authority for awarding technology prizes by the Secretary of Energy. 

S. 2773, a bill to require the Secretary of Energy to carry out 

programs to support the research and demonstration and development of commercial applications for offshore wind energy and other 

purposes. 

We’re very pleased to have the Under Secretary of Energy here, 

the Honorable Kristina Johnson. So thank you very much for joining us today to speak on all of these legislative proposals from both 

the House and the Senate. 

The agenda for this is a hearing today so that we can hope to 

move these bills. Obviously it’s important that the committee consider these bills on a regular order but at first receive some expert 
2 

testimony on them. Under Secretary Johnson, we are eager to hear 

from you about the Department’s views. Ultimately if funds are appropriated for them, you will have to administer these programs. 

It’s important that we hear the Department’s views first and foremost. 

I want to note as we consider energy related research and development programs and I’m sitting here with my colleague, Senator 

Stabenow from Michigan.I’m going to call on her in a minute along 

with the Ranking Member Risch, as soon as he shows up. I’d also 

like to highlight an item that is not on the agenda that Senator 

Stabenow and I worked hard on which was the establishment of a 

new 30 percent investment tax credit for manufacturing. 

We were able to get 80 votes in the Stimulus Package for this 

48C tax credit for construction equipping renewable energy and for 

smart grid technology and manufacturing facilities. Senator Stabenow and I worked very hard on that. As we hear from the President in the next couple of days on his jobs agenda and as our colleagues move off of health care and on to jobs agenda, we are going 

to be working hard to resubmit that legislation in hopes that it will 

be a key component of our job activities moving forward. 

We think not only will it help create jobs here at home, but 

whole new industries that will support entire communities and 

manufacturing and clean equipment that we need to transform our 

Nation. The solar industry is a good case example of this. 

First, solar is a leading American photovoltaic model maker. 

They built their first pilot plant in 2005 in Ohio. But when they 

needed to scale up production generous manufacturing incentives 

and market demand in Germany and Malaysia led them away from 

the United States. If this clean energy manufacturing stint has become part of a stimulus bill it would launch a wave of new clean 

energy manufacturing facilities around the country. Just the stimulative effect for the solar industry alone would create 315,000 jobs. 

Let me also note for the record that Senator Stabenow introduced S. 2843, which is a companion bill to the House Bill that is 

on the schedule today, H.R. 3246 which we are considering today. 

The bill is co-sponsored by Senators Wyden, Brown and Nelson, of 

Florida. 

I would also like to take note that Senator Collins has provided 

testimony and cannot be here today on S. 2773 and S. 737 that we 

will also include her comments in the record on that. That is a bill 

to authorize the Secretary to do research and demonstration 

projects on biofuels. 

[The prepared statements of Senator Collins follow:] 

PREPARED STATEMENTS OF HON. SUSAN M. COLLINS, U.S. SENATOR FROM MAINE

S. 2773

Chairman Cantwell, Ranking Member Risch, and members of the subcommittee, 

thank you for holding this hearing today on the Offshore Wind Energy Research, 

Development, Demonstration and Commercial Application Act, which I introduced 

on November 16th. 

This legislation requires the Secretary of Energy to carry out a program of research, development, demonstration and commercial application to advance offshore 

wind turbine technology. This bill would advance the goal of the Department of Energy to produce 20 percent of our nation’s electricity from wind resources by 2030. 

Currently 61 percent of U.S. wind resources is in deepwater, greater than 60 meters (197 feet) depth. Winds at these locations are stronger and more consistent 
3 

than closer to shore or on land. It will, however, take technological advances to harness this energy efficiently and cost-effectively. 

This bill would focus national efforts to develop offshore wind technologies. This 

should be a national priority because this source can produce clean, renewable energy for major U.S. population centers. The 28 coastal U.S. states use 78 percent 

of the electricity in the U.S. For example, Maine’s offshore wind resource is close 

to the 55 million people who live in New England, New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania. This is 18 percent of the total U.S. population. 

Developing cost-competitive offshore wind technology will require improvements 

in the efficiency, reliability, and capacity of offshore wind turbines and reductions 

in the cost of manufacturing, construction, deployment, generation, and maintenance of offshore wind energy systems. That is why my bill directs the Secretary 

of Energy to support existing university centers and establish new centers to support research, development, demonstration and commercial application. The bill authorizes $50 million annually over ten years for: 

• the design, demonstration, and deployment of advanced wind turbine foundations and support structures, blades, turbine systems, components, and supporting land-and water-based infrastructure for application in shallow water, 

transitional depth, and deep water offshore; 

• full-scale testing and establishment of regional demonstrations of offshore wind 

components and systems to validate technology and performance; 

• assessments of U.S. offshore wind resources, environmental impacts and benefits, siting and permitting issues, exclusion zones, and transmission needs for 

inclusion in a publically accessible database;. 

• design, demonstration, and deployment of integrated sensors, actuators and advanced materials, such as composite materials; 

• advanced blade manufacturing activity, such as automation, materials, and assembly of large-scale components, to stimulate the development of a U.S.-blade 

manufacturing capacity; 

• methods to assess and mitigate the effects of wind energy systems on marine 

ecosystems and marine industries; and 

• other research areas as determined by the Secretary. 

Again, I extend my appreciation to Chairman Cantwell and Ranking Member 

Risch. This bill would support critical renewable energy research that would help 

reduce our use of fossil fuels and improve our energy security. 

S. 737

Chairman Cantwell, Ranking Member Risch, and members of the subcommittee, 

thank you for holding this hearing today on the Biofuels Compatibility Act of 2009, 

which I introduced on March 30th with Senator Mark Udall. This legislation would 

amend the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 to expand on a research, 

development, and demonstration program, authorized in that bill, to include efforts 

to make biofuels more compatible with small non-road engines. 

The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, directed the Secretary of the 

Department of Energy (DOE), in coordination with the Secretary of the Department 

of Transportation (DOT) and in consultation with the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), to carry out a program of research and development regarding the impact that biofuels, like ethanol, may have on existing fuel 

storage and delivery infrastructure used for petroleum-based fuels. It is critical that 

these biofuels also are safe to use in operating small non-road engines. My bill requires these agencies to expand their research program to include small engines 

such as those in snowmobiles, boats, lawnmowers, and chainsaws. In my state, the 

only fuel generally available is an ethanol-gasoline fuel blend with 10 percent by 

volume of ethanol. Many communities across the country have similar restrictions 

of fuel availability, which makes this legislation especially timely and important. 

Previous testing done through DOE shows that increased ethanol content in 

smaller engines creates a leaner burning mixture, which may increase idle speed 

on some small engines, creating unanticipated clutch engagement on equipment 

such as chainsaws and handheld trimmers. Also, fuel ethanol is more corrosive and 

less efficient than traditional gasoline blends. During these difficult economic times, 

equipment damage due to ethanol-gasoline fuel blends only adds to the many challenges facing Maine’s farmers, fishermen, independent woodsmen, and recreational 

industry. 

As we pursue strategies to lessen our dependence on foreign oil, we must also 

take action to ensure that ethanol fuel blends are safe and efficient for small engines. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation. 
4 

Again, I extend my appreciation to Chairman Cantwell and Ranking Member 

Risch. It is important that people throughout the country, who depend daily on the 

nation’s fuel supply to power their tools and recreational vehicles and boats, can depend on the fuels approved for sale in general commerce. I look forward to working 

with them to advance this legislation. 

Senator CANTWELL. So again, Under Secretary Johnson, we’re 

glad that you are here today to testify on all of these bills. 

I will certainly call on the ranking member when he shows up. 

But now I’d like to, if I could, call on my colleague, Senator Stabenow, to address the legislation she’s here to discuss. 

Then we’ll get to you, Under Secretary Johnson. Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF HON. DEBBIE STABENOW, U.S. SENATOR 

FROM MICHIGAN 

Senator STABENOW. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

I first want to thank you for partnering with me on so many 

items that effect manufacturing and both in clean energy and in a 

number of other areas. We have been able to partner on the Finance Committee as well as here. I appreciate the fact that you understand, as I do, that we need to make things in this country. 

That that’s really what this is all about is the ability to make 

things in America and create jobs and strong businesses and put 

people back to work. 

Madame Under Secretary, it’s great to see you again. 

I did want to comment on the legislation that I’ve introduced, S. 

2843. Also commend my colleague in the House, Congressman 

Gary Peters, who’s done a terrific job of passing this legislation in 

the House of Representatives. I do think it’s important that we also 

acknowledge the fact that in the Recovery Act that we passed at 

the beginning of the year. We have been able to move the ball forward with, as the Chair indicated, the 30 percent manufacturing 

tax credit for clean energy technology. 

It’s wonderful to have an Administration that gets it, quite 

frankly, when we put forward the fact that we needed to focus on 

manufacturing technology development and deployment. Equipment going to plants, retooling plants and so on. There was not a 

moment of hesitation from the Administration. 

So I appreciate that very much, the fact that there’s an understanding that yes, we need R and D, but we need to be able to go 

farther. As I said, put boots on the ground and actually be able to 

retool and help offset the costs of equipment and be able to get us 

all the way there in terms of creating manufacturing jobs. So I 

thank you very much for that. 

I also want to mention the fact that Senator Brown has legislation. I’m a co-sponsor of the Impact Bill which would also help 

small and medium sized manufacturers. I think that’s an important piece that we need to be focused on as well. 

According to the Michigan Manufacturer’s Association we have 

more than 700 auto suppliers in Michigan. We are proud of that. 

That totals more than 50 percent of the North American auto supply base. 

This is not about rust belt technology. It’s about advanced manufacturing. I also want to say I saw someone slipping in the back, 

a friend of mine, who does work, major work, on advanced manu-
5 

facturing. Madame Chair, Chip McClure, from ArvinMeritor, I saw 

in the back. 

Chip, it’s nice to see you. ArvinMeritor is at the front end of leading technologies and batteries, yes, for trucks as well as for cars. 

So we’re really glad that you’re here today as well. 

The Advanced Vehicle Technology Act, Madame Chair, provides 

funding for advanced vehicle technology research and development 

in the Department of Energy. We know that this was spur innovation. Ensure that America leads the world in inventing, developing 

and manufacturing technologies that will power vehicles for the future. 

Around the world other nations are making tremendous investments. In fact I think it’s important to note that we have, I believe, 

it’s $280 million a day that China is now investing in clean energy 

technology. Shame on us if in this new energy revolution we’re not 

the ones creating the jobs here in America. Shame on us if we let 

that technology and those jobs go overseas. 

So, Madame Chair this is about building engines and batteries 

and other components. We also have considered an additional natural gas vehicle bill, in my legislation, that passed in the House of 

Representatives. These bills, combined together, put forward a bipartisan effort to help us retool for new markets, move forward on 

advanced manufacturing. 

It certainly is critical that we do this now. I wish we had done 

more sooner. We’ve worked on efforts to do more sooner. But right 

now this is an opportunity to move as quickly as possible. 

So I thank you for the time. I would very much appreciate my 

colleague’s support. 

Senator CANTWELL. Thank you, Senator Stabenow. 

Senator Barrasso, did you want to make a statement? 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much, Madame Chairman. 

I’m delighted to hear from Dr. Johnson first. Then perhaps, make 

a statement and some additional questions. 

Thank you, Madame Chairman. 

Senator CANTWELL. Thank you for that. I think when Senator 

Risch comes we’ll allow him to make an opening statement. But 

since he’s not here, Under Secretary Johnson, we’ll let you proceed. 

Again, thank you for your visits to the Pacific Northwest both on 

visiting the Hanford side as well as the other activities to focus on 

job creation. So, thank you for being here today. 

STATEMENT OF KRISTINA M. JOHNSON, UNDER SECRETARY 

OF ENERGY, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you, Madame Chair, Ranking Member 

Risch and members of the subcommittee for the opportunity to be 

here today to give the Department of Energy’s assessment of several energy bills currently under consideration. We appreciate your 

interest in the views of the Department of Energy on these bills. 

Over many years and many Administrations, the Department has 

enjoyed an open and productive relationship with this committee. 

Those of us serving under President Obama certainly plan to continue and strengthen that relationship. 

We are encouraged by the committee’s commitment to continue 

to improve on the substantial and positive investment made in 
6 

clean energy through legislation enacted in recent years. In particular, we wish to thank you for all the hard work this committee 

has put into the Energy Policy Act of 2005, the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, the Clean Energy portions of the 

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 and this year’s 

reporting of the American Clean Energy Leadership Act. Additionally, I want to thank the sponsors of the bills we are discussing 

today, from both sides of the aisle and both sides of the Capitol, 

for their hard work on clean energy legislation. 

Given the brief amount of time I have today I will summarize the 

Department’s views and recommendations regarding several of 

these bills. A detailed analysis of each is contained in my prepared 

statement which I have submitted for the record. 

First I will address H.R. 957, the Green Energy Education Act. 

Adequately preparing our work force is a subject that grew near 

and dear to my heart during my 25 years as an educator. A general 

work force deficiency is growing across the energy sector. 

The rapid deployment of new energy technologies coupled with 

the fact that 40 to 60 percent of energy utilities’ skilled workers 

and engineers are eligible to retire by 2012 reinforces the need for 

a broad approach to address the green jobs development and training challenge. To this end, the Department already has been working closely with the National Science Foundation to strengthen the 

scientific, technology and engineering and math education programs at the technical, undergraduate and graduate levels. 

While H.R. 957 would advance the Department’s energy technology development mission in the specific arena of building technologies, we think that the scale of the challenge demands a more 

comprehensive approach. We believe that this bill could be improved to authorize activities beyond what the Department is already undertaking. To more fully address the larger issue of energy 

education, green jobs creation and work force training that extends 

beyond buildings. 

Turning next to H.R. 3246, the Advanced Vehicle Technology Act 

of 2009, we believe this act would enable the Department to build 

on its continuing efforts to improve existing vehicle technologies 

and emphasize other modes of transportation to significantly reduce passenger and commercial vehicle miles traveled. We also believe the bill generally covers an appropriate technology portfolio. 

It includes well placed interest in heavy duty vehicles and is well 

aligned with prior year program budgets. 

We do, however, have some concerns regarding the hydrogen and 

fuel cell activities authorized in the bill which are detailed in my 

written testimony. 

H.R. 3585, the Solar Technology Road Map Act, includes several 

features that would support the Department’s continuing vision for 

the solar energy technologies program. We are enthusiastic about 

the funding levels proposed. The road map concept is consistent 

with the Department’s prior efforts to establish ambitious, yet 

achievable targets for clean energy technologies. 

In fact, the existing solar program is already working with industry representatives and others to develop a solar vision study which 

will look at opportunities to achieve 10 to 20 percent of the Nation’s electricity generation from solar technologies by 2030. While 
7 

we welcome additional industry input and funding for demonstration projects the Department is concerned that the bill would place 

the Department’s solar program under the watch and direction of 

a semi-autonomous committee. This is problematic for a couple reasons. 

First, it would bind a Federal agency’s research and development 

efforts to the recommendations of a non-governmental entity. 

Second, constraining the flexibility of the Department to such an 

entity would hinder the Department’s ability to respond to an ever 

changing research and development landscape as often diverse 

sources of information and changing situations arising from yet unknown, but expected outcomes of the Department’s research and 

development efforts. 

Again the support Congress has shown for solar technologies in 

recent years has been encouraging and exciting. We would encourage Congress to stipulate that the committee would provide the 

kinds of non-binding advice and recommendations traditionally provided by publicly chartered, Federal advisory committees rather 

than a binding approach. 

Finally I’ll offer a few comments on S. 1617, investments for 

Manufacturing Process and Clean Technology Act of 2009 and S. 

2744, Carbon Dioxide Capture Technology Act of 2009. In the case 

of the former, the Department appreciates the committee’s support 

for improving energy efficiency across the manufacturing sector, a 

goal the Department shares. I am pleased to note the Department 

is already working to carry out many of the bills goals through 

work of its own or by collaborating with other Federal and State 

agencies, including the Department of Commerce. 

We stand ready to work with this committee and the Commerce 

Department to consider how the bill can be improved to draw upon 

our deep, domain knowledge and build off our existing programs. 

S. 2744 would authorize the creation of a ‘‘C Prize,’’ similar to 

other authorized energy technology competitions to foster novel 

technologies that separate carbon dioxide from dilute sources. The 

Department supports the creation of such a prize as we consider 

carbon capture to be an essential tool in the mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions. As currently proposed, however, the bill’s recommendations may be overly prescriptive, particularly in the area 

of intellectual property protection. We recommend that the Department be granted greater latitude in calling upon diverse sources of 

information in formulating such a prize. 

In the interest of time, I’d refer you to my prepared statement 

where you will find the balance of the Department’s detailed recommendations on these and the other proposed bills. I’d like to 

thank you again for the opportunity to testify. We look forward to 

working with you on these and other energy proposals. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF KRISTINA M. JOHNSON, UNDER SECRETARY OF ENERGY, 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Madam Chairman, Ranking Member Risch, and Members of the Subcommittee, 

thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss several draft 

energy bills. We deeply appreciate your interest in the views of the Department of 

Energy (The Department) on these bills. Over many years and many Administra-
8 

1From ‘‘Remarks by the President on Recovery Act Funding for Smart Grid Technology.’’ 

Press release. October 27, 2009. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-presidentrecovery-act-fundingsmart-grid-technology. 2The Department has been funded at $36.7 billion in Recovery Act dollars, after $2 billion 

of the original $38.7 billion was redirected to the Cash for Clunkers program. 3 Center for Energy Workforce Demand 2007 Report: Gaps in Energy Workforce Pipeline. 

tions, the Department has enjoyed an open and productive relationship with this 

Committee, and those of us serving under President Obama certainly want to continue and strengthen that partnership. 

In recent years, Congress has made a very substantial and positive investment 

in clean energy through the enactment of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109- 

58), the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA)(P.L. 110-140), and 

the clean energy portions of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (P.L. 111- 

5). 

This year, the Committee has proposed further investment and we thank you for 

all your hard work in reporting the American Clean Energy Leadership Act (S. 

1462). As President Obama said while dedicating a new solar plant in Central Florida, ‘‘At this moment, there is something big happening in America when it comes 

to creating a clean energy economy. . . . And I have often said that the creation 

of such an economy is going to require nothing less than the sustained effort of an 

entire nation—an all-hands-on-deck approach similar to the mobilization that preceded World War II or the Apollo Project.’’1

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act 2009 (The Recovery Act) alone provided the Department with $36.7B in appropriations—$32.7 billion in grant and 

contract authority, $4 billion in credit subsidy for loan guarantees, plus $6.5 billion 

in borrowing authority for the Power Marketing Administrations. These funds will 

support some $100 billion in clean energy and environmental clean up projects when 

leverage and cost share are included, creating hundreds of thousands of jobs and 

providing a meaningful down payment on the nation’s energy and environmental future.2

For this hearing, I would like to offer the Department’s views on nine proposed 

bills, as the Subcommittee has asked. These bills are: H.R. 957, H.R. 2729, H.R. 

3165, H.R. 3236, H.R. 3585, S. 737, S. 1617, S. 2773, and S. 2744. I will address 

each bill in order of introduction starting with the House bills, except the two wind 

bills, which I will address together. 

H.R. 957—GREEN ENERGY EDUCATION ACT

Background 

A cornerstone of The Department’s mission is to create an energyliterate generation of skilled workers, scientists, and innovators who can accelerate the transition 

to a clean energy economy and ensure U.S. global competitiveness. The Administration is deeply committed to promoting the creation of green jobs. 

While the Department appreciates H.R. 957’s focus on building technologies, we 

would like to impress upon the Committee that a general workforce deficiency is 

growing across the energy sector. The rapid deployment of new energy technologies, 

coupled with the fact that 40 to 60 percent of energy utilities’ skilled workers and 

engineers are eligible to retire by 20123 reinforces the need for a broad approach 

to address the green job development and training challenge. 

To this end, the Department works closely with the National Science Foundation 

(NSF) in a number of areas to strengthen scientific educational programs at the 

technical, undergraduate, and graduate levels. These projects are aimed at creating 

a pipeline beginning at the K-12 level and extending through the post-graduate level 

to ensure the ongoing development of a workforce with the skills and capabilities 

to create and scaleup innovative energy technologies and improve processes over the 

long-term. Further, the Department is already closely coordinating with NSF on 

education, green jobs training, and workforce development. The Department recognizes the importance of leveraging NSF resources, and is already taking proactive 

steps to solidify a stronger working relationship with our colleagues. 

H.R. 957 would facilitate stronger collaboration between the Department and the 

National Science Foundation. As written, the legislation would authorize The Department to fund NSF’s flagship interdisciplinary training program (IGERT) to educate architects and engineers to collaborate on high performance building technologies and practices. 

H.R. 957 assigns priority funding for applications encouraging partnerships between architectural and engineering schools. These fields are inextricably inter-
9 

twined, and can advance energy efficiency in the design and construction of high 

performance buildings. 

By supporting multidisciplinary graduate education and curriculum development 

activities, H.R. 957 will advance the Department’s broad energy technology development mission. The bill recognizes the need to produce the next generation of engineers and architects who can work together from design concept to building operation to integrate energy efficiency and renewable energy more fully into the clean, 

competitive economy of the future. 

We would note here that the Department is already undertaking efforts in creating or funding green job training programs through existing authorities. 

Through the Recovery Act, the Department is funding approximately $140 million 

in training and technical assistance to develop standardized training curricula for 

residential energy workers, expand the number of weatherization training centers, 

and to create a national weatherization worker certification framework 

To serve the commercial building sector, the Department’s Building Technologies 

Program has issued a Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) to support the development of training programs for building technicians, operators, energy auditors, 

and others responsible for building and operating high performance commercial 

buildings. These programs offer an opportunity to demonstrate how partnerships 

with the Department of Labor’s public workforce system, labor management partnerships, education institutions such as community colleges, and community organizations can meet the workforce needs of the commercial building sector. The Department of Energy estimates that approximately $7.5 million will be available for multiple awards under this FOA. 

Utilities, colleges, universities, labor organizations, and trade associations, will be 

able to apply for over $100 million in grants issued through a FOA to improve smart 

grid technology education and implementation, as well as funding programs and 

curricula to train or retrain workers in the electric power sector. 

Recommendations 

The Department is committed to achieving effective legislation to train and educate the new energy economy work force. The Department backs a coordinated, 

interagency approach and a balanced investment in education and training opportunities from kindergarten to adult job training, beyond just buildings. Although a 

good start, H.R. 957 could be improved to more fully address the larger issue of energy education, green jobs creation, and workforce training. I look forward to working with the Committee to strengthen this legislation. 

H.R. 2729—NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH PARKS

Background 

The Department’s predecessor, the Atomic Energy Commission, established the 

first environmental research park in 1972 at the Savannah River Site in South 

Carolina in response to recommendations from the scientific community, other Federal agencies, and Congress. Between 1972 and 1992 six additional research parks 

were designated on The Department sites. 

The research parks, located on Department-owned land, represent six major ecoregions across the U.S. and provide research opportunities on natural ecosystems 

as well as on the environmental transport, cycling, and fate of radionuclides and 

other contaminants resulting from nuclear weapon development and testing. While 

the Department-sponsored researchers utilize the research parks to conduct highpriority mission relevant research, research park use is dominated by researchers 

sponsored by other Federal agencies including the National Science Foundation, the 

Department of Agriculture, Geological Survey, and the Department of Defense. This 

is due in large part to the attractiveness of these areas for general ecological-type 

research beyond the scope of the Department. Currently, stewardship of each research park is the responsibility of its respective laboratory management and operating contractor, with oversight by the managing Department program office. 

H.R. 2729 formally institutionalizes existing research parks by directing the Secretary to designate six National Environmental Research Parks as protected outdoor 

research reserves for the purposes of conducting long-term environmental research 

on the impacts of human activities on the natural environment. 

The bill authorizes $30 million annually—$5 million for each of the National Environmental Research Parks—for the Department’s Office of Science to carry out 

eco-research and education activities. 

As a threshold matter, much of the research contemplated by this bill is already 

being performed. This legislation may also have a few unintended consequences. 
10 

4Wetzel, Kyle K. ‘‘Defect-Tolerant Structural Design of Wind Turbine Blades,’’ American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc., 2009-2409. 

• Any official designation of park lands as ‘‘protected sites’’ could impede the 

parks’ future use for mission priority activities and could restrict the Department’s current authority at the proposed sites. • While the research parks are well-suited for conducting the research proposed 

by the bill, much of this research is outside the scope of the Department’s mission and core competencies. An example would be H.R. 2729’s proposed research 

regarding the general ecology of the site and region in addition to population 

biology and ecology. Such research should continue to be supported by other, 

more appropriate Federal agencies. 

Recommendations 

The Department recognizes that the current environmental research parks will 

continue to be a valuable resource for the overall scientific community, and we believe the current support arrangement is working well. As such, current Departmental activities and authorizations are sufficient. 

Wind 

The Department’s Wind Program leads the Nation’s efforts to address the barriers 

to the acceleration of large-scale deployment of land-based and offshore wind energy. 

The Department’s 2008 report, 20% Wind Energy by 2030, outlines an aggressive 

scenario in which the U.S. could generate 20% of its electricity by 2030, and it also 

identifies the technical and non-technical barriers that must be overcome in order 

to achieve this. The Department’s Wind and Hydropower Technologies Program is 

currently funding research to address the challenges identified by the report, which 

include reducing wind turbine capital costs by improving reliability, integrating 

wind energy into the power grid, addressing environmental and siting concerns, and 

building the domestic wind manufacturing industry. 

The Department is working to improve reliability of wind technology, by, among 

other things, reducing blade and gearbox failures. These failures present one of the 

greatest challenges to wind technology, as they require costly repairs and reduce investor confidence. To reduce the risk facing new turbine technologies, the Department is funding the creation of facilities that will help industry develop the next 

generation of large wind turbine designs. For example, a new $45 million large wind 

turbine drivetrain testing facility, and a new $25 million large blade test facility capable of testing 90 meter blades have been recently awarded under Recovery Act 

funding. 

To overcome wind energy integration challenges, the Department is developing 

tools and strategies, such as wind forecasting techniques, which will improve the integration of wind energy with the electrical grid. The Department is funding two 

state-of-the-art high penetration wind integration studies, the Eastern Wind Integration and Transmission Study and the Western Wind and Solar Integration Study 

that evaluates the impact of integrating up to 30% wind energy into the U.S bulk 

power system. 

To address the environmental and siting challenges, the Department funds 

projects that seek to understand and mitigate the impacts of wind energy development on wildlife. For example, the Department funds work at Texas Tech University and Kansas State University to assess the environmental impacts of wind energy on species of grassland birds. Habitat impacts on grassland species are a particular concern because extensive wind energy development could take place in 

grassy regions of the country. Three other projects funded by the Department will 

focus on developing tools to assess habitat risks when siting wind energy projects. 

Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc., The Nature Conservancy, and Pandion Systems, 

Inc. will each work to develop scalable, spatiallyexplicit tools to calculate potential 

environmental impacts from wind deployment. The Department also provides local 

and state governments with resources to help them make informed decisions about 

wind power in their communities. 

To build the domestic wind manufacturing industry, the Department works with 

companies to develop innovative manufacturing processes and to develop a qualified 

wind workforce. For example, the Department is funding PPG Industries in Shelby, 

NC to improve wind turbine blade manufacturing processes in partnership with 

MAGIndustrial Automated Systems in Hebron, KY. Current blade fabrication technology is labor-intensive and prone to variability, resulting in incidences of manufacturing defects4. The PPG research will develop an automated fabrication methodology to deliver precise control of fiberglass preimpregnated material placement. 

This effort will reduce blade-to-blade variability, lower incidences of premature fail-
11 

5FloDesign Wind Turbine Corporation (Wilbraham, MA) will develop a new shrouded, axialflow wind turbine known as the Mixer Ejector Wind Turbine (MEWT), which is capable of delivering significantly more energy per unit swept area with greatly reduced rotor loading as compared to existing horizontal axis wind turbines (HAWT). Prototypes will be built and tested, 

demonstrating the advantages of lightweight materials and a protective shroud that will reduce 

noise and safety concerns and accelerate distributed wind applications. 6PAX Streamline, Inc (San Rafael, CA), along with Georgia Tech Research Institute, will lead 

a project to adapt Blown Wing technology for wind turbines, culminating in a 100 kW prototype. 

Circulation control technology or ‘‘Blown Wing’’ technology creates a virtual airfoil by jetting 

compressed air out of orifices along a wing and has the potential to radically simplify the manufacture and operation of wind turbines. Unlike a fixed airfoil, a Blown Wing can be dynamically 

adjusted to maximize power under a wide range of wind conditions, and can be generated from 

a slotted extruded pipe that can be domestically manufactured at a fraction of the cost. 

ure, reduce cost of wind energy, and potentially increase blade manufacturing capability by as much as 100% when fully implemented by a manufacturer. To ensure 

an adequate wind workforce, the Department is funding a project with Southwest 

Applied Technology College in Cedar City, Utah, to provide students with practical 

and applied wind energy training. The school will target skilled unemployed workers and minority populations, especially Hispanic and Native Americans. 

The Department’s National Wind Technology Center (NWTC) in Boulder, Colorado is recognized internationally as a leading wind energy research and development facility. The NWTC has advanced wind turbine testing capabilities and provides an ideal site for testing turbines under extreme conditions; the NWTC experiences strong wind directionality and gusts up to 85 miles per hour at wind turbine 

hub height. This year, the NWTC installed a 1.5 MW wind turbine, the first utilityscale turbine to be owned by the Department, as well as a 2.3 MW turbine operated 

in partnership with industry. These turbines are fully instrumented to act as test 

platforms for future R&D to further improve the reliability and performance of wind 

turbine components and to reduce the cost of wind energy. For example, load data 

from the foundations of these two research turbines will be used to help codify a 

national standard for permitting requirements of utility scale wind turbines. A uniform permitting standard would provide a significant improvement to the current 

patchwork regulatory schemes imposed on wind developers. 

H.R. 3165—WIND ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2009

Background 

This legislation authorizes $200 million annually through 2014 for a cumulative investment of $1 billion dollars. H.R. 3165 authorizes the Department to carry out 

a wind R&D program to improve the energy efficiency, reliability, and capacity of 

wind turbines through new materials and technologies, optimize the design and 

adaptability of wind energy systems, and reduce the cost of construction, generation, 

and maintenance of wind energy systems. Finally, the bill requires the Department 

to fund merit-reviewed, cost-shared demonstration projects conducted in collaboration with industry. The Department currently has $80 million in appropriated funding for FY 2010 

to pursue RD&D of wind energy technologies. The activities authorized in H.R. 3165 

are largely consistent with much of the work currently underway at the Department, and with the Department’s 20% Wind Energy by 2030 report, which identified 

the barriers and pathways for supplying 20 percent of the Nation’s electricity from 

wind energy by 2030. Using ARPA-E funding, the Department has been able to finance breakthrough wind technologies, High Efficiency Shrouded Wind Turbine, 

FloDesign (Wilbraham, MA)5 and Adaptive Turbine Blades: Blown Wing Technology 

for Low-Cost Wind Power, PAX Streamline Inc. (San Rafael, CA)6, which are consistent with the wind program’s goals. 

H.R. 3165 recognizes the need to resolve the impacts of wind turbines on federal 

radar assets. These radars are used to ensure aviation safety, support homeland security, protect military assets, and enable timely weather warnings for public safety. 

The Administration realizes this is a critical unresolved issue. 

Recommendations 

The Department would like to work with Congress to tighten Section 3’s proposed 

demonstration program to reflect the development status and needs of the wind industry. We urge the Committee to consider placing special emphasis on the demonstration of innovative offshore wind technologies, including integrated systems, 

components, structures, materials and infrastructure. Domestic, pre-commercial, 

leading edge technologies remain the most appropriate investment for a robust demonstration program. The U.S. has yet to install a single offshore wind turbine while 

Europe has over 1500 MW installed and a target of 40,000 MW by 2020. Investment 
12 

7DOE is currently funding energy storage research through the Office of Electricity Delivery 

and Energy Reliability (OE), and pumped-storage hydropower research and development 

through the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy’s Wind and Hydropower Technologies Program. The Wind Program works with these parties to coordinate and collaborate, 

but feels that continuing to fund these activities under the offices that are already working on 

storage makes more sense than creating separate storage activities in the Wind R&D bill. 

by the U.S. government is critical for development of a domestic industry. There are 

numerous offshore wind projects proposed in the Great Lakes, such as the Cuyahoga 

County Project in Lake Erie, and numerous projects in the Northeast that should 

be supplied by U.S. manufacturers. 

The Department asks that the legislation include a specific authorization for environmental research. One set of persistent issues facing the wind industry are the 

environmental impacts associated with wind power facilities. Project developers 

must not only finance, construct, and maintain wind farms, but must also consider 

the effects of wind energy systems on the surrounding environment. As written, researching the impact of turbines on wildlife and natural habitats could be funded 

under the Section 12(b)(12) ‘‘catch-all’’ provision of this bill that enables the Secretary to determine if the Department should perform research in addition to the 

prescribed areas. However, given the significance of environmental issues associated 

with wind energy systems deployment, the Department would like to see a greater 

emphasis on addressing this important area of research in collaboration with other 

responsible federal agencies. 

The Department is currently funding efforts to evaluate the possible benefits of 

certain energy storage technologies to assist with wind integration. Areas of study 

include how the suite of power system flexibility options (including energy storage) 

can best be utilized to address wind variability issues; evaluation of the use of hydropower to assist with wind integration; and the study of how storage technologies 

can be integrated into wind power components to extend equipment operating life.7

S. 2773—OFFSHORE WIND ENERGY RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, DEMONSTRATION, AND

COMMERCIAL APPLICATION ACT OF 2009

Background 

Only very recently has the U.S. government invested significantly in offshore 

wind technology research and development, and consequently, no domestic offshore 

wind systems or manufacturing base exist for the sector. In FY 2009 and FY 2010 

the Federal Government began investing in offshore wind technologies, including an 

$8 million Recovery Act funded consortia led by the University of Maine that will 

deploy two floating offshore turbine prototypes and conduct research to optimize the 

design of floating platforms, while also providing wind energy career educational opportunities for university students. S. 2773 authorizes $50 million annually from FY 2011 through FY 2021, for a cu- mulative investment of $500 million. S. 2773 requires the Department to carry out 

a comprehensive program of research, demonstration, and development of commercial applications for offshore wind energy to improve the efficiency, reliability, and 

capacity of offshore wind energy systems, at all water depths, while reducing costs 

throughout the supply chain. 

Further, the legislation supports offshore wind resource assessment work, while 

considering the technologies’ environmental impacts, benefits, and mitigation techniques for marine ecosystems and industry. This research would also address the 

unique challenges to generating energy offshore, including siting and permitting 

issues, exclusion zones, and transmission needs. 

S. 2773 also authorizes the Department to award grants to institutions of higher 

education to establish one or more national offshore wind centers that meet specified requirements to focus on deepwater offshore floating wind energy technologies. 

S. 2773’s authorization levels and timeframe appear consistent with prior Departmental and industry assessments necessary to deploy a national offshore R&D program focused on lowering deployment costs, ensuring high technical reliability, facilitating economic revitalization of U.S. port facilities, and mitigating environmental impacts. 

Recommendations 

The Department estimates that only one-third of the cost of an installed offshore 

wind energy facility is represented by the wind turbine itself. Therefore, lowering 

the cost of offshore wind requires additional focus on electrical grids, project operation and maintenance, and installation and staging costs. The bill’s authorization 

language should include research aimed at optimizing installation methodology, 

electrical transmission design, operations and maintenance practices, installation 
13 

8 In short, the Wind Program supports the R&D section of the bill, but does not feel that it 

is appropriate to designate a national center at this time because the technology is new and 

committing to fund one or a small number of centers may ‘‘lock in’’ the technology development 

to the specific attributes of that location e.g. local technology expertise, physical attributes such 

as water depth of the nearest site for offshore development, turbine designs optimized for the 

wind speeds at that particular location, etc. 9 Argonne National Laboratory Greenhouse Gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy Use in 

Transportation (GREET) Model. Emissions associated with direct and indirect land-use change 

are not considered in this analysis. 

vessel design, and manufacturing and assembly. With no offshore wind turbines currently deployed in U.S. waters, this type of government support will be integral to 

accelerating early-stage offshore wind development. 

While the Department supports the establishment of a comprehensive national 

R&D program for offshore wind, Section 4 of the bill authorizing a national offshore 

wind energy center8 [emphasis added] is overly prescriptive and duplicative of the 

Department’s recently announced deepwater offshore wind R&D award to a consortium led by the University of Maine. Three examples of S. 2773’s language can illustrate why such a prescriptive approach may overlook opportunities for offshore 

wind. First, Section 4(b)(4) requires each ‘‘center’’ to have access to the Atlantic 

Ocean, the Gulf of Mexico, or the Pacific Ocean. This language precludes the Department from funding a center on the Great Lakes, which have significant offshore 

wind energy potential and have begun to attract investment from developers, such 

as the Cuyahoga County Project in Lake Erie. Second, although R&D on offshore 

wind in shallow and transitional depths is authorized by the bill, the national center 

created by the bill is restricted to only deepwater offshore wind systems. This legislative treatment favors one offshore technology over the R&D needs of shallow and 

transitional depth waters, with little policy or technical justification. Finally, Section 

4’s language requiring that universities be designated as lead institutions may 

prove to be an unnecessary constraint on otherwise qualified consortia applying to 

establish offshore wind centers. 

The Department supports establishing a comprehensive National Offshore Wind 

Energy R&D Program as contemplated by S. 2773 in which multiple research, development, and demonstration projects play a critical role. Such projects should be established through grants awarded on a competitive basis. 

H.R. 3246—ADVANCED VEHICLES TECHNOLOGY ACT OF 2009

Background 

Department-funded research has contributed heavily to the advancement of vehicle technologies. The advanced vehicle technologies in the Department’s research 

portfolio can significantly reduce petroleum consumption, thereby strengthening our 

national energy security through both fuel substitution and energy efficiency. For 

example, plug-in hybrid electric vehicles with a 40-mile electric range using cellulosic E85 have the potential to reduce petroleum consumption by as much as 85% 

compared to conventional gasoline-powered internal combustion engine vehicles.9

The Department is not only developing the technologies to make vehicles more energy efficient, but is also considering the full life cycle impact of cars on the environment. For example, the Department research produced a 40 percent weight savings 

on a per-part basis for a mid-sized automobile with the development of quick plastic 

forming aluminum. We have also developed technology to reduce commercial vehicles’ engine cradle (structural element that supports the engine) weight by 65-70 

percent using magnesium. Currently, the Department is involved in the commercialization of a process that can salvage nearly all of the plastic in a vehicle (approximately 10% of the average vehicle’s weight), not only preventing landfill waste 

but also displacing oil and natural gas and reducing the cost of plastics through recycling. 

Other examples of technologies developed by the Department and being used by 

Industry include: 

Every U.S. hybrid vehicle sold has intellectual property from the Department’s Nickel Metal Hydride battery research, and Chrysler plans to begin production on a Cummins engine incorporating the Department’s technologies 

which make its internal combustion engine operate cleaner and more efficiently. 

Lastly, collaborating with New Flyer, the Department co-developed the technology for hybrid transit buses, technology which has migrated to other applications such as light trucks and crossover vehicles. 

The Department supports H.R. 3246, as the current Vehicle Technologies Program 

funding authorization expires at the end of FY 2010. We believe the bill generally 
14 

10http://arpa-e.energy.gov/news.html 11http://www.energy.gov/news2009/7824.htm 

covers an appropriate technology portfolio, includes well-placed interest in heavyduty vehicles, and is well aligned with prior year Program budgets. 

Recommendations 

The Department agrees with the suite of technologies authorized in H.R. 3246. 

However, the inclusion of hydrogen and fuel cell activities in H.R. 3246 would result 

in duplicative authorizations and potential budgetary issues. Currently, Title VIII 

of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 2005) serves as the authorizing language 

for the Department’s hydrogen and fuel cell activities, and does not sunset until FY 

2020. It is likely that hydrogen and fuel cell activities were included in H.R. 3246’s 

activity list only because several hydrogen activities were included in the Vehicle 

Technologies FY 2009 appropriation. However, these activities were moved back to 

the Fuel Cell Program for FY 2010, and are no longer part of Vehicle Technologies. 

Therefore, the Department respectfully requests to continue to rely on EPAct 

2005’s authorizations for the Department’s Fuel Cell Program activities. The EPAct 

2005 authorizing language provides sufficient authorization for current DOE activities, and removing H.R. 3246’s hydrogen and fuel cell reference would avoid any unintended complications that can result from duplicative authorizations. 

H.R. 3246 would enable the Department to build on the Department’s continuing 

efforts to improve existing vehicle technologies, as well as emphasizing other modes 

of transportation to significantly reduce passenger and commercial vehicle miles 

traveled. We look forward to working with the Committee and the Congress on this 

important legislation. 

H.R. 3585—SOLAR TECHNOLOGY ROADMAP ACT

BACKGROUND

The goal of the Department’s present Solar Energy Technologies Program is to 

make solar energy technologies cost-competitive with conventional grid electricity by 

2015 and to enable a high penetration of solar generation energy within the U.S. 

This goal drives a number of projects and initiatives relating to photovoltaic (PV) 

and concentrating solar power (CSP) technologies and requires examination of critical issues relating to grid integration and the transformation of markets for solar 

technologies. 

We appreciate the strong Congressional support shown for solar technology development. The Recovery Act provides $118 million for solar initiatives, In October, the 

Advanced Research Projects Administration-Energy (ARPA-E) announced approximately $17.7 million10 in solar grants, and Congress recently appropriated $225 million in FY 2010 for the Department’s Solar Program. This funding enables the Department to make prudent investments in applied research to further reduce the 

costs of solar technologies. I’d like to highlight a few of the R&D efforts currently 

underway at the Department: 

Innovations arising from Department -funded R&D in the areas of thin-film 

solar cells, high-efficiency single-crystal solar cells, and very high efficiency 

gallium arsenide solar cells have since been commercialized by companies such 

as First Solar in Ohio, Sunpower in California, and Boeing/Spectrolab, also in 

California. In August 2009, the Department announced over $37 million11 of 

awards for early-stage company investments—including those made through the 

Small Business Innovative Research program—and $14 million in investment 

through the national laboratories. This includes $5 million invested in CSP 

technologies. We are currently working on the next generation of solar technologies including kerfless wafering and atmospheric thin film processing, 

which can lead to broader market impact, lower manufacturing cost, and increased conversion efficiency. 

The Department is also investing in balance-of-systems (BOS) technologies, 

the most significant cost barrier for PV. BOS technologies are necessary to support full solar electricity generation systems, but are separate from, for example, the actual PV panel. BOS costs include items like inverters that allow connection with the electric grid; they can account for as much as half the total 

installed cost of a solar electricity generation system, and so create substantial 

barriers to lowering the cost of solar energy. As an example of the Department’s 

commitment in this area, the Department recently announced awards for up to 

$11.8 million to five companies to develop new inverter technologies under our 

Solar Energy Grid Integration Systems program. Overall, we invested approxi-
15 

mately $122 million in this area in 2009, including $16 million in CSP technologies. Some of these funds are going toward development of inverters with 

advanced nano-material transformers that provide lighter weight, longer life, 

and lower cost as well as advanced residential control systems that can effectively managed PV panels along with other household renewable and conventional power systems to maximize time-of-day energy use. 

The Department is increasing its investment in large-scale demonstrations of 

integrated photovoltaics and CSP systems. As part of funding received through 

the Recovery Act, the Department recently announced $37.5 million in highpenetration solar deployment projects. Carried out by universities, and utilities, 

with national laboratory partners to assess the technologies, these projects seek 

to assess the impacts of high levels of solarenergy penetration on the electric 

grid. Investigations will include both voltage and frequency behavior of the distribution and transmission feeder portions of the grid in the presence of clear 

and intermittent solar conditions. This information is important to defining a 

path for 10% or greater penetration levels of solar in the grid and also in defining the requirements for grid energy storage use. 

H.R. 3585, the Solar Technology Roadmap Act, as currently drafted, significantly 

alters the form and function of the Department’s solar energy RD&D. We would like 

to draw the Committee’s attention to concerns we have with the consequences of 

this alteration. First, the bill in effect changes the governance of the Department’s 

Solar Program. Second, it changes the emphasis of the Program from cost effectiveness of technology to instead following a prescribed mix of solar demonstration 

projects. 

H.R. 3585 provides the Department an authorization level of $350 million in FY 

2011, rising in $50 million increments to $550 million in FY 2015. The aggregate 

authorization would total $2.25 billion over four years, far exceeding any previous 

authorization levels. 

We note, however, that H.R. 3585 would supplant previous authorities except for 

two provisions of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA). It 

would become the de facto authorizing language for the Department’s solar activities. 

Our first and greatest concern is that Sections 103 and 108 of the bill require the 

Department to form a semi-autonomous Committee that will largely govern the 

solarenergy activities at the Department. The proposed committee would be charged 

with producing a comprehensive analysis of recommendations for investing Federal 

RD&D dollars over near-, mid-, and long-term horizons based on current issues and 

barriers facing the industry. As written, the proposed legislation binds the Department’s R&D efforts to the recommendations of the Roadmap Committee, requiring 

the Department to follow the Committee’s recommendations for 75 percent of all appropriations by 2015. We urge the Congress instead to stipulate that the Committee 

would provide the kinds of non-binding advice and recommendations traditionally 

provided by publicly-chartered Federal advisory committees. 

Our second concern is that Section 105 specifies a solar-technology demonstration 

plan that may not embody the most appropriate scale of projects encompassing the 

most effective mix of technologies, as might be determined by the Secretary. 

As written, the proposed legislation prescribes a particular schedule of future 

solar demonstration projects, specified both with regard to project scale and with regard to technology mix. These particular project sizes and technology mixes may not 

provide the largest benefit to the Nation under future conditions which we are not 

likely to be able to foresee with any clarity. 

While the Department welcomes the support that the proposed legislation would 

provide to solar research and development, the Department is concerned that the 

legislation as written may not maximize public benefits. 

The existing Solar Program actively solicits and receives input from stakeholders 

in industry, the national laboratories, and academia, through its use of peer-review 

as well as from other formal and informal discussions over many years. For example, as part of an effort to develop a PV Manufacturing Initiative, the Solar Program 

worked this fall with the National Academies of Science to hold two day-long workshops with industry and other participants to discuss the needs of the industry and 

the role of the Federal Government to promote the domestic industry and industry 

standards. 

The Solar Program is also now working with industry representatives and others 

to develop a Solar Vision Study which will look at opportunities to achieve 10-20 

percent of the Nation’s electricity generation from solar technologies by 2030. We 

intend to strengthen our external review process in the near future with an advisory 

board—which can be viewed as somewhat analogous to the Roadmap Committee en-
16 

12The report is available online at http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy09osti/43543.pdf) 

visioned in the draft bill—that will meet several times a year to review the entire 

solar program. 

While we welcome additional industry input and funding for demonstration 

projects the Department is particularly concerned about this bill’s practical effects, 

which are to constrain the flexibility the Department has to respond to diverse 

sources of information and exploit new breakthroughs in technology development, 

such as those made through investment in ARPA-E grants and the HUBs. 

Recommendations 

The Department strongly urges the Committee to consider the above concerns 

when reviewing the proposed legislation. Providing the most effective solar technology research and development programs requires the Secretary and The Department to make a series of constantly evolving judgments. It is important that we be 

allowed to call on multiple sources of information when we formulate our solar technology R&D priorities, and that we be responsive to provided information, even information that will only become available as R&D programs and national markets 

progress. 

S. 737—BIOFUELS RD&D FOR NONROAD ENGINES

Background 

Through RD&D efforts geared toward the development of integrated biorefineries, 

the Biomass Program is helping transform the Nation’s renewable and abundant 

biomass resources into cost competitive, high performance biofuels, bioproducts, and 

biopower. To that end, the Biomass Program’s R&D efforts support the goal of the 

EISA’s Renewable Fuel Standard that requires 36 billion gallons of renewable fuel 

by 2022. 

DOE is currently evaluating the impact of engine durability and emissions for use 

of higher ethanol blends in vehicles and small nonroad engines. The Department 

has completed emissions’ lifetime testing of hand-held lawn and garden equipment, 

including line trimmers, leaf blowers, and generators. These results are reported in 

Effects of Intermediate Ethanol Blends on Legacy Vehicles and Small Nonroad Engines, Report 1—Updated12, which is available online. 

Over the past two years and pursuant to this small nonroad engine effort, the Department has coordinated with the engine industry to identify key issues, testing 

needs, and additional participants. Spearheaded by the small non-road industry’s 

Engine Manufacturers Association and the automotive and oil industries’ Coordinating Research Council, this effort will result shortly in a compilation of industry 

input and opinions. 

S. 737 clarifies to the ‘‘Biofuels Distribution and Advanced Biofuels Infrastructure’’ Program authorization in EISA Section 248. The proposed legislation amends 

both the scope of the program in Section 248(a) to include the impact of biofuels 

on small engines, as well as requiring that impact on small engines be a focus area 

in Section 248(b). As enacted, the current program’s authorization language does not 

preclude the Department from undertaking these activities, and the legislation’s section 248(b)(9) provides an additional ‘‘catch-all’’ provision that the Secretary could 

use to implement such a program. 

By supporting the investigation of problems associated with the use of biofuels in 

small nonroad efforts, S. 737 is in line with research needs already identified by the 

Department concerning use of higher renewable fuel blends necessary to meet Renewable Fuel Standard requirements. The Department is already working on research in this area, under its existing authorizations in both its Biomass and Vehicle Technologies Programs. In particular, the Department is funding testing of 

chainsaws, motorcycles, snowmobiles, and marine engines. Thus, S.737 may be useful only to the extent that it underscores Congress’ explicit support for this effort. 

It is also worth noting that EISA’s original Section 248, which S. 737 amends, did 

not prescribe any authorization levels for the program, and specific authorizations 

to carry out this section have not been provided. 

Recommendations 

The Department understands the need to investigate potential issues with the utilization of higher-biofuel blends in small nonroad engines and already funds a number of research projects on nonroad engines. As a result, the Department does not 

see a need for this amendment. 
17 

13 H.R. 2936: Bill to Underwrite Increased Lending to Domestic (BUILD) Manufacturing Act 

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-2936. 14http://www.energy.gov/news2009/7824.htm. 

S. 1617—INVESTMENTS FOR MANUFACTURING PROCESS AND CLEAN TECHNOLOGY

ACT OF 2009

Background 

The Department appreciates the committee’s support to improve energy efficiency 

across the manufacturing sector. I am pleased to note that the Department is already working to carry out many of the bill’s goals. 

Through a variety of programs, the Department provides assistance to energy infrastructure investment to businesses of all sizes. The Loan Guarantee Program 

(LGPO), Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grants (EECBG), and Small 

Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Program all act as funding mechanisms to address the Nation’s energy infrastructure and generation needs. 

Structurally, the Office of Energy Efficiency’s (EE) Block Grant program most 

closely resembles S. 1617’s proposal to create revolving loan funds to the states. A 

portion of the EE block grant structure is specifically targeted towards the creation 

of revolving loan funds and may be reinforced by recent House legislation.13

Through the Recovery Act, $37 million14 was announced to support SBIR with an 

emphasis on near-term commercialization and job creation. And although current 

Loan Guarantee solicitations do not have special provisions to promote the award 

of loans to small businesses, LGPO is in the process of developing a Manufacturing 

Solicitation that would be open to Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) under our 

Financial Institutional Partnership Program (FIPP). Through the current solicitation, LGPO will continue to finance construction of manufacturing plants, as it did 

with its first loan guarantee award to Solyndra, Inc. of Fremont, CA, a SME. 

Concerning Sec 137 (bb)(2), the Department, in consultation with the Department 

of Commerce, should make the determination of what is and is not an energy efficient product. Such a structure would be consistent with the longstanding positive 

working relationship between the two agencies on programs such as the EnergyStar 

rating system. We recommend changing the authority from the Secretary of Commerce to the Secretary of Energy, in consultation with the Secretary of Commerce. 

Recommendations 

The Department has a track record of collaboration with other federal and State 

programs, including a Memorandum of Understanding between DOE’s EERE and 

the Department of Commerce’s Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program. The 

Department stands ready to work with this Committee and DOC to consider how 

the bill can be improved to draw upon the Department’s deep domain knowledge 

and build off of the Department’s existing programs. 

S. 2744—CARBON DIOXIDE CAPTURE TECHNOLOGY ACT OF 2009

Background 

EPAct 2005 authorized the Department to implement several prize competitions 

for breakthroughs in RD&D and commercial applications of energy technologies. 

Specifically, EPAct 2005 authorized the Freedom Prize to reduce the country’s dependence on foreign oil by rewarding innovative deployment of existing technologies 

in industry, the military, schools, governmental entities, and communities. EISA 

amended EPAct 2005 to include additional prize competitions, including the Hydrogen Prize (H-Prize) and the Bright Tomorrow Lighting Prize (L-Prize). The HPrize 

sought to provide incentives and reward advances in technologies, components, or 

systems related to hydrogen production, storage, distribution, and utilization, while 

the LPrize seeks to spur the development of ultra-efficient solid-state lighting products. The proposed legislation would authorize another DOE competition in another 

area of research—carbon capture. 

S. 2744 would authorize the Department to create a new carbon dioxide capture 

technology prize, a ‘‘C-Prize,’’ to foster novel technologies that separate carbon dioxide from dilute sources. 

The Department and the Administration consider carbon capture to be an essential tool in the mitigation of GHG emissions. A cost-effective technology that could 

significantly contribute to the mitigation of atmospheric carbon emissions would be 

consistent with the goals and objectives of the Administration. 

While the bill provides authorization to establish a C-Prize, it sets no parameters 

for award amounts, which would of course be subject to appropriations. 
18 

The Board authorized in the bill may qualify as a Federal Advisory Committee, 

which would be subject to Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) requirements. 

Under Section 7, the bill states that the ‘‘applicant will agree to vest the intellectual property of the application derived from the technology in 1 or more entities 

that are incorporated in the U.S.’’. The S. 2744’s Intellectual Property language is 

a significant departure from previous prize legislation. The Department is concerned 

that the language will deter qualified applicants from entering the competition. The 

bill additionally requires C-Prize recipient(s) to vest patents in an entity or entities 

incorporated in the U.S., and it prohibits the transfer of title to other than U.S. incorporated entities until expiration of the first patent issued. However, the bill does 

little to protect U.S. technology investment because (1) any foreign company can incorporate a subsidiary in the U.S. for a nominal fee; and (2) the language does not 

prevent the U.S. corporation from licensing its patents to foreign companies or prevent the U.S. corporation from manufacturing outside the U.S. Furthermore, the 

vesting language, without clarification, may discourage existing U.S. companies 

from competing, for fear that their investment may be diluted by forced licensing 

and transfer or assignment of patent rights. 

Recommendations 

The Department urges the Committee to consider these concerns when reviewing 

the proposed legislation. The recommendations of the Committee established in the 

legislation should not be prescriptive, but rather should serve as one of several 

sources of information the Department can call upon when formulating its carbon 

capture technology R&D prize. 

Madam Chairman, this concludes my testimony. Again, I thank you for the opportunity to testify before this Committee, and I would be pleased to respond to your 

questions. 

Senator CANTWELL. Thank you very much for your testimony. 

Senator Barrasso, did you want to make a statement now? 

Senator BARRASSO. I would, but I was going to then enter into 

questioning as well. So I’d be happy to—— 

Senator CANTWELL. We’ll start with the questions then. 

Under Secretary, on this curriculum development on 9957, how 

is it, you know, your energize program which is about developing 

curriculum. How do you explain the differences between this bill 

and that program? I know that we’ve also had some Department 

of Labor money that’s gone out for like the wired grants and things 

of that nature for curriculum development. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Right. This particular bill calls for the Department 

of Energy to provide funding to the National Science Foundation 

for an IDGERT Grant, Inter Disciplinary Graduate Education Research and Training Grant. I actually, when I was a professor at 

the University of Colorado, had one of these grants. 

They’re quite good. They’re cross disciplinary in a particular subject. But they can be a broad subject across the entire science and 

technology field. 

RE-ENERGYSE which is REgaining our ENERGY Science and 

Engineering Edge program was inspired by President Obama’s 

State address to the National Academies in April. It really is focused on energy technologies K through 20 plus. So it’s looking at 

outreach for K through 12 to use energy to stimulate our young 

people to go into science, engineering, technology and math subjects. 

It provides scholarship programs for students to attend higher 

education in both community college as well as 4 year research universities. Internship programs for students. It provides opportunity 

then for students to go on to graduate work, post docs, on to become re-trained in energy, so that we ultimately are trying to at-
19 

tract our best and brightest to go into the energy fields and help 

us continue the momentum in building clean energy technology. 

So I would say the difference is in the one case we’re looking at 

RE-ENERGYSE to look at all the energy portfolio. This particular 

bill focuses on just connecting building engineers and architects together to work together on one, I would say, more narrow field. So 

we support a broad education bill that would help us to really impact the entire energy portfolio. 

Senator CANTWELL. Who do think should be responsible for the 

more near term issues of curriculum and development? 

Ms. JOHNSON. Who in terms of? 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CANTWELL. I’m sorry. Agencies. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Agencies? 

Senator CANTWELL. Department of Energy? Because this is the 

new partnering with National Science Foundation. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Right. 

Senator CANTWELL. I don’t know if you’ve ever done something 

like that before. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Yes. Right. 

Senator CANTWELL. Usually joint partnerships don’t always, from 

an oversight perspective, kind of, can get lost in the focus. But I’m 

just—if you’re looking at this from a broad perspective, we see a 

lot of activity now where we have emerging technologies and 

emerging industries. So—— 

Ms. JOHNSON. Right. 

Senator CANTWELL. If we want to help accelerate that, then you 

can provide a lot of help for the curriculum development that needs 

to take place today. Most of these companies are so new and so 

young. They don’t have time to do the curriculum development. 

They’re just doing the hiring. But they can’t find the work force 

because we haven’t done the curriculum training. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Right. 

Senator CANTWELL. So I was just curious as to how you saw that 

activity fitting into, if that’s a DOE portfolio issue or do you think 

that belongs at Department of Labor? Somewhere else? 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you for your patience, Senator, and amplifying upon that question. So there are several areas where Department of Energy is already working with the National Science Foundation. We have what’s called the SULI Program which is Summer 

Undergraduate Laboratory Internships which is also an area in reenergize. 

RE-ENERGYSE is a joint program with the National Science 

Foundation and the Department of Energy. So we use the laboratories, the 17 laboratories in Department of Energy, as a place 

where students the National Science Foundation has reached out 

to and helped identify can go for a summer internship program. 

We also have the FAST Program, which are Faculty and Student 

Teams, that is joint with the National Science Foundation. 

Then the National Science Foundation and our Office of Electricity Delivery and Transmission work together on an I/UCRC 

Program which is an industry university center in power systems 

engineering. 
20 

We have a history of programs that have worked well. I do see 

that there’s a natural way to partner between NSF which developed a beautiful program, a beautiful set of programs in the education realm and funds curriculum with the deep domain knowledge that Department of Energy brings to the table. So I think that 

this is a natural area for us to collaborate across the entire energy 

spectrum. 

I think that in terms of curriculum development, I think that 

that’s something, that as you pointed out quite rightly, companies 

don’t have time to do. But universities working in isolation probably won’t develop the kind of programs that industry needs. So 

again, it needs to be a partnership. 

I think that this is where industry and these two government 

agencies can come together to create some very powerful programs. 

So we’re supportive of the legislation just we’d like to see it broadened a bit. 

Senator CANTWELL. Thank you. On S. 2729, on the energy parks, 

I don’t see the environmental research park at Hanford listed in 

there. If this were to become law would the Department support including one at Hanford? 

Ms. JOHNSON. If this were to become law we would see that in 

the future that it would be possible to examine Hanford in becoming part of it. I think right now we still have a bit of clean up to 

do to get it ready to be transitioned into this kind of facility which 

traditionally has supported ecology work and environmental work 

with USGS and Department of Ag and Department of Defense as 

well as the Department of Energy. So I think further down the 

road when it’s ready and fully cleaned up to transition I would—— 

Senator CANTWELL. You don’t think there’s enough land there 

that it’s able to transitioned now? 

[Laughter.] 

Ms. JOHNSON. There certainly is a lot of land as I noticed on my 

visit. I’m just not sure how much of that land would be ready and 

fully cleaned up and be able to be qualified to be—— 

Senator CANTWELL. I think the things that we’re talking about 

now are, you know, very far from the cleanup sites and quite massive. So anyway, we’ll get back to you on that issue. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Ok, thank you. 

Senator CANTWELL. Senator Stabenow, did you have? 

Senator STABENOW. Yes, I did. Thank you very much. 

Senator CANTWELL. We’re going in order of attendance. 

Senator STABENOW. Thank you. I do have to leave in a moment 

to go to the floor. So I appreciate this very much. 

Specifically, according to the National Academy of Sciences and 

DOE, the amount of fuel consumed annually by heavy duty trucks 

and buses has more than doubled over the past 35 years. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Right. 

Senator STABENOW. It now counts for 21 percent of the total surface transportation fuel that’s used in the United States. However, 

it’s very questionable that we have had a proportional level investment in advancing medium and heavy duty technologies. That’s 

really the reason that I’ve introduced this bill and my colleague in 

the House of Representatives. 
21 

It’s a comprehensive vehicle R and D bill considering the full 

spectrum of transportation needs. You’ve made heroic efforts 

through the DOE on section 136 which I was pleased to author in 

the Energy Act a few years ago and battery grants. But we have 

a long way to go as it relates to focusing on new technologies for 

medium and heavy duty sectors. 

So my question is this. To what extent is the DOE working to 

transfer new innovations in passenger vehicle R and D that contribute to the reduction in oil use such as plug in hybrid, electric 

vehicle technology into the medium and heavy duty sector? 

Second given the fact that given the decline in heavy truck funding from 86.6 million in the 2002 Federal budget to the requested 

amount of 25.2 million for this year, 2009, within what framework 

does the Department expect advancements in the medium/heavy 

duty sector to come on par with passenger vehicles? Wondering if 

your efforts have been constrained by fluctuations in appropriations? I’m assuming that’s a yes. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator STABENOW. Would you see the advanced vehicle technology bill helping you be able to bring that more on par? 

Ms. JOHNSON. Right. First of all let me say we really appreciate 

the support that Congress has shown and continue to show for the 

advanced vehicles. This work has greatly contributed to both the 

light duty as well as the heavy duty fleet. 

One of the exciting things that I’ve been able to participate in is 

reviewing the heavy duty and being—not reviewing, but at least 

being able to observe the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act 

funding of about $230 million and $80 million has been for Super 

Truck. I think they’ll be some exciting things that will be coming 

out of that particular program. 

I think that although our funding hasn’t been at the same level 

in the heavy truck as the light duty truck area, there are things 

that we investigate in both areas that are helpful and overlap, light 

weighting, fuel efficiency. We look forward to working with you on 

your bill in order to see more of the research go further in demonstration and deployment opportunities in this area. 

Senator STABENOW. I look forward to working with you as well. 

I do think given how much we’re talking about in terms of the volume of transportation fuel and where it’s used in the economy that 

we really need to make this a priority going forward. So I look forward to working with you. 

Thank you. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator CANTWELL. Thank you. 

Senator Barrasso. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much, Madame Chairman. 

Welcome, Dr. Johnson. It’s great to see you again. 

I also want to thank the chairman of the full committee, Senator 

Bingaman, who has been partnering with me on the introduction 

on the piece of legislation that you’d referred to, the Carbon Dioxide Capture Technology Act of 2009. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Right. 

Senator BARRASSO. This is a bill that he and I have jointly introduced in the last month. I had introduced a similar bill in the last 
22 

* See Appendix II. 

session of Congress. But working with Senator Bingaman in his 

leadership and knowledge, I think we have a much improved bill. 

I’m very grateful to have him as a co-sponsor of this. 

You know, some in this body and when you and I talked before 

your confirmation, some in this body have discussed various proposals to regulate the output of carbon dioxide through a cap and 

trade approach. Others have advocated a carbon tax. Those are two 

ends of the same problem in addressing greenhouse gas emissions. 

But overlooked is the excess carbon dioxide already in the atmosphere. This is the carbon dioxide that we’re concerned about and 

that the bill specifically addressed. The best science tells us that 

excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is a contributing factor in 

the issue of global climate change and to what extent there is considerable debate. 

It would seem to me a worthy approach to find a way to remove 

excess existing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and then permanently sequester it. That’s the other end of the problem. Some 

people refer to it as air capture. 

I’ve a letter from Klaus Leisinger, who is the Ewing-Worzel professor of Geophysics at Columbia University, the Chair of the Department of Earth and Environmental Engineering, calls it dilute 

capture of carbon dioxide. Professor Leisinger believes this is a particular long term importance in terms of this global issue. So to accomplish this we’re certainly going to need to invest the money to 

develop the technology. How do we best do that? 

So the approach that Senator Bingaman and I have in this piece 

of legislation takes this through a series of financial prizes where 

we, through your Department, set technological goals and outcomes. Then the first to meet these, the criteria, would receive Federal funds and also international acclaim. I think that prizes are 

a unique tool in creating technological development. 

The government already offers prizes. Department of Energy’s 

prize, the L Prize, there’s also NASA’s Centennial Challenge Program. The economist recently reported on NASA’s competition to 

create a new lunar lander for future moon exploration. The article 

says that NASA’s system of prizes and then I’ll quote, ‘‘spurs technological development using the twin lures,’’ it says, ‘‘of hard cash 

and the kudos of being officially recognized as cleverer than your 

peers.’’ 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BARRASSO. Scientists love to be recognized that way. I 

think that’s kind of more than the money, is the recognition. So I 

think that the prizes are/can be a unique tool for fostering technological advances. 

So Madame Chairman, what I’d like to do, if I could is submit 

as a part of the record this letter* from the Professor from Columbia University talking about dilute capture of carbon, who goes on 

to say that this can be done anywhere at any time. It’s particularly 

well suited to start small in niche markets and would be very good 

for prize forum. 

Senator CANTWELL. Without objection. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much, Madame Chairman. 
23 

So what I heard, Dr. Johnson, from you is that you support this 

effort but had some legitimate concerns. We are looking, Senator 

Bingaman and I, are looking at improving this bill because we 

want to see this succeed. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Right. 

Senator BARRASSO. We want this technology developed. I think 

you said you had some concerns about intellectual property issues? 

Ms. JOHNSON. Right. 

Senator BARRASSO. In your written testimony some issues about 

the latitude that the Department might need. I just wonder if you 

had some thoughts on that. If you’d be willing, you and your Department, to work with Senator Bingaman and with me in finding 

ways to improve the bill and then getting this passed and getting 

those scientists motivated. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Right. Certainly we would love to work with you 

and Senator Bingaman too, on this bill. We think that greenhouse 

gas emissions are a big problem facing the planet. All the tools that 

we can employ in order to move forward on this problem are welcome. 

The only, I would say, issue with regard to intellectual property 

is that the individuals that would be eligible for the prize from my 

reading of the bill would be companies that were incorporated in 

the U.S. or would vest those patents in the U.S. The only concern 

we have is perhaps that would deter some applicants from applying 

and helping solve the problem. That was all the concerns. 

So sure we absolutely look forward to working with you, Senator, 

on this bill. 

Senator BARRASSO. Good. As you know we really didn’t even set 

dollar figures on the prize because we felt that—— 

Ms. JOHNSON. Right. 

Senator BARRASSO [continuing]. Would be best done by a committee that came together through the Department under the leadership there to say what kind of motivating factors do we need? 

Ms. JOHNSON. That would be great. Look forward to it. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you. Thank you, Dr. Johnson. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much, Madame Chairman. 

Senator CANTWELL. Thank you, Senator Barrasso. 

Under Secretary Johnson, I’d like to go back to a couple of these 

bills just to get your input on further discussion. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Sure. 

Senator CANTWELL. One is S. 2773, the Offshore Wind Energy 

Research Development and Demonstration. Obviously a lot of the 

things on the docket today are in the research realm. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Right. 

Senator CANTWELL. Continuing on renewables. It’s my understanding that there is an agreement between FERC and the Mineral Management Service on who administers the citing of offshore 

facilities. So is the Department working with those agencies as you 

look at demonstration projects for offshore? 

Ms. JOHNSON. Right. First of all, again, we look forward to working with the committee in this very important area. It turns out 

that the potential of our offshore wind are thousands of gigawatts 
24 

which is very significant compared to the overall electrical usage 

in this country. 

So it’s a tremendous resource. We look forward to working with 

the committee on both these bills. They both look at robust R and 

D in the area. 

S. 2773 is a bill that addresses the deep offshore wind opportunity. We feel it would be duplicative with work that we’re already funding through the American Recovery and Reinvestment 

Act, $8 million for a deep offshore wind center. So we look forward 

to working with the committee to incorporate more inclusive language that wouldn’t restrict it just to certain areas, but able to attack our entire wind resource, which as I said before, is extensive 

and would include the Great Lakes, for example. 

Also to include shallow and transitional waters and focus on not 

only the cost of the turbine, which is about a third of the cost of 

these wind farms, but also focus on the reliability. How do we get 

the energy from, you know, deep offshore or shallow shore, onshore, 

project maintenance and installation and staging? 

So we are quite interested to work with the committee on these 

bills. 

Senator CANTWELL. What about the engineering center in general? Do you support that concept? 

Ms. JOHNSON. We are supporting, as you know, the engineering 

centers through our hubs, our energy innovation hubs. We are supportive of centers, definitely, as a way to bring together industry, 

university partners and researchers in the labs in order to solve 

these very difficult problems. So we are supportive of engineering 

centers. 

Senator CANTWELL. On S. 737 on the biofuels for small engines. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Right. 

Senator CANTWELL. What are you—do you think that adding 

these additional items will help us? I know the Department is 

doing a lot of research on various engine types which we support. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Right. 

Senator CANTWELL. We’re very proud that we’ve had a lot of both 

Maritime applications in the Pacific Northwest. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Yes. 

Senator CANTWELL. Research done on biofuels used in our very 

fleet that has more people traveling on it annually than Amtrak. 

We’ve had demonstration projects on Boeing planes as well in 

biofuels. So we want to keep seeing the research and development 

take place. 

Do you think that this adding small, non-road engines will help 

or? 

Ms. JOHNSON. Right. First of all I would like to say thank you 

very much to the committee and to Congress for supporting $800 

million in biomass for biofuels applications, for example in the 

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. We announced last Friday the integrated bio-refineries, part of that which was nearly 

$500 million. So thank you so much for that opportunity to work 

in this arena. 

Currently we are funding research that covers non-road engines 

including snowmobiles, motorcycles, chain saws. We know that 

there has to be more work done on hand held devices, 2 stroke en-
25 

gines that right now are not very comfortable with ethanol. So we 

have more work to do. 

We have no concerns with the bill. It would be certainly within 

the portfolio of R and D that we’re currently carrying out. 

Senator CANTWELL. I know my colleagues, Senators Collins and 

Udall, that is a very big concern of theirs, particularly the seizing 

that can occur and the injury to individuals with these chain saws. 

So we certainly hope that we can look at those applications and get 

support for that kind of analysis and help. 

On the Solar Technology Roadmap, you mentioned you were 

more interested in some non-binding targets on that. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Right. 

Senator CANTWELL. Could you? 

Ms. JOHNSON. Right. 

Senator CANTWELL. Could you discuss how you think that? 

Ms. JOHNSON. Sure. 

Senator CANTWELL. Obviously we could proceed in achieving 

some of the goals. If you didn’t have the targeted—if you didn’t 

have the targets be binding? 

Ms. JOHNSON. Yes, absolutely. The bill as written covers a lot of 

the areas that we feel are quite important to the whole solar technologies program. We’re quite excited about the level of funding 

and the opportunity to work on trying to realize bringing 10 percent or more of our generation from solar by 2030. 

It is just the part where 75 percent of the funding would be 

under the guidance and direction of a semiautonomous, non-government group that would have binding authority. We believe that 

the Secretary and his staff are in a great position and should have 

the authority to manage the solar energy portfolio. So we’d definitely like to work with the committee on the language on this particular bill. 

We’re excited about what it covers. It’s just that particular binding requirement. If it was non-binding and more of an advisory in 

guidance that we do quite a lot with our FACA committees, that 

would be our preference. 

Senator CANTWELL. What about the model that is used for semiconductor industry? Is that appropriate as outlined in the bill? 

Ms. JOHNSON. It calls for a solar energy road map. We’re currently working on one called the Solar Powered Visions. It is involving industry as well as our DOE laboratories. 

So we believe it is a good idea to have a road map. Know where 

you’re going and what needs to come next. We look forward to continuing our work with your support in this endeavor. 

Senator CANTWELL. Ok. I see my colleague from Oregon is here. 

Senator Wyden, did you have questions for the Under Secretary? 

Senator WYDEN. I do, Madame Chair. Thank you for all the good 

work you’re doing. You are our champ on this whole cause. It is 

great to have a chance to do some work with you on it. 

Madame Secretary, let me give you my sense about where we are 

on this. I believe that America is missing the boat on the energy 

storage issue. I mean, if you look around the country, this Nation 

is building gas plants, for example, because we aren’t fully capturing the potential for storing renewable energy sources. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Right. 
26 

Senator WYDEN. That makes no sense even by the bizarre ways 

of the beltway. It’s got to be changed. Do you disagree with that 

point I’ve just made? 

[Laughter.] 

Ms. JOHNSON. I agree that storage is crucial if we’re going to 

bring on the amount of clean energy renewables, particularly wind 

and solar. So the Department of Energy has a study that we’ve produced which is 20 percent wind by 2030. We’ve also looking at our 

solar energy road map we’re just trying to get to 10 to 20 percent 

by 2030. 

So we know that level of intermittency which could be 40 percent 

of our electrical generation cannot be brought onto the grid in its 

current function. That’s why we’re very pleased and grateful for the 

funding through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act 

which allows us to do the smart grid investment grants to try and 

look at storage and to carry out demonstrations where we can provide storage as well as a more upgraded grid. 

Senator WYDEN. But on the basic point, I want to make sure because we’re going to have a couple of hearings in here. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Right. 

Senator WYDEN. This is a question of kind of delivering a 

wakeup call. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Right. 

Senator WYDEN. Isn’t it fair to say that this country is missing 

the boat on energy storage. Literally I’m looking at press releases 

from California where they’re talking about, you know, various 

kinds of,you know, gas generating projects. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Right. Yes. 

Senator WYDEN. That they’re having to put in place because 

there has not been the capacity to store it. Isn’t that correct? 

Ms. JOHNSON. Yes. Senator Wyden, you’re correct in that. In 

order for us to bring on the intermittent renewable energy we need 

base load energy. Right now that’s mainly gas. 

Now we can look at battery storage. We can look at pumped 

water storage. We can look at compressed air storage. 

But in order to bring on this level of intermittency we will have 

to have a way to manage that load. Storage is one of the ways that 

we are investigating through our various programs. 

Senator WYDEN. Let’s look at the two areas that come to mind. 

This afternoon Senator Stabenow has a very fine bill that I’m a cosponsor of, obviously dealing with advanced, you know, vehicle batteries. There’s been very significant potential in terms of hybrid vehicle technology. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Right. 

Senator WYDEN. A company in Oregon, for example, is even producing a plug in motorcycle. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator WYDEN. That can go over 40 miles on a battery charge 

without using any gasoline. Now I have sent a letter recently to 

Secretary Chu urging that he expand the Department’s program to 

include vehicles like these motorcycle efforts. We’ve got a company 

in Oregon, Brammo, that has been involved in this. 

What role do you see for energy storage for vehicles, especially 

for vehicles other than automobiles? 
27 

Ms. JOHNSON. One of the programs that we’re funding through 

the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in the smart grid investment grants is looking at small fleets that are electric vehicles 

and plug in hybrid electric vehicles where you store them, charge 

them up at night and then run them during the day as a fleet from 

a corporate entity, then come back and recharge them. From this 

investigation, probably the most important thing that we’ll get out 

of this is the data about how we control and utilize the demand 

of—the interaction I should say, an integrated system of the storage in batteries of a fleet of say, up to 1,000 vehicles, then how 

that would play with the less demand at night from the generation 

and storage. 

I think that what we will learn is how do we actually manage 

these kinds of integrated systems. We’ll learn more than about 

what kind of storage we need in order to scale that in the different 

interconnection regions in the country. 

Senator WYDEN. Now as far as I can tell, the staff says much of 

the rest of the world gets around on small two and three wheel vehicles. I’m trying to get a sense from you. Is the DOE working at 

all on plug in systems for vehicles like motorcycles? 

Ms. JOHNSON. I’m not sure. But I’d be glad to get back to you 

for the record. 

[The information follows:] 

The Department is working on the development of advanced battery technology, 

primarily for automotive application in hybrid and electric drive vehicles. However, 

the same technology is very applicable to other types of electric drive vehicles, including electric motorcycles, motorbikes, and scooters. More specifically, the Department participates in an international collaboration on battery-powered electric twowheelers, under the auspices of the International Energy Agency (IEA Hybrid and 

Electric Vehicle Implementing Agreement, Annex XI, Electric Cycles). Research is 

directed at battery application requirements for various market segments and public 

charging infrastructure needs for battery powered two-wheelers. 

Senator WYDEN. Because that’s what I’m talking about when I 

say and you’re going to hear me say this a lot. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Right. 

Senator WYDEN. As it relates to these upcoming hearings. I think 

we are lagging significantly in this energy storage area. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Right. 

Senator WYDEN. I think when you’re looking at what’s going on 

around the world both in terms of, you know, products and research we just got to get serious about this and quickly. Let me ask 

you then about the other storage question that I care a great deal 

about and that’s grid connected storage to support renewables. 

Here utility storage systems can help generate the same kind of 

fossil energy savings by storing the renewables intermittently. 

I’ve got a bipartisan piece of legislation which has now been introduced on both sides. It’s technology neutral. It creates investment tax credits to use energy storage technologies that are directly connected to the grid and also incentives for businesses and 

homeowners can install their own energy storage units. 

Now, the committee is also going to be holding a hearing on grid 

connected systems on Thursday. But you won’t be able to, you 

know, be here for that. So my question to you on this is I wrote 

the Department last summer suggesting that the agency look more 
28 

at how storage systems could complement the deployment of renewable technologies. 

We didn’t get a response to that letter either. My question here 

is what role do you see for energy storage systems to support renewable energy development and what can you tell us you’re going 

to initiate in this area? 

Ms. JOHNSON. If I could go back to your question before just for 

a minute in terms of the motorcycles and, you know, hybrid plug 

ins and 2 wheel. I would say that nothing that we’re supporting 

would preclude obviously using those particular vehicles. I think 

that one of the things that we’ve realized from some of our studies 

is that well, first of all we know that of the 19.5 million barrels 

of oil that we consume a day that 70 percent of that is going into 

transportation. 

We know that 57 percent of that is imported. So we appreciate 

this is a crucial problem, not only for greenhouse gas emissions, 

but also for our energy security. So one of the things that we’re 

quite excited about and working in the Department on, is improving the efficiency of our internal combustion engine. The same time 

building their capability and compatibility with biofuels. At the 

same time providing this in a plug in hybrid electric vehicle whether that’s a two wheel or three wheel or four wheel. 

So that involves bringing an integrated system together that understands storage, understands biofuels and makes our internal 

combustion engine run as efficiently as possible. So our studies 

have shown that a plug in hybrid electric vehicle of any kind that 

would have a 40 mile electric range working with an E85 cellulosic 

ethanol, for example, would reduce our consumption by 85 percent. 

So some of the things that we’re currently doing that are speaking 

to that and getting out into commercialization is that we’re looking 

at light weighting. 

So for about every 10 percent you save in light weighting a vehicle, which of course a two wheeler is pretty light weight to begin 

with, you can save up to six to 8 percent in terms of fuel efficiency. 

That takes you to about 30 percent of the light weighting. So we’re 

heavily involved in light weighting. 

We’ve also been heavily involved in some of our battery technology, in particular the U.S. hybrid vehicles in this country, their 

nickel metal hydride battery was developed in technology from 

DOE. So we’ve been heavily involved in hybrid battery development and storage, been heavily involved in light weighting, heavily 

involved in biofuels. So our approach has really been a systems integration approach. 

Now the next step is to integrate it onto the grid. Then to look 

at how the storage interplays with the grid and how you dispatch 

and flow the electrons to where they are needed and at times during the day where the load is lighter. So I can say that, if anything 

to take away, would be we’re looking at it as an integrated approach. We’re definitely looking at storage and this is actually a 

very interesting question that you raise because distributed energy 

and distributed energy storage verses very centralized energy production and storage. 

So where does it make sense to have pumped hydro as a dam 

somewhere that has the capability of storing quite a lot of power? 
29 

Then where does it make sense to have a more distributed system 

which you might have with the fleet of 1,000 vehicles that have a 

smaller battery? This is actually a problem that we’re investigating 

right now. It’s not clear where or how you parse that distribution. 

So appreciate your insight on that. We’ll look forward to coming 

back and chatting with you about this as we learn more from these 

experiments that have been funding through the Recovery Act. 

Senator WYDEN. The reason that I’m asking these questions is 

when you, as somebody who is very knowledgeable and I’m glad 

you have the position you do. You tell me that there’s nothing that 

precludes using these two and three wheel vehicles. I’m saying to 

myself, as a United States Senator, we’ve got these companies, you 

know, making them. 

I’m looking around the world and seeing these two and three 

wheeled vehicles out there. I’m saying I want a different answer 

than my government saying we won’t preclude it. I want to hear 

my government say, this is what we’re doing to go gangbusters into 

a very exciting kind of field. Let’s go to the question of the grid connected systems. So I just have you on the record on that. 

So we’ve got a piece of legislation, 1091, bipartisan, both House 

and Senate, to create these incentive tax credits for energy storage. 

That it’s directly connected to the grid. It’s also incentives for business and homeowners to install their own storage units. 

I’m asking you, of course, because we’re not going to be able to 

have you on Thursday. This, of course, is the Energy Committee. 

I’ll be working with Senator Cantwell because we also serve on the 

Finance Committee. 

What’s your general assessment of the value of that kind of legislation? 

Ms. JOHNSON. I’m not familiar with that particular bill right 

now. So I’d be glad to provide, for the record, an answer to that. 

[The information follows:] 

Enhancing our national energy storage capability is an important tool to improve 

electric grid reliability and resiliency. Storage technologies can reduce power fluctuations, enhance system flexibility, and enable greater integration of variable generation renewable energy resources such as wind and solar power. The core function 

of energy storage is to bridge the gap that exists between the characteristics of the 

generation andoad technologies within our electrical system. While this includes integration of variable generation renewable energy technologies such as wind and 

solar, there exist today gaps and mismatches throughout the grid that stress our 

infrastructure and would benefit from the system flexibility that could be introduced 

via the deployment of energy storage technologies. 

While there are technological and other barriers to widespread deployment of energy storage systems, one important barrier is economics. Current costs are high 

and can discourage investment. S. 1091 will provide a 20 percent tax rebate for a 

wide variety of grid-related energy storage applications as well as community and 

on-site storage. 

The Department believes the incentives provided by the bill will have a significant 

impact on the deployment of storage on the grid. The bill covers a wide-range of 

energy storage technologies and applications. It will provide incentives for utilities 

and developers to employ energy storage to better accommodate ample night time 

wind energy, mitigate ramping, and reduce daytime peaks. The Department notes 

that technical comments it provided on previous versions of this bill have been addressed in the current version. 

The Department offers the following technical comments for clarification: clarify 

the types of vehicle: 

• SEC. 4. ENERGY INVESTMENT CREDIT FOR ONSITE ENERGY STORAGE. 

(b)(6)(A) 
30 

(6) QUALIFIED ONSITE ENERGY STORAGE PROPERTY— 

A) IN GENERAL—The term ‘qualified onsite energy storage property’ 

means property which—— 

i) provides supplemental energy to reduce peak energy requirements primarily on the same site where the storage is located, or 

ii) is designed and used primarily to receive and store intermittent renewable energy generated onsite and to deliver such energy primarily for 

onsite consumption. 

Such term may include property used to charge: 

i) plug-in electric and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles using internal combustion or fuel cell systems, 

ii) material handling equipment such as forklifts using electricity if such 

vehicles are equipped with smart grid services which control time-of-day 

charging and discharging of such vehicles. Such term shall not include any 

property for which any other credit is allowed under this chapter. 

The intent of this language is to clarify that a qualifying property supports vehicles that plug in to the electric grid, whether they are purely electric or hybrid, and 

regardless of the type of hybrid technology. This would include plug-in hybrids 

based on fuel cell or hydrogen technologies as well. The changes would also enable 

properties that support equipment such as forklifts that use electricity to qualify for 

investment credit. 

Ms. JOHNSON. But can I come back to the question you asked 

about the 2 and 3 wheeler? 

Senator WYDEN. Yes, sure. Of course. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Just because there are a number of mechanisms 

that have worked very well that the Department of Energy has, including the 48C tax credit, which I’m a big proponent of, manufacturing for the opportunity to deploy these systems and devices 

overseas to the market as well. So the 2 wheeler and three wheeler 

electric vehicles that you were talking about, I mean, those companies should apply for some of these manufacturing tax credits in 

order to scale up. Be able to not only serve the markets that are 

in this country, but overseas. 

So we actually are quite enthusiastic about working with companies like the ones that you have described. We have many mechanisms from the 1703 to 1705 to 1603 loan guarantee programs and 

tax credits in the 48C. So I think that we, depending on the size 

of the company, we also launched this fall a new part of the SBIR 

solicitations. 

We put 50 percent of the emphasis on commercialization job generation in the clean energy areas. We just announced last week or 

the week before the $18 million in the first, phase ones of those. 

So we, not only would it not preclude, but those are exactly the 

companies that we’re hoping are going to come forward and take 

advantage of these particular instruments that we have to help 

manufacturing in this country. 

Senator WYDEN. Let’s do this. I hope that we’ll get a favorable 

response to the letter I sent Secretary Chu with respect to the vehicles, the Brammo motorcycle that we hadn’t gotten a response to 

that. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Right. 

Senator WYDEN. On the second piece of legislation you have Senator Shaheen, Senator Dorgan, Senator Menendez, Senator Collins, 

Senator Kerry. You have a number of Senators, both the Energy 

Committee and the Finance, you know, committee, 2 committees 

that are working in the storage area. How long would it take for 
31 

you to get a written response to my questions about that legislation? 

Could we have that within 2 weeks? 

Ms. JOHNSON. Oh, yes. Absolutely. 

Senator WYDEN. Great. Look forward to working with you. 

Thank you, Madame Chair. 

Senator CANTWELL. Thank you. Thank you, Senator Wyden. I 

think your point about these 2 and 3 wheel vehicles and the opportunity. 

You know, we see so many cargo ships coming into Puget Sound 

carrying vehicles from China and other goods and services. It 

would great to know that the 1.32 billion people there in China, 

who are always saying that we’re ahead on the technology, R and 

D end of the equation, if we were solving some of these problems 

and helping with that market. I don’t think that China is looking 

at 1.32 billion people driving cars. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Right. 

Senator CANTWELL. I think they’re looking at the opportunity for 

transportation on these two and three wheel vehicles as a real opportunity in their country. So I hope we can make progress on this. 

So we appreciate your interest. 

I have one last question, if I could Under Secretary Johnson, 

about the Impact Act of 2009, S. 1617. You know that we’ve passed 

a loan program for manufacturers out of this committee before. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Right. 

Senator CANTWELL. Focused on energy projects. This particular 

bill deals with this, I mean it’s directed at the Secretary of Commerce to establish revolving loan funds. So how would the Department of Energy and Commerce work together on this? Who do you 

think is best suited to administer such a revolving loan fund? 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you, first, for introducing this bill on clean 

energy manufacturing or revolving loan program. Let me just take 

a minute to note the Department is already working to carry out 

the goals of the bill. Through our loan guarantee program which 

administers our 1703 and 1705 and ATVM loans, as I mentioned 

earlier to in response to Senator Wyden, we also have the 48C and 

1603 tax grant subsidies for manufacturing components and production of renewable energy. 

We’ve worked together with the Department of Commerce well in 

the past. We continue to do that in the future. We would relish the 

opportunity to do that through this particular bill. 

I think that in our area we’ve been working hard in the areas 

to define energy efficiency products. We would hope that the Department would take the lead in that particular area and to using 

our deep domain knowledge and background and leverage off of 

these successful programs to continue to work with our colleagues 

at Department of Commerce in such a legislation that might come 

forward. 

Senator CANTWELL. So do think ideally there’s 2 separate programs or do you think there’s one program with consultation? 

Ms. JOHNSON. I think one program with consultation would work 

very well. 

Senator CANTWELL. Ok. Then the targets on some of these areas? 

Are they going to be streamlined? I mean, obviously part of the 
32 

challenge is in the SBA models are better models because they get 

capital out to the market faster. 

Ms. JOHNSON. We have been working very hard in the last 6 to 

9 months to get capital out. We’ve made 4 loans for a billion dollars 

with Solyndra and Red River and Nordic and others for clean energy, you know, production companies. So we see that we have a 

big investment in our loan guarantee office. 

It’s working well. We look forward to the opportunity to continue 

those opportunities and deals that we’ve been doing. 

Senator CANTWELL. Great. Again, thank you very much. We will 

keep the record open for another 2 weeks on these bills. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Ok. 

Senator CANTWELL. So people, committee members, have questions to submit to you, we appreciate you getting back to us in answers. 

Senator CANTWELL. Again, thank you for your dedication to this 

particular area and your great background steeped in this. 

So we look forward to moving forward on many pieces of this legislation. So the hearing is adjourned. Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 3:31 p.m. the hearing was adjourned.] 
(33) 

1 Center for Energy Workforce Demand 2007 Report: Gaps in Energy Workforce Pipeline. 

APPENDIXES 

APPENDIX I 

Responses to Additional Questions 

RESPONSES OF KRISTINA M. JOHNSON TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR MURKOWSKI

H.R. 957—GREEN ENERGY EDUCATION ACT

Question 1. S. 1462, the American Clean Energy Leadership Act, which this Committee sent to the full Senate in June, contains a broad energy workforce development section which, along with programs to address future energy workforce shortages, specifically includes training for energy efficient construction, retrofitting, and 

design. In your view, would H.R. 957 complement this legislation or be duplicative? 

Answer. Both S. 1462, the American Clean Energy Leadership Act (ACELA), and 

H.R. 957, the Green Energy Education Act, contain provisions that would help our 

workforce develop the skills needed to address future opportunities in energy efficient construction and design. H.R. 957 appears to support the creation of energy 

efficient construction through curricular development and post graduate fellowships 

that would require partnerships between engineering and architecture schools. 

ACELA Subtitle D, Section 450 most closely resembles the program proposed in 

H.R. 957. This Section proposes programs that would be developed by the Secretary 

of Energy in coordination with the Secretary of Labor to award grants to community 

colleges to provide training and education in industries and practices in energy efficient construction, retrofitting and design. 

Work force development programs at many levels can help build a skilled energy 

and energy efficient building workforce. Community colleges can help train workers 

to deploy new technologies quickly and post graduate institutions can contribute research to building technology, science, and engineering. The two bills appear to address these needs in different ways. They target different sectors of the educational 

market (community colleges and post graduates) and different time scales (immediate delivery of training, longer-term development of graduate-level curriculum and 

post doctoral research). 

While the Department appreciates H.R. 957’s and ACELA’s focus on building 

technologies, we would like to emphasize growing opportunities for skilled workers 

across the clean energy sector. The rapid deployment of new energy technologies, 

coupled with the fact that 40 to 60 percent of energy utilities’ skilled workers and 

engineers are eligible to retire by 20121 suggests the benefits of a broad approach 

to address the green job development and training challenge. 

To this end, the Department works closely with the National Science Foundation 

(NSF) on currently funded and proposed activities to strengthen scientific educational programs at the technical, undergraduate, and graduate levels. These 

projects are aimed at creating a pipeline beginning at the K-12 level and extending 

through the post-graduate level to ensure the ongoing development of a workforce 

with the skills and capabilities to create and scale-up innovative energy technologies 

and improve processes over the long-term. 

H.R. 2729—NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH PARKS

Question 1. The legislation directs each Research Park to support a wide degree 

of research and monitoring work. How does the research and monitoring provided 

for in the bill match up with Department of Energy priorities? 
34 

Answer. Generally, H.R. 2729 authorizes the Department of Energy (DOE) to support research in eight areas at the research parks: 

a. Ecology of the site and the region; 

b. Population biology and ecology; 

c. Radioecology; 

d. Effects of climate variability and change on ecosystems; 

e. Ecosystem science; 

f. Pollution fate and transport research; 

g. Surface and groundwater modeling; and 

h. Environmental impacts of development and use of energy generation technology, including renewable energy technologies. 

Several of these research areas are consistent with DOE research priorities and 

are areas of research that the Department supports. In general, research activities 

are conducted at locations that are optimal for the proposed studies and are not limited to, or selected for, use of research park lands. Research in effects of climate variability and change on ecosystems and ecosystem science is supported by the Office 

of Science’s Office of Biological and Environmental Research (BER). Specifically, research is targeted at understanding the role of terrestrial ecosystems in the global 

carbon cycle, understanding the effects of changing concentrations of greenhouse 

gases on terrestrial ecosystems, and understanding the role of terrestrial ecosystems 

in terrestrial carbon sequestration. BER also supports research consistent with pollution fate and transport research on the transport and fate of contaminants, specifically radionuclides and heavy metals in the subsurface. This research on the behavior and interactions of contaminants, in subsurface environments provides 

knowledge needed by DOE’s Offices of Environmental Management (EM) and Legacy Management (LM) to develop new strategies for the remediation and stewardship of weapons-related contaminants at DOE sites. Research in surface and 

groundwater modeling is also supported by BER, EM, and the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) as it relates to the fate and transport of subsurface 

contaminants (including geological carbon sequestration) and long-term environmental stewardship of DOE sites. It should be emphasized again, however, that the 

above research is conducted at locations that are consistent with the specific 

hypotheses being tested and not at ‘‘research parks,’’ per se. 

The DOE Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy supports research in 

environmental impacts of development and use of energy generation technology, including renewable energy technologies as it relates to the development and deployment of new energy technologies. EM and the Office of Science have supported research in radioecology in the past, particularly at the Savannah River Ecology Laboratory in recent years, however, the Department’s priority has shifted to subsurface 

contaminant fate and transport to more directly address the Department’s legacy 

waste and clean-up responsibilities. 

The bill’s proposed research areas in ecology of the site and the region and population biology and ecology are not well aligned with the Department’s mission priorities and are better supported by other Federal agencies. 

Question 2. How does the authorization of $5 million/year for each Research Park 

impact the Office of Science’s overall budget? 

Answer. The authorization of $5 million/year for each of six National Environmental Research Parks (NERPs) would total $30 million/year, if appropriated. The 

Office of Biological and Environmental Research would be the likely group to manage this NERP program as it currently supports research in atmospheric and terrestrial systems, as well as climate modeling. But finding would have to be appropriated, not only the $30 million specifically authorized for the six NERPS, but also 

additional funds to support the solicitation, review and management of six large, 

new research activities which would be a major new effort within the relatively 

small Office of Biological and Environmental Research. Moreover, in addition to its 

potential budget impact, the proposed new program would be counter to the Office 

of Science’s best practices for management of research programs and optimal use 

of scientific resources by the broader scientific community. The Office of Science currently supports high priority research as identified by expert advisory panels and 

selected through external peer review. Under this legislation, the site rather than 

the quality or overall importance of the research would command the funding. 

Question 3. How would making the Research Parks permanent impact the Department’s ability to utilize federal land in the most appropriate manner to meet its 

mission? What are the potential impacts on future land transfer to the local communities? 

Answer. The Section 3 savings clause of H.R. 2729 does specify that the bill shall 

not be ‘‘construed to limit the activities that the Federal Government may carry out 
35 

1 ‘‘Large-Scale Offshore Wind Power in the United States: Assessment of Opportunities and. 

Barriers’’, NREL Report (unpublished DOE-funded study, 2007). 2 ‘‘20% Wind Energy by 2030, Increasing Wind Energy’s Contribution to the U.S. Electricity 

Supply’’ DOE/GO-102008-2567, July 2008. 

or authorize on a site on which a National Environmental Research Park is located.’’ 

The Department is concerned, however, that once research park lands were officially 

designated as ‘‘protected outdoor research reserves,’’ public opposition to any development within the parks, even for DOE mission related purposes, would increase 

significantly. Additionally, the savings clause does not address the issue of future 

land transfers to local communities. The Department is concerned that any official 

designation of a ‘‘research park’’ could prohibit the transfer of any parcels within 

that boundary to local communities for productive economic use. 

H.R. 3165—THE WIND RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2009

Question 1. To date, how much has the federal government spent on wind research and development? 

Answer. From 1978 to 2008, the Department of Energy has been appropriated 

over $1.6 billion (in 2008 dollars) to invest in wind energy research and development 

(R&D), as compared with nearly $24 billion for Nuclear Energy R&D and Infrastructure, $41 billion for Fossil Energy R&D, and over $15 billion for Fusion Energy 

over that time period. In Fiscal Year 2009, $55 million was appropriated for wind 

R&D. In Fiscal Year 2010, $80 million is appropriated for wind R&D, with an additional $118 million allocated through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act 

of 2009. 

Question 2. Please provide an overview of the Departments current wind research 

and development efforts. Is the research called for in H.R. 3165 duplicative of ongoing wind research efforts at the Department? 

Answer. The activities proposed in H.R. 3165 appear largely consistent with much 

of the work currently underway at the Department of Energy (DOE), and with 

DOE’s 20% Wind Energy by 2030 report. The Department already engages in research and development (R&D) activities described in Section (2)(b) of the bill. However, H.R. 3165 does not propose specific authorization for wind energy environmental research, such as the effects of wind turbines on wildlife and habitat, which 

is of major concern to the wind industry and communities considering wind power 

development. 

The Department’s wind energy research is currently focused on improving the performance and lowering the costs of wind technology; improving the integration of 

wind energy into the electrical grid; addressing barriers to the responsible deployment of wind power systems; and supporting the development of a domestic supply 

chain and workforce for wind energy. The Department carries out these activities 

through its National Laboratories, and through public-private partnerships with industry and academia. 

Question 3. Since there is already over 25,000 megawatts of land based wind 

power installed in the United States, is there really a need to conduct a wind energy 

demonstration program? 

Answer. The Department supports placing special emphasis on demonstrating 

highly innovative land-based wind designs and offshore wind technologies, including 

integrated systems, components, structures, materials and infrastructure. 

There is an identified need for demonstration of advanced wind plant performance 

characterization methodologies and applications (including forecasting, wake effects, 

and aeroelastic interactions), as well as advanced manufacturing techniques to help 

increase the domestic content and cost competitiveness of wind turbine components. 

Technologies that need a robust demonstration program include new advanced 

turbine components, materials, and, most importantly, nascent offshore wind technologies. The U.S. currently does not have any offshore wind energy systems installed. Much of this can be attributed to complexity in the regulatory framework 

and related permitting requirements, low technology maturity, lack of minimum infrastructure such as adequately outfitted ports and vessels, an untrained labor 

force, and the perception of risk among potential investors. Therefore, offshore wind 

may need the support of a demonstration program in order to establish its viability 

in the U.S. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory estimates that the U.S. offshore wind resources, including the Great Lakes, exceed 2500 Gigawatts.1

DOE’s 20% Wind Energy by 2030 study concludes that with dedicated policy support, at least 54 Gigawatts of this potential could realistically be developed by 

2030.2
36 

Question 4. How much wind energy research and development is performed by the 

wind industry? 

Answer. Over the last two decades, the wind industry has worked with the Department of Energy (DOE) to advance wind technology and develop state-of-the-art 

wind turbines. These projects require substantial cost-share from industry. For example, one industry member contributed over $4.5 million in cost-share to a project 

with DOE to develop a 1.5 MW wind turbine. DOE understands that the American 

Wind Energy Association’s research and development (R&D) action plan calls for annual non-federal wind energy R&D spending of at least $224 million in order to supply 20 percent of the Nation’s energy from wind resources by 2030. European Commission estimates suggest that the wind industry provides roughly three-quarters 

of all European wind R&D funding, with the remaining quarter coming from national governments within the European Union. For example, one foreign wind turbine manufacturer spent $175 million on R&D in 2008, while a U.S. manufacturer 

of utility-scale wind turbines spent $21.1 million. The wind industry continues to 

invest in R&D to develop new multi-megawatt onshore and offshore wind turbine 

designs, to optimize wind turbine component designs and materials, and to improve 

the reliability and cost-competitiveness of wind turbine technology. 

H.R. 3246—ADVANCED VEHICLE TECHNOLOGY ACT OF 2009

Question 1. I’m concerned that if the federal government dramatically increases 

its spending on vehicle technology R&D, companies within the industry will be 

incentivized to reduce their own spending. Do you believe a cost-share between the 

federal government and private industry should be required for any activities carried out under this bill? If so, what do you believe would be an appropriate level 

for that cost-share? 

Answer. Government uses a broad portfolio-based approach to supporting research, development, and demonstration projects in the energy area and attempts 

to scale funding to the need. Federal support is targeted to areas where there is 

evidence that the private sector on its own is not supplying sufficient funding. The 

closer a technology is to commercialization, the more the Federal government requires of the private sector to minimize crowding out. For instance, cost-sharing is 

an important mechanism for leveraging government funds and insuring that the 

Government’s partners focus on topics relevant to the market. The cost-share requirements set forth in Section 988 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (minimum of 

20 percent cost share for R&D projects and minimum of 50 percent cost share for 

demonstration and commercialization projects) have proved effective in meeting 

these objectives. 

Question 2. I’m also concerned by the overlap that could result from the passage 

of this bill. H.R. 3246 includes a section requiring the Secretary to ‘‘ensure, to the 

maximum extent practicable’’ that activities carried out under the bill do not duplicate existing efforts. Aside from much higher spending, can you please elaborate on 

how the program set up by this bill differs from the activities already being carried 

out by EERE’s Vehicle Technologies program, NETL’s Advanced Vehicles and Fuels 

Research program, the Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing Incentive program, and other similar federal programs? 

Answer. Many of the activities proposed by H.R. 3246 represent ongoing work currently underway in the Department’s Vehicle Technologies Program. H.R. 3246 updates existing authorities from the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 05) from a 

technology standpoint, as well as ensures that many current EPAct 05 authorizations set to expire in the next several years do not expire. The Department does 

not anticipate duplication of existing efforts. 

Question 3. Has the Department looked at any other ways to spur innovation 

within the private sector? For example, instead of providing nearly $3 billion more 

for R&D, could the establishment of a prime rate loan program result in similar 

gains in fuel economy and lower emissions at lower cost to taxpayers? 

Answer. The Department has initiated new programs to spur private sector innovation in both research and development (R&D) and manufacturing. Examples of 

R&D investment include the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E) 

and the support the Department provides for deployment through credit programs 

such as the Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program (ATVM). 

The Department’s support of long-standing programs, such as Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR), has achieved notable success for vehicle technology development, as exemplified by Al23 Systems. With initial SBIR funding in 2001, Al23 Systems was able to further its lithium ion battery technology development, receive additional competitively-awarded Departmental R&D fluids, and raise additional capital from private sector partners. Al23 Systems recently received, through competi-
37 

tive award, Recovery Act funds to scale up and build automotive battery manufacturing facilities in the United States that are expected to support the widespread 

use of plug-in hybrid and other electric vehicles. 

Question 4. Earlier this year, the Energy Committee passed a bill that would require the National Academy of Sciences to complete a comprehensive ‘‘transportation roadmap’’ to evaluate the potential of many of the technologies listed in this 

bill. Would it make more sense to complete that study before funding all of these 

technologies, rather than funding all of these technologies without a good understanding of where our limited federal dollars are likely to be most effective? 

Answer. The Department is currently working with the National Academy of 

Sciences (NAS) to support a $2.2 million study focused on light-duty vehicle fuel 

economy, as directed by the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies 

Appropriations Act, 2010. The study is scheduled to begin this year; over the course 

of the two-year effort, the NAS will rely on data from the Department’s Vehicle 

Technologies Program and others to perform an analysis. Based on preliminary information from the ongoing NAS review as well as previous NAS reviews of the 

FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership, the Department’s technology portfolio—which 

emphasizes vehicle electrification—is appropriate. The International Energy Agency’s Electric and Plug-In Hybrid Roadmap mirrors DOE emphasis on drivetrain electrification. Two authorization bills currently under Congressional consideration, 

H.R. 3246 and S. 2843, would authorize a research, development and demonstration 

program that is very well aligned with the current DOE program focus. 

H.R. 3585—SOLAR TECHNOLOGY ROADMAP ACT

Question 1. This legislation establishes a Solar Technology Roadmap Committee, 

with at least one-third of the Committee members to come from the solar industry, 

in order to create a Solar Technology Roadmap to direct DOE’s solar research. Does 

the Department believe such a Roadmap Committee is necessary? What is the Administration’s position on potentially allowing non-federal employees to direct Federal activities? 

Answer. The Department’s Solar Energy Technologies Program actively solicits 

and receives input from stakeholders in industry, the National Laboratories, and 

academia through peer-reviews, as well as from other formal and informal discussions over many years. The Department is actively strengthening its external review 

process to receive input and comments from outside stakeholders. As written, the 

proposed legislation binds the Department’s research and development efforts to the 

recommendations of the Roadmap Committee, requiring the Department to follow 

the Committee’s recommendations for 75 percent of all funding appropriated for the 

Solar Energy Technologies Program by 2015. While the Department welcomes additional industry input and support for demonstration projects, DOE is particularly 

concerned about this bill’s practical effects, which will constrain the flexibility the 

Depailnent has to respond to diverse sources of information and explore new breakthroughs in technology development. The Department is also greatly concerned 

about having non-federal employees direct Federal activities. 

Question 2. H.R. 3585 requires the Department of Energy to spend an increasing, 

minimum amount of the solar program budget—30% starting in 2012 and increasing 

to 75% in 2015—as directed by the Roadmap Committee’s research and development 

recommendations. What if the Energy Secretary does not agree with the Roadmap 

Committee’s R&D recommendations? Do you believe that this legislation unnecessarily ties the Department’s hands? 

Answer. As written, the proposed legislation unnecessarily binds the Department’s research and development (R&D) efforts to the recommendations of the 

Roadmap Committee, requiring the Department to follow the Committee’s recommendations for 75 percent of all funds appropriated for the Solar Energy Technologies Program by 2015. The Department urges the Congress instead to stipulate 

that the Committee provide non-binding advice and recommendations traditionally 

provided by publicly-chartered Federal advisory committees. Providing the most effective solar technology R&D programs requires the Secretary and the Department 

to make a series of constantly evolving judgments. This legislation will constrain the 

flexibility the Department has to respond to diverse sources of information and explore new breakthroughs in technology development. 

Question 3. Please provide an overview of the Department’s current solar research 

and development efforts for Concentrating Solar Power technology, Photovoltaics, 

and solar thermal water heating technology. To date, how much as the federal government spent on solar research and development? 

Answer. The Department of Energy (DOE) has significantly increased its support 

for solar energy technologies over the last five years—growing from $83 million in 
38 

Fiscal Year (FY) 2006 to $247 million in FY 2010—to enable the U.S. to compete 

in the global marketplace with cost-competitive solar energy by 2015. The total 30 

years’ investment in solar research and development (R&D) since the Department’s 

inception in 1979 is approximately $6.1 billion (in 2008 dollars). This funding has 

helped the U.S. become the world leader in innovative solar technology, and may 

be compared with investments of nearly $24 billion for Nuclear Energy R&D and 

Infrastructure, $41 billion for Fossil Energy R&D, and over $15 billion for Fusion 

Energy R&D over that time period. 

The DOE Solar Energy Technologies Program focuses on reducing photovoltaic 

(PV) manufacturing costs, proving that concentrating solar power (CSP) systems can 

provide dispatchable power through the use of low-cost thermal storage, and providing the thermal energy needs of a Zero Energy Building. 

The CSP subprogram is focusing its efforts in four major areas: (1) R&D of low 

cost systems that include thermal storage to achieve cost competitiveness in the intermediate and baseload power markets; (2) establishment of a demonstration program of new CSP technologies that could lead to gigawatt-scale deployment of CSP 

projects; (3) working with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in identifying 

BLM-managed land environmentally suitable for utility-scale solar projects and (4) 

addressing market acceptance issues related to water consumption and transmission. 

The PV subprogram priorities are to: (1) conduct R&D on existing and current PV 

technologies that have the potential to achieve cost parity with conventional electricity generation sources by 2015; (2) increase the lifetime of PV components and 

systems, and prove the market viability of new PV technologies; (3) in coordination 

with the Office of Electricity, conduct R&D to allow for wide scale integration of PV 

systems within the existing grid system; (4) conduct outreach to key state and national stakeholders that can help remove market impediments for the adoption of 

PV technologies. 

The Solar Heating and Cooling activity within the Building Technologies Program 

supports R&D on (1) exemplary low-cost solar water heating systems for net-zero 

energy homes (ZEH) in cold climates and the development of prototype systems; (2) 

combined solar heating, cooling, and water heating systems that utilize seasonal 

storage to achieve high solar fractions; (3) dehumidification applications for combined photovoltaic/thermal systems for ZEH; and (4) support of a solar rating and 

certification system. 

Question 4. How much solar energy research and development is performed by the 

solar industry? 

Answer. As most U.S. solar companies are private and have no obligation to publicly disclose their spending, direct figures on non-governmental research and development (R&D) spending by the solar industry are not available. The best proxy 

measurement for non-governmental R&D spending is early stage (venture capital 

and private equity) investments in solar companies. While some of this funding is 

used for manufacturing scale-up, a large proportion of early stage investments is for 

R&D. In addition, there is R&D spending that is funded by later stage investments, 

such as debt and public equity. In 2008, U.S. solar companies received approximately $2.6 billion of venture capital and private equity investments (source: 

Bloomberg New Energy Finance, http://www.newenergymatters.com/). 

Question 5. H.R. 3585 specifically exempts the Solar Technology Roadmap Committee from the Federal Advisory Committee Act. What is the Department’s position 

on this exemption? 

Answer. Creating the most effective solar technology research and development 

(R&D) programs requires the Department of Energy (DOE) to make a series of constantly evolving judgments. It is important that the Department be allowed to call 

on multiple sources of information when formulating solar technology R&D priorities. Legislation should not constrain the Department’s flexibility to respond to diverse sources of information, as would be the case currently proposed by Sections 

102 and 103 of H.R. 3585. However, the Department may support the establishment 

of an advisory committee from which DOE may receive collective input to better inform its decisions related to these matters. If the committee is only advisory to the 

Secretary, the Department does not see any reason to exempt the committee from 

the Federal Advisory Committee Act. 

S. 737—BIOFUELS FOR SMALL NON-ROAD ENGINES

Question 1. What is the current status of the program required by Section 248 

of the 2007 energy bill? Has it been created by the Department, and if so, what 

progress has been made in each of its nine focus areas? 
39 

Answer. Research and testing on most of the nine focus areas identified in Section 

248 of EISA 2007 are underway. Some results are in review for publication. Summary of progress in the nine focus areas: 

(1) Corrosion of metal, plastic, rubber, cork, fiberglass, glues, or any other material used in pipes and storage tanks—In coordination with the Environmental 

Protection Agency, the Department is conducting materials testing on components of underground storage tanks and on metals, elastomers, and plastics 

commonly used in dispensing equipment. Performance testing on dispensers 

and distribution components (hoses, nozzles, swivels, breakaways and one submersible turbine pump) is also ongoing. 

(2) Dissolving of storage tank sediments—Not currently funded. 

(3) Clogging offilters—Ongoing research is being conducted on dispenser filters as a component of the full dispensing system. 

(4) Contamination from water or other adulterants or pollutants—Not currently funded. 

(5) Poor flow properties related to low temperatures—Completed for biodiesel 

use in vehicles and not considered significantly different for small engines; not 

considered relevant for other commercially available biofuels. Publications can 

be found at http://www.nrel.gov/vehiclesandfuels/npbf/pdfs/cftrl72805.pdf 

(6) Oxidative and thermal instability in long-term storage and uses—Complete for biodiesel; ongoing for other biofuels. Multiple biodiesel publications can 

be found at http://www.nrel.gov/vehiclesandfuels/npbf/ 

pubslbiodiesel.html#quality. 

(7) Microbial contamination—Not currently funded. The issue is considered 

well-understood by industry and does not require additional Departmental research. 

(8) Problems associated with electrical conductivity—Not directly under study, 

but research currently underway on materials compatibility for E15 and E20 includes corrosion, which is affected by electrical conductivity. 

(9) Such other areas as the Secretary considers appropriate—Areas not currently being addressed are not impeding the near-term deployment of biofuels. 

Question 2. The Fiscal Year 2010 Energy and Water Appropriations bill included 

$7.5 million for the Vehicle Technologies program at DOE to ‘‘expand and accelerate’’ the testing of intermediate fuel blends. Does your Department intend to include small, non-road engines—such as those used in outdoor equipment and 

boats—in its tests as part of the required expansion? 

Answer. Yes, small, non-road engines will be included in Fiscal Year 2010 tasks, 

including studies that are currently underway or are being planned to examine the 

effects of intermediate ethanol blends on chainsaws and marine engines. Additional 

studies on motorcycles and snowmobiles are planned and may be conducted pending 

evaluation of incoming data on the marine and chainsaw testing. 

Question 3. Could you take just a minute and summarize what preliminary testing, such as the testing completed by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, has suggested about the use of ethanol in small, non-road engines? 

Answer. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, and the Transportation Research Center (a commercial testing laboratory in 

Ohio) have completed tests on a variety of small, non-road engines. Emissions and 

exhaust temperature testing using blends of EO, El 0, E15, and E20 was conducted 

on power washers, generators, leaf blowers, and line trimmers in their new and fulllife conditions. On each engine type, low-cost general use and higher-price fuel types 

were tested. 

Testing showed that as ethanol levels increased, small, non-road engines operated 

less fuel-rich, leading to higher temperatures of both the exhaust and engine components and to changes in the exhaust emissions. In general, hydrocarbon (HC) and 

carbon monoxide (CO) emissions tended to decrease with higher ethanol content, 

while oxides of nitrogen (NOx) emissions tended to increase. Combined HC+NOx 

emissions (which are regulated as such) decreased in most cases. As ethanol content 

in the fuel increased, some engines experienced higher idle speeds and unintentional 

clutch engagement due to less-rich operating conditions. No obvious material compatibility issues were observed during these tests. 

S. 1617—INVESTMENTS FOR MANUFACTURING PROGRESS AND CLEAN TECHNOLOGY ACT

Question 1. Please describe the role, if any, that the Industrial Technologies Program at the Department of Energy will play within the loan program, as envisioned 

in S. 1617. 
40 

Answer. The Loan Guarantee Program Office (LGPO) supports innovative energy 

technology projects that reduce or sequester greenhouse gases, including many of 

the technologies that would be supported by S. 1617. To achieve the Program’s 

goals, the LGPO works in close coordination with the relevant DOE program offices 

including Fossil Energy, Nuclear Energy and Energy Efficiency Renewable Energy. 

In the context of Title XVII this coordination and role is ongoing; the LGPO will 

continue to access technical expertise provided by the program offices, including the 

Industrial Technologies Program, in matters such as developing solicitations and reviewing loan guarantee applications. 

Question 2. What skills will be needed to reflect the range of activities the program needs for long-term success? 

Answer. U.S. manufacturers need employees with ever-increasing skills to compete in the global marketplace, particularly in growing industries such as clean 

technologies. Increasing worker education and training will be central to achieving 

long-term manufacturing success. The knowledge and skills of manufacturing employees at all levels—from technicians to engineers to plant managers—on energy 

technology management, as well as the manufacture of clean energy technologies, 

needs to be significantly strengthened. 

The Department’s Industrial Technologies Program (ITP) has a history of developing industrial energy efficiency resources, including tools, training and energy assessments that assist manufacturing staff in saving energy. Studies conducted by 

trade organizations and government organizations, including the United Nations 

Environment Programme, have indicated a wide set of skills will be required not 

only for the manufacture of clean technology and energy efficient products, but also 

for their implementation. These skills and associated professions include planning 

and design; project management and procurement; technical-engineering skills related to energy management; trade skills including electrical and mechanical skills; 

and computer operation or software specialization. In addition, entrepreneurial 

skills can often be as important as technical knowledge for emerging industries. 

Availability of workers with these skill sets will be beneficial to the retooling, expansion, and improvement of U.S. manufacturing facilities. The Department’s ITP will 

coordinate with other agencies to assist in identifying the needed skills in manufacturing to support the implementation and manufacturing of clean energy technologies. 

Question 3. Please describe the role that the industrial assessment centers will 

play in assisting the small and medium sized firms in improving their energy efficiency. 

Answer. The Department’s 26 Industrial Assessment Centers (TACO provide engineering services and technical assistance to small and medium sized firms by conducting no-cost energy audits at manufacturing plants. An engineering professor experienced in energy auditing and several students lead each energy audit. The audit 

analyzes a wide range of energy uses at the plant, including heating, cooling, lighting, steam, and motor applications and provides a report with recommendations 

that typically identifies about 10 percent reductions in energy use. About 300 energy 

audits are conducted every year throughout the U.S. IAC personnel also familiarize 

plant personnel with the Department’s software decision tools, training possibilities, 

technical information, energy management methods and other materials which can 

enable plant workers to make continuing improvements to their energy systems. At 

any time, the IAC program employs approximately 200 engineering students who 

are acquiring energy-engineering skills for application in professional careers. The 

IAC program serves as a model approach for strengthening the U.S. clean energy 

manufacturing supply chain. 

Question 4. Please describe how the loan program our Committee passed earlier 

this year (ACELA, Title II, Subtitle A, SEC 201) will be coordinated with this new 

loan program in addressing energy efficiency improvements within the industrial 

sector? 

Answer. The Administration has not taken a position on either ACELA or S. 1617. 

As such, the Department has no view on how the two pieces of legislation might 

be coordinated if passed. 

S. 2773—OFFSHORE WIND ENERGY RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, DEMONSTRATION AND

COMMERCIAL APPLICATION ACT OF 2009

Question 1. Is the Department currently undertaking any research and development work for offshore wind resources? 

Answer. The Department seeks to address barriers to responsible offshore wind 

energy development, including the technical challenges posed by the harsh marine 

environment, as well as the permitting and environmental challenges associated 
41 

with siting offshore projects. The Department is providing approximately $25 million in projects in Fiscal Years 2009 and 2010 appropriations and Congressionally 

Directed Projects, to support offshore wind energy through feasibility assessments, 

environmental studies, and technology research and development. These projects include a recently launched research consortia headed by the University of Maine to 

develop composite floating platforms for offshore wind turbines. In addition, the Department of Energy is investing up to $70 million in Recovery Act funds to create 

facilities capable of testing next-generation land-based and offshore wind turbine 

drivetrains and blades. These facilities, located in Boston, Massachusetts, and 

Charleston, South Carolina, will improve U.S. competitiveness in offshore wind energy technology by supporting the testing of next-generation designs. 

Question 2. According to the American Wind Energy Association, offshore winds 

are stronger and more consistent than wind resources located across land. To date, 

however, there are no offshore wind projects in this country, even though the Cape 

Wind project has been under development since 2001. Why is the United States so 

far behind Europe, which already has over 600 megawatts of installed offshore wind 

capacity? 

Answer. The fact that no offshore wind projects have been installed in the U.S. 

to date can largely be attributed to the complex regulatory framework and related 

federal and state permitting requirements faced by project developers. While U.S. 

policies for offshore oil and gas extraction are well established, policies, regulations 

and processes for offshore wind energy development are still in development, although tremendous strides toward clarification have been made in 2009 through 

Federal/State collaboration. 

Significant financial investments are being made in Europe to support installation 

of offshore wind turbines and support infrastructure. Investment in the development 

of commercially operated offshore projects in Europe is approximately Ö3 billion (ap- proximately $4.1 billion) per year and is expected to increase to Ö8 billion (approxi- mately $11 billion) per year by 2020. Government policies and regulations set the 

stage for the research, investment, and development needed to create a sustainable 

offshore wind industry and send signals to the financial community regarding the 

viability of the sector. While the U.S. government has supported wind technology 

deployment through tax incentives such as the Production Tax Credit, Investment 

Tax Credit, and American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Section 1603 grants, 

these incentives do not distinguish between land-based and offshore wind energy 

projects, and do not lend themselves as well to offshore wind. In order to qualify 

for these tax credits or grants, project construction must commence before the end 

of 2012. This deadline is currently unrealistic for offshore wind projects, which face 

a significantly longer development and permitting process than land-based wind 

projects. 

A significant step forward in clarifying the regulatory context for U.S. offshore 

wind development occurred in April 2009, when the Department of Interior’s Minerals Management Service (MMS) issued final regulations governing all renewable 

energy projects on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). The Energy Policy Act of 

2005 gave MMS lead agency authority over offshore alternative energy and alternate use activities on the OCS. Prior to this explicit authorization, the regulatory 

approval pathway for offshore wind development in Federal waters was undefined. 

To date, several project developers such as Cape Wind have successfully completed a number of the steps required for offshore wind permitting and siting approval, including environmental reviews. However, they still remain several years 

from being able to actually install systems, given the remaining requirements that 

must be met. 

Recent strong support for offshore development by East Coast and Great Lakes 

states, coupled with collaborative efforts by MMS, such as the formation of state 

task forces and Interior Secretary Salazar’s announcement of the opening of an Atlantic Off-Shore Wind Permitting Office on December 14, 2009, promise to greatly 

streamline the permitting process for developers. These steps send a strong signal 

to potential investors that the hurdles that have delayed offshore development in 

the U.S are being addressed. 

Question 3. Based on Europe’s experience, does the Department believe offshore 

wind facilities will interfere with shipping or fishing interests? What about the effects on marine life? Finally, how do offshore wind facilities handle severe weather? 

Answer. Offshore wind energy presents a different set of potential risks to the environment and coastal communities than land-based wind. The Department works 

with other agencies, such as the Department of Interior’s Minerals Management 

Service (MMS), to identify priority research areas relating to environmental and 

human impacts of offshore wind turbines. Several studies from Europe indicate that 

while no significant negative effects on birds, mammals, or other biological factors 
42 

from existing offshore wind projects have been observed to date, uncertainties and 

risks remain. Research funded by DOE to determine the effects of offshore technologies on marine habitats and ecosystems is currently underway. Robust research, 

thoughtful stakeholder engagement and careful siting will allow for the development 

of clean, affordable, domestic offshore wind energy while protecting the environment 

and stakeholder interests. 

The severe weather associated with the marine environment requires offshore 

wind turbines to be more rugged and durable than those installed on land. National 

safety certification standards can help ensure that offshore wind technology and facilities are designed to withstand the effects of severe offshore waves and wind. 

DOE works with MMS to review existing national safety certification standards and 

how to apply the standards to the design and operation of U.S. offshore wind turbines and structures, taking into account regional considerations such as hurricane 

winds and storm driven waves of the mid-and north Atlantic. Application of these 

standards will ensure the safe installation and operation of wind turbines in U.S. 

waters. 

Question 4. S. 2773 directs the Secretary to competitively award grants to establish one or more National Offshore Wind Centers at institutions of higher education. 

Does the Department believe such National Offshore Wind Centers can assist its research and development efforts? 

Answer. A coordinated national offshore wind energy program supporting focused 

research and development (R&D) would help facilitate the long term clean energy 

and economic benefits of a mature offshore wind energy industry. Establishing an 

integrated network of national-scale research and development centers supporting 

this effort could be important to the success of such a program. Such institutions, 

whether universities, National Laboratories, or other independent or industry-supported research centers, could be awarded DOE funding focused on specific regional 

or technical research efforts. Examples of focused research include turbine systems 

optimized for Great Lakes or Gulf of Mexico conditions, floating foundations optimized for deep water applications in the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, test facilities 

to validate and understand the resiliency of wind turbines to hurricanes, ice floes, 

and other site conditions unique to U.S. waters, and the development of baseline 

environmental studies and regional databases to be used to streamline project review and permitting processes. 

Examples of planned national-scale facilities and R&D efforts that have recently 

been selected for DOE funding, and could support a coordinated national offshore 

wind energy effort include: 

• Up to $45 million from the Recovery Act to Clemson University for a Large 

Wind Turbine Drivetrain Testing facility featuring power analysis equipment 

capable of performing highly accelerated endurance testing of drive systems for 

land-based and offshore wind turbines rated at 5-15 megawatts; • Up to $25 million in Recovery Act funding to the Massachusetts large wind 

blade test facility, which will be the only U.S. test center capable of testing 

wind turbine blades up to 90 meters long for both land-based and offshore wind 

energy systems, and; • Up to $8 million in Recovery Act funding plus $5 million through Congressionally directed, funding to a consortium led by the University of Maine to develop 

and test floating foundation systems capable of supporting large wind turbines 

in deep water. 

RESPONSES OF KRISTINA M. JOHNSON TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR STABENOW

Question 1. Undersecretary Johnson—you mentioned in your testimony that by including hydrogen and fuel cell activities as an eligible technology in the Advanced 

Vehicle Technologies Act this would duplicate existing authorities such as the Energy Policy Act of 2005 that also includes authority for hydrogen technologies. 

Answer. The Department is concerned that H.R. 3246 would be considered the 

sole authorization for all vehicle R&D activities, including those currently sponsored 

by the Vehicle Technologies and Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technologies Programs. 

The current level of funding appropriated for these programs plus the expanded medium and heavy-duty vehicle authorization outlined in the Act currently exceeds the 

total authorization level cited by the Act for Fiscal Year 2010. Hydrogen and fuel 

cell activities detailed in Title VIII of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 are currently 

authorized through 2020,. All of these activities are listed as only one of 26 technology areas in H.R. 3246, Section 101. Most of the other vehicle technologies areas 

in H.R, 3246 have authorizations that expire before the hydrogen and fuel cell authorization, and many expire by 2015. The Department has no issue if H.R. 3246 

is intended as a supplemental authorization to previous authorizations. 
43 

Question 2. Why is hydrogen the only example of a technology that DOE already 

has other authorities to perform R&D functions on? Certainly you could say the 

same for electric batteries and components, as an example, which has various authorities under EPACT 05 and EISA 07. 

Answer. The Department is concerned that H.R. 3246 would be considered the 

sole authorization for all vehicle R&D activities, including those currently sponsored 

by the Vehicle Technologies and Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technologies Programs. 

The current level of funding appropriated for these programs plus the expanded medium and heavy-duty vehicle authorization outlined in the Act would currently exceed the total authorization level cited by the Act for Fiscal Year 2010. Hydrogen 

and fuel cell activities detailed in Title VIII of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 are 

currently authorized through 2020. All of these activities are listed as only one of 

26 technology areas in H.R. 3246, Section 101. Most of the other vehicle technologies 

areas in H.R. 3246 have authorizations that expire before the hydrogen and fuel cell 

authorization, and many expire by 2015. The Department has no issue if H.R. 3246 

is intended as a supplemental authorization to previous authorizations. 

Question 3. Congressman Peters and I envision this bill to be a comprehensive 

and integrated R&D authority for as many priority vehicle technologies as possible, 

fully recognizing that it may supplement or compliment ongoing activities at DOE. 

We did not want the legislation to miss any important R&D activities and or minimize future technologies that may advance vehicle energy efficiency. We created an 

umbrella authority where a certain level of duplication is appropriate. 

Answer. The Department appreciates the Senator’s statement and now better understands the intent of the legislation. 

Question 4. Finally, I want to emphasize the importance of hydrogen technologies. 

The recent Energy and Water Appropriations bill appropriated $175 million for hydrogen related activities. This was after the DOE recommended reduced the funding 

from $180 million to $60 million. Clearly, Congress views hydrogen as an important 

technology to continue to pursue for the long term, especially as other foreign companies have made it clear that hydrogen is still a potentially game changing technology for vehicles in the next 10 years or so. 

Answer. The Department recognizes that hydrogen could play an important role 

in the Nation’s energy future. The Department plans to spend approximately $52 

million in Fiscal Year 2010 for basic research relating to hydrogen and fuel cells 

in the Office of Science in addition to the $174 million appropriated for the Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technologies Program in the Department’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, The Department also has an active leadership role 

in the international hydrogen and fuel cell community, coordinating with more than 

15 countries and the European Commission through high-level international partnerships and through collaborative work on R&D projects. This level of international engagement allows the Department to stay abreast of global progress, to 

leverage that progress to the benefit of domestic technology development efforts, and 

to ensure U.S. competitiveness in these critical, emerging technologies. 

Question 5. Can you explain more about DOE’s views on the future of hydrogen 

fuel cell R&D as it relates to vehicles? 

Answer. The Department is pursuing a diverse and inclusive portfolio of both 

near-and longer-term technologies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and petroleum use in the transportation sector. Hydrogen and fuel cells, advanced biofuels, 

and batteries are all essential elements of this portfolio. The Department believes 

that having a diverse array of technology options will help the United States meet 

its long-term energy goals. Accelerating the deployment of hydrogen and fuel cell 

technologies in near-term markets—such as stationary power and specialty vehicles—is critical to the longer-term viability of hydrogen and fuel cell technologies. 

The success of hydrogen and fuel cells in these markets will help drive down costs 

by building a domestic supply base and achieving economies of scale in manufacturing. Early market success could also spur investment and innovation in the technologies, hastening progress for longer-term applications, including fuel cell electric 

vehicles. 

RESPONSE OF KRISTINA M. JOHNSON TO QUESTION FROM SENATOR BARRASSO

Question 1. In your testimony, you raised concerns regarding intellectual property 

language included in S. 2744. Will you provide specific legislative changes that 

would address the Department’s concerns? 

Answer. The intellectual property (IP) language in Section (7) of S. 2744 provides 

that as a condition to receiving an award, the applicant must vest IP relating to 

carbon dioxide capture technology in one or more entities incorporated in the U.S. 

For prize legislations, the H-Prize Act (P.L. 110-140, Sec. 654) being one example, 
44 

we have concluded that the value of the resulting IP for significant technological 

breakthroughs generally is worth more than the proceeds from the prize itself. As 

a result, any IP provisions that seek to divest title or otherwise encumber IP are 

viewed as a deterrent to participating in such prize competitions. We would recommend the following IP provision from the H-Prize Act, Sec. 654 (f)(4): 

Intellectual property.—The Federal Government shall not, by virtue of offering or awarding a prize under this subsection, be entitled to any intellectual property rights derived as a consequence of, or direct relation to, the 

participation by a registered participant in a competition authorized by this 

subsection. This paragraph shall not be construed to prevent the Federal 

Government from negotiating a license for the use of intellectual property 

developed for a prize competition under this subsection. 

RESPONSES OF KRISTINA M. JOHNSON TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR CORKER

Question 1a. Under H. R. 2729 as currently drafted, how can the interests and 

needs of the local governments that are hosts to the proposed Environmental Research Parks be protected when their interests are in conflict with those of the Environmental Research Parks? 

Answer. Currently, the Department of Energy as owner of the DOE laboratories 

and the sites which they occupy, is responsible for addressing and accommodating, 

to the extent possible, the interests and needs of the surrounding local governments 

and citizenry. Regardless of the outcome of H.R. 2729, the Department will continue 

to work with local communities and governments in furtherance of the general welfare. 

Question 1b. Would you support modifying the legislation so that these local governments can have meaningful input into interim and permanent land use decision 

making processes? If so, how would you suggest doing that? 

Answer. H.R. 2729 provides ample provisions for local community involvement, 

through public education and outreach activities and through requirements that the 

Department enter into cooperative agreements with local institutions of higher 

learning. Accordingly, modification of the legislation is not necessary. 

Question 2a. How can land parcels that are currently under consideration for 

transfer to the nearby local government best be protected from land use alternatives 

that are envisioned by the legislation? 

Answer. The Department is in the process of transferring several parcels at sites 

that would be designated as ‘‘National Environmental Research Parks’’ under H.R. 

2729. The draft deeds will be revised to contain a restrictive use covenant that 

specifies that the property is not subject to the requirements set forth in H.R. 2729. 

Question 2b. When the Department of Energy has agreed to transfer land to a 

local government, how can those agreements, memoranda of understanding, or land 

use options be privileged and protected should new land use priorities established 

by the legislation change the context of the aforementioned agreements? 

Answer. Any proposed land transfers would be accomplished by a transfer of deed, 

which would be legally binding; nonbinding documents like memoranda of understanding would not be used. Once the deed has been executed by the Department, 

the deed would contain a restrictive use covenant, that specifies that the property 

is not subject to the requirements set forth in H.R. 2729. Any executed deeds would 

be accessible to the public, as public records, and would not be privileged or protected. 
(45) 

1 U.S. Energy Information Administration, Federal Financial Interventions and Subsidies in 

Energy Markets 2007, Report #:SR/CNEAF/2008-01. 2DOE Budget Authority History Table by Appropriation; DOE Congressional Budget Requests. 

APPENDIX II 

Additional Material Submitted for the Record 

STATEMENT OF HON. GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM ARIZONA, ON

H.R. 3585 

INTRODUCTION

Chairwoman Cantwell, Ranking Member Risch, Members of the Subcommittee, 

thank you for the opportunity to offer my views on H.R. 3585, the Solar Technology 

Roadmap Act of 2009. As the lead sponsor of this legislation in the House of Representatives, I believe it is well designed to achieve critical research and development (R&D) goals in solar energy technologies with the potential for significant public benefit. I appreciate the opportunity to clarify the thinking behind some of the 

provisions of this legislation and respond to critiques of the bill. 

THE SOLAR OPPORTUNITY

Investing in solar power offers a tremendous opportunity for us to stimulate our 

economy, increase our national competitiveness, strengthen our national security, 

and reduce the environmental and public health impacts associated with electric 

power production. 

History makes a powerful case for investing in solar R&D. Photovoltaic (PV) technologies have consistently declined in price every year since they were introduced 

onto the market, driven by improved research and development as well as steady 

increases in sales volume. In 1954, approximately one watt of PV devices was manufactured; in 2009, approximately one billion watts will be manufactured worldwide. 

Non-PV solar technologies, including solar thermal technologies, are also improving 

rapidly. Current estimates are that commercially available solar products will 

achieve grid parity with fossil fuel-based power within the next five years. 

According to testimony provided by Ken Zweibel (Director of the George Washington University Solar Institute and a former long-time solar researcher at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory) at a hearing held by the Energy & Environment Subcommittee of the House Committee on Science & Technology, a relatively 

small Department of Energy program of $5-15M per year called the Thin Film PV 

Partnership ‘‘nurtured several second generation PV technologies from bench-top to 

multibillion dollar annual sales. Two key U.S. companies [today], UniSolar and First 

Solar, were substantial participants. Both are now world leaders in PV technology, 

and in fact, First Solar was the second largest manufacturer of PV modules in the 

world last year.’’ 

AUTHORIZATION LEVELS

I would like to respond to concerns that have been expressed by some about the 

authorization levels in this bill. I believe the best justification for the proposed authorization levels comes from taking a historical look at Federal investment in energy R&D. Between 1978 and 2007, the U.S. government spent $30 billion on R&D 

for nuclear energy alone, and another $24 billion on fossil fuel research.1 During the 

same period we spent less than $6.5 billion on solar energy, and more than half of 

that research was performed prior to 1985.2

Some might think these disparities are justified based on the respective electricity-generating potential of these different technologies, but that is not the case. 

Indeed, the opposite is true. Our nation’s solar resources are truly vast in scale, and 
46 

3 Estimate assuming 5 acres/megawatt from NREL FAQ (http://www.nrel.gov/csp/troughnet/ 

faqs.html#land); EIA, Electric Power Industry 2007: Year in Review. 4 U.S. Energy Information Administration, Federal Financial Interventions and Subsidies in 

Energy Markets 2007, Report #:SR/CNEAF/2008-01. Figures are in 2007 dollars. 

they are capable of making a significant contribution to our energy needs. Using 

technology available today, solar power could meet the electricity demands of the 

entire United States on a square piece of land approximately 100 miles by 100 

miles, or about 10,000 square miles.3 For comparison, at least that much land area 

is currently covered by artificial lakes behind hydroelectric dams, which provide less 

than 10% of our nation’s electricity. Solar analysts at DOE are currently preparing 

a study that outlines how, with the right incentives, solar power could meet as 

much as 20% of America’s electricity needs by the year 2030. That is the same proportion of our power currently provided by nuclear energy. 

Despite the enormous scale of the solar resource, its tremendous electricity-generating potential, and its relatively low social costs, we have spent just one-tenth as 

many resources developing solar technologies as we have developing nuclear power. 

In the last thirty years, we have spent four times more money developing coal technology as solar, even though burning coal for power is a profitable business that has 

been around for over 100 years, while solar is still an emerging technology. At the 

end of the term covered by my bill, it would authorize $550 million for solar R&D. 

Yet at the peak of the energy crisis in the 1970s, we spent $2.9 billion a year on 

nuclear power development alone, and $1.8 billion on fossil fuels.4

I fully support having strong research programs in nuclear, coal, and other important energy options. The fact I wish to highlight is simply that we have consistently 

underinvested in renewable energy R&D, including solar R&D, relative to its potential to benefit our nation. The funding levels authorized in H.R. 3585 are amply justified by the vast potential of the solar resource and global market opportunity for 

new solar technologies. It is time for the scale of our solar investments to match 

the scale of the solar opportunity. 

RESPONDING TO DOE TESTIMONY

The most innovative feature of H.R. 3585 is a provision that calls for the establishment of a committee to create a Solar Technology Roadmap. The committee 

would consist of a minimum of eleven members, all selected by the Secretary of Energy (Secretary) and appointed to three-year terms. Members would be solar experts 

drawn from diverse backgrounds, including industry, academia, national laboratories, and other entities or organizations as appropriate. At least one third, but no 

more than one half of the members would come from industry. The committee’s task 

would be to develop a research plan—or roadmap—to identify R&D needs in order 

to advance solar technologies in the near- (up to 2 years), medium- (5-7 years), and 

long-terms (up to 15 years). The bill calls for the roadmap to be updated every year 

and completely overhauled every three years to keep up with the evolution of solar 

technologies. Importantly, the bill also calls for a portion of funds appropriated for 

the solar R&D program to be allocated according to the recommendations in the 

roadmap, starting with 30% in FY 2011 and rising gradually to 75% in FY 2015. 

The written testimony on H.R. 3585 submitted by Dr. Kristina Johnson, Undersecretary of Energy, identifies the Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) ‘‘greatest concern’’ as the fact that the bill would ‘‘require the Department to form a semi-autonomous Committee that will largely govern the solar-energy activities at the Department.’’ Dr. Johnson correctly points out that the bill, as written, would bind, at least 

partially, the Department’s R&D efforts to the recommendations of the Roadmap 

Committee, requiring the Department to follow the Committee’s recommendations 

for the allocation of a steadily increasing percentage of the total amount appropriated for solar R&D, ultimately topping out at 75% in 2015. However, H.R. 3585 

would not empower the Roadmap Committee to ‘‘largely govern’’ the Department’s 

solar energy activities. The Committee could only provide recommendations in the 

form of a roadmap. The Department is not legally bound to carry out all of these 

recommendations, nor even necessarily follow the top priorities identified. In addition, the Roadmap Committee has no power to award grants, and is explicitly 

barred from recommending specific recipients of funds. 

Dr. Johnson concludes by urging Congress instead to stipulate that the Roadmap 

Committee would provide non-binding advice and recommendations. Although Dr. 

Johnson identifies the partial binding of funding decisions to the roadmap as the 

Department’s greatest concern, she does not provide a convincing explanation of 

why it is a concern (e.g. how the proposal would fail to promote the public interest) 

or how the Department’s preferred course would mitigate the concern. 
47 

Later in her testimony, Dr. Johnson does attempt to justify the Department’s position by explaining that, ‘‘providing the most effective solar technology research and 

development programs requires the Secretary and the Department to make a series 

of constantly evolving judgments. It is important that we be allowed to call on multiple sources of information when we formulate our solar technology R&D priorities, 

and that we be responsive to provided information. . .’’ 

I could not agree more, and that is precisely why the H.R. 3585 requires that the 

solar roadmap be updated annually and that solar R&D funding be tied to the recommendations of the Roadmap Committee; it is to ensure that resource allocation 

decisions are consistent with the up-to-date recommendations that emerge from a 

multi-stakeholder process involving experts from across the solar R&D community. 

Far from obstructing consultation with, and responsiveness to, ‘‘multiple sources of 

information,’’ H.R. 3585 would require it. While I applaud recent Department initiatives to consult with solar stakeholders in industry, the national laboratories, and 

academia, there is no current requirement that DOE officials consult with these 

stakeholders or anyone else in making their R&D decisions. H.R. 3585 would ensure 

that these diverse stakeholders are not only consulted, but that their recommendations are heeded as the Department allocates Federal solar R&D dollars. 

I realize that 75% is a significant portion of the total funding for solar R&D. However, when we are talking about ensuring that taxpayer money is allocated in accordance with a long-term research plan created through a multi-stakeholder process, it is hard to understand why people might think this is a bad idea, especially 

considering that the roadmap would be published for all to see. In terms of transparency, long-term thinking, and integration of diverse views, the roadmap process 

would far exceed anything required of DOE today. What’s more, the roadmap idea 

is not new or untested; it is based on the highly successful Technology Roadmap 

for Semiconductors, a semiconductor industry-led initiative that has been widely 

hailed as contributing to steady and rapid technological advancement in that industry since the early 1990s. 

In contrast with the proposed roadmap process, right now solar R&D funding decisions are made according to whatever rationale DOE may deem appropriate. There 

is no assurance of transparency, no long-term planning requirement, and there is 

no obligation to consult with industry or other stakeholders. For members of Congress concerned with responsible stewardship of taxpayer dollars, the roadmap process should come as a welcome proposal. 

Finally, even if 75% of R&D funding were allocated in accordance with the roadmap, fully 25% of the R&D budget would remain free to be allocated to projects outside the purview of the roadmap. If the full authorized amount were to be appropriated in 2015, that 25% alone would be more than the entire appropriation for 

solar R&D in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. 

CONCLUSION

I am gratified that in her testimony Dr. Johnson acknowledges the value of a 

roadmap-like process in discussing DOE’s own plans to establish an external advisory board to review the entire solar program several times a year. There appears 

to be widespread agreement, both inside and outside DOE, that such a process 

would add value. H.R. 3585 simply takes the next logical steps, first by giving the 

external reviewers explicit instructions to examine technical hurdles over different 

time horizons, and then by ensuring that, once solicited, their expert advice is used 

as a template to guide Federal solar R&D programs. 

On October 22, 2009, the House of Representatives provided a ringing endorsement for increased Federal investment in solar R&D and the roadmap concept by 

passing H.R. 3585 by a strong bipartisan vote of 310 to 106. I encourage the Senate 

to take up this legislation and pass it without significant modification so that our 

nation may strengthen its leadership in solar technology development in the years 

to come. 

STATEMENT OF ILAN KROO, LELAND T. EDWARDS PROFESSOR OF ENGINEERING, DEPARTMENT OF AERONAUTICS AND ASTRONAUTICS, STANFORD UNIVERSITY, 

STANDFORD, CA, ON H.R. 3165 

I am writing to support the inclusion of innovative new approaches to wind energy in the Department of Energy’s (DOE) Wind Energy Research and Development 

Act of 2009. In addition to the program topics currently proposed, I believe it is critical to invest in innovative new approaches to wind power. As an example, concepts 

for airborne wind energy generation have been proposed by several companies, and 
48 

funding for these unconventional, but high-potential projects, could be very important at this time. 

Most of the current research in wind energy systems has focused on incremental 

improvements to individual system components and improved methods for modeling 

conventional wind turbines. This research, if successful, will lead to important, but 

small, advances in current systems. Unconventional concepts for wind energy generation have, by contrast, received little serious research and development support. 

Although many of these concepts are not feasible for utility-scale power generation, 

those that do appear feasible should be an important part of the nation’s research 

program. I therefore encourage the inclusion of innovative approaches to wind energy, including airborne and high-altitude wind power as a research topic in DOE’s 

wind energy research. Amending HR3165 will give the pioneers of these new technologies the opportunity to compete for available funding within the DOE. Your support for this amendment will help meet federal energy goals, create new jobs, and 

ensure that the United States leads in the development of this innovative technology. 

STATEMENT OF THE SOLAR ENERGY INDUSTRIES ASSOCIATION, SEIA, ON H.R. 3585 

Established in 1974, the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA) is the national trade association of solar energy industry. As the voice of the industry, SEIA 

works with its 1,000 member companies to make solar a mainstream and significant 

energy source by expanding markets, removing market barriers, strengthening the 

industry and educating the public on the benefits of solar energy. 

SEIA would like to commend the leadership of Representative Gabrielle Giffords 

on HR 3585. Representative Giffords is an outspoken and articulate supporter of the 

solar industry who understands that in order for the solar energy industry to accelerate its pace of growth and contribute to job creation, economic development, energy self-reliance and improved environmental quality in the United States, we will 

need to build on our long-standing and highly successful partnership with the Department of Energy (DOE) on research, development and deployment (RD&D) of all 

solar technologies: PV (Photovoltaics), CPV (Concentrating Photovoltaics), CSP 

(Concentrating Solar Power), Solar Heating and Cooling. The continued support of 

Congress for solar RD&D and initiatives like HR 3585 are essential for continued 

progress. 

Historically, DOE has prepared solar roadmaps in collaboration with all key 

stakeholders including industry, academia, utilities, and a wide-ranging mix of local 

and national energy constituencies. The PV Manufacturing Roadmap is a recent example of this success, which has led to measurable and substantial improvements 

in cost reduction and performance improvement. The cost of solar panel production 

has declined from $33/W in 1979 to as low as $1/W today. As a result of this 

progress, we have seen increasing deployment of solar technologies on homes and 

commercial roof-tops as well as large, central station systems. 

DOE and the national labs have produced significant results in the CSP side of 

the industry as well. DOE funding at the national labs helped develop a trough that 

was used in the largest CSP trough facility to be built in nearly 2 decades. Acciona 

Energy’s Nevada Solar One, a 64-MW plant near Boulder City, Nevada, came online 

in June 2007. DOE and Sandia National Lab have supported development of dishStirling technology, culminating in the first commercial dish-Stirling plant, coming 

online near Phoenix Arizona in December 2009. 

SEIA proposes to build on the success of these efforts leads and supports an inclusive planning process with DOE for all solar energy technologies. 

Many of the SEIA member manufacturing companies were born out of the integrated circuit (IC) industry or with the support of technical leaders from that sector. 

We know that industry roadmaps, like the International Technology Roadmap for 

Semiconductors (ITRS), accelerated innovation and cost reduction in the integrated 

circuit equipment and manufacturing arenas. However, we believe a roadmap process modeled on the ITRS that was helpful in the IC industry would be inappropriate 

for the solar industry, now and for the future. 

Consider the evolution of the IC industry. In the early stages of growth, the core 

material—silicon—was configured in several different device architectures. Once the 

CMOS (complementary metal—oxide—semiconductor) structure in silicon emerged 

as the most scalable single solution, the ITRS roadmap was implemented and 

linewidth nodes from 65nm to 45nm to 22nm to 15 nm became the framework for 

defining tools. In contrast, a solar cell has only one device architecture, a diode, but 

there are literally thousands of material possibilities, including monosilicon, multisilicon, thin film silicon, cadmium telluride, and copper indium diselenide. 
49 

An important reason for the success of the IC roadmap was that, unlike the solar 

industry, the IC industry had a natural split of intellectual property between processing and chip design and there was a shared interest between those two groups 

of companies in mechanical aspects of wafer size and linewidth geometry. With the 

competitive landscape of material and device narrowed to one each, then a prescriptive roadmap was relevant to the next wave of predictable progress. 

The PV segment of the solar industry also differs from the IC industry in the 

make-up of the final product. Given that half or more of the cost of a solar power 

system can be driven by the balance-of-system cost (e.g. sales, marketing, permitting, financing, delivery, installation, monitoring, operations and maintenance of the 

system), we recognize that any solar roadmap should incorporate learning from 

mass production manufacturing sectors like the automotive industry, the construction industry, and large household appliances. We already see examples of the onward march of manufacturing expertise entering the solar industry from auto businesses like Bosch in Europe and BYD in China. 

Further, we see the emergence of vertically integrated stakeholders which span 

the value chain elements of manufacturing silicon, growing ingots, building solar 

panels and installing their own power plants. 

The solar industry must have the flexibility to address a wide spectrum of enduser applications ranging over three orders of magnitude from 500MW power plants 

in the desert to 5kW residential rooftops, and over a range of environmental conditions, building and land characteristics, and end-customer preferences. The solar industry also has a strong innovation culture with private funding for, and success 

in, a wide range of materials, processes and device designs developed in highly competitive individual small businesses. Fortunately, the scale of the solar industry 

even at this early stage of development is large enough that a single U.S. 

photovoltaics manufacturer, such as SunPower Corp., First Solar, United Solar, BP 

Solar, Sharp Solar or SolarWorld, can drive tool vendors to develop machines for 

the millions of solar panels produced annually by any innovative, but companyunique technologies. Furthermore, tool vendors, such as Applied Materials, are at 

a scale to establish a market for flexible tool-platforms for both unique technology 

platforms and continuously variable configurations, specific for customers’ unique 

roadmaps. This diversity enables faster growth because the competition of ideas is 

always at work. By accelerating cost reduction for the benefit of all the different approaches have different supply chain constraints and the diversity of products satisfies a greater range of end-user requirements. 

We thus support an inclusive planning process with DOE to develop a roadmap 

that supports and rewards a rich diversity of PV, CPV, CSP and solar heating and 

cooling that are responding to market demands without prematurely ‘‘picking a winner’’ through prescriptive funding assigned by a select few. One of the key features 

of a successful roadmap will be to integrate flexibility at the same time as scaling 

is enabling further cost reduction in solar electric power. 

Some of our colleagues in the solar industry are just launching their production 

manufacturing. Consider CIGS technology, or PVGU (PV Glazed Units). Should 

those kinds of technologies find good success in manufacturing reliable solar panels 

at a low cost, we would not be wise to establish a rigid roadmap that directs DOE 

away from facilitating the rapid expansion of such promising technologies. We want 

all current successful technologies to be encouraged to ramp up as quickly as possible without putting up hurdles to new, promising technologies born from our current public and private solar investments. 

Finally, we applaud the spirit and intent of HR 3585 to increase funding and enhance RD&D for solar at DOE. However, we would like to ensure that the actual 

funding for R&D continues to grow while enhancing the scale of the deployment efforts by DOE. The OMB estimated outlay of $193 million from HR 3585 in 2011 

is below 2009 total solar RD&D DOE funding, and section 105 prescribes significant 

expenditures for large-scale deployment support for certain specific project sizes. 

Over the last three years, department support of research, development and deployment in support of commercializing innovative technology and driving total system 

cost reduction has been very effective; we believe that a decrease in this type of 

funding would have negative consequences, especially in light of the extreme riskaversion to technology exhibited by the financial community after the past year’s 

credit crunch. With the combination of section 105 project deployment funding and 

the potential diversion of up to 75 percent of DOE solar RD&D funding to select 

roadmap purposes, we are concerned that the substantial success of recent DOE 

solar funding could be at risk. 

We all support continued growth of funding for the full spectrum of solar technologies, (PV, CPV, CSP & Solar Thermal) across the value chain in addition to the 

specific project and roadmap funding contemplated in this bill. 
50 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment and support the increased funding contemplated by HR 3585 and Representative Giffords. 

STATEMENT OF LEN SHEPARD, CEO, SKY WINDPOWER, ON H.R. 3165 

I urge you to consider including language specific to high altitude wind power in 

any wind, climate or energy legislation, including HR3165 and related bils. Everyone who flies across the United States has experienced the tremendous power in 

high altitude winds. As you know, that is why it typically takes 4-5 hours to cross 

our continent going west to east and 5-6 hours east to west. Because the wind at 

altitude is not limited to ridge lines or other surface geography, we have the flexibility to tap this tremendous power source using existing transmission lines. High 

altitude wind energy conversion systems can transform the energy landscape, generating enough power to meet the USA’s most aggressive renewable energy goals. We 

need your support to achieve that. 

This November’s High Altitude Wind Power Conference revealed diverse methods 

from nearly a dozen companies to convert high altitude winds into clean energy. 

About 50 million private sector dollars have been invested in a half dozen of these 

companies that are developing airborne technologies to tap this very high (50-80%) 

capacity factor wind power. 

A new industry of American leadership and jobs can be gained with your support. 

Government funding for this new industry will significantly decrease the time to 

bring this power source on line and increase the speed at which new clean tech jobs 

are created. America is the right place to develop these systems because the aerospace technology and know-how is here. 

We and others believe that high altitude wind power conversion systems can take 

us cleanly through the 21st century and beyond. Time Magazine included Sky 

WindPower’s Flying Electric Generators as one of the 50 Best Inventions of 2008. 

The July 30, 2009 issue of Nature displayed the efforts of Makani Power, Joby Energy, Magenn Power, and Sky WindPower. Recently, Sky WindPower was featured 

under utilities in the London Times. The December 2009 issue of Scientific American included Flying Electric Generators in their ‘‘20 World Changing Ideas.’’ 

You can help us achieve energy independence, exceed carbon emission reduction 

targets, and create American jobs by supporting the development and testing of high 

altitude wind power conversion systems. Thank you in advance for your consideration. 

STATEMENT OF GABRIEL HUGH ELKAIM, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, AUTONOMOUS SYSTEMS LAB, COMPUTER ENGINEERING, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SANTA CRUZ, CA, 

ON H.R. 3165 

Through my work as a researcher of applied control systems at the University of 

California at Santa Cruz, I’ve become acquainted with the efforts of Joby Energy, 

Inc. and others working to develop airborne wind turbine technology. This small 

group of innovative entrepreneurs is leading the exploration of new technology that 

has the potential to revolutionize the wind turbine industry. 

As you are undoubtedly aware, wind energy as conventionally implemented has 

very serious problems with capacity and intermittency; the fact that the energy is 

diffuse and low-density and requires backup generation capacity (hot idling peakers) 

or a currently unavailable smart electric grid to move the energy across geographically diverse regions such that scattered wind effects ‘‘average’’ out. Technological 

advances will help the efficiencies at the margins, but this is essentially a problem 

of physics. Germany’s experience in large scale wind energy portfolio and required 

gas turbine backups makes this abundantly clear. 

By ‘‘lifting’’ the turbine to high altitude and the jet stream, many of these problems can be addressed. The science is clear: high altitude wind holds a vast amount 

of energy and recent technology advances and innovative engineering now make it 

possible to harness that energy and put it to work. While the engineering challenges 

are great, the physics are very much in favor of the high altitude solution. 

Amending H.R. 3165 to include research foci on high altitude wind and airborne 

wind turbine technology will enhance current research and development efforts to 

potentially deliver options for timely and responsive solutions to our energy crisis. 

Thank you for your consideration. 
51 

STATEMENT OF JOEBEN BEVIRT, FOUNDER, JOBY ENERGY, INC., SANTA CRUZ, CA, ON

H.R. 3165 

I am writing to request the inclusion of amendments to support exploration of 

high-altitude wind energy as a research topic for the Wind Energy Research and Development Act of 2009 (HR 3165). 

Specifically, we request that the words ‘‘and altitudes’’ be inserted on page 3, line 

20 after ‘‘variety of wind conditions’’; and, on page 4, line 4 insert (9) ‘‘airborne wind 

turbine technology’’ (version dated September 10, 2009). 

These amendments will allow developers of this transformational technology to 

compete for research and development funding at the federal level. 

Currently, federally supported efforts to advance conventional wind energy technologies yield only incremental efficiency gains. However, energy generation is truly 

limited by the low capacity and intermittency of surface winds. 

Research conducted by Dr. Ken Caldeira of Stanford University and Dr. Cristina 

Archer of California State University shows that high-altitude winds are significantly stronger and more consistent than surface winds. Focus on the research and 

development of airborne wind turbines can help harness high-altitude wind, a vast 

and dependable source of energy. 

Several innovative companies, in collaboration with academia, are developing airborne wind turbines that can generate renewable energy at a cost and capacity comparable with coal power plants. 

Additionally, the deployment of reliable and low-cost renewable energy technology 

will help achieve energy independence, create numerous jobs, and mitigate environmental damage. 

Therefore, I am requesting the Committee act to spur the exploration of high-altitude wind energy and development of airborne wind turbines by amending HR 3165. 

Harnessing this resource presents a true cost-effective alternative to fossil-fuel 

based power generation. 

Thank you for your consideration. 

STATEMENT OF CORWIN HARDAM, FOUNDER AND CEO, MAKANI POWER, INC., 

ALAMEDA, CA, ON H.R. 3165 

At altitudes just above conventional wind turbines, there is a wind energy source 

that is too large to ignore. Recent studies by Dr. Caldeira (Stanford) and Dr. Archer 

(Cal State) have shown the available energy in the winds at altitude above the continental US to be many times greater than the current global level of consumption. 

At this time, American companies are the technology leaders in the exploration of 

this untapped resource. For the success of these companies, it is critical that you 

include language specific to airborne wind energy in any wind, climate or energy 

legislation, particularly HR3165 and related bills. 

This new resource has been vetted by the private sector. Google Inc. is a strong 

supporter in airborne wind energy and has invested $15M in our company. However, private equity alone cannot establish this technology at the utility scale and 

must be coupled with Federal support to establish airborne wind energy as a viable 

area of exploration. This cannot happen unless high-altitude wind energy is listed 

as a research topic for the Wind Energy Research and Development Act of 2009 (HR 

3165). 

STATEMENT OF GRANT CALVERLEY, PRESIDENT, SKYMILL ENERGY, INC, FRIDAY

HARBOR, WA, ON H.R. 3165 

SkyMill Energy, Inc., supported by The Boeing Company, is developing an innovative technology that could generate an almost unlimited supply of renewable energy 

for our nation from high altitude winds. We would greatly appreciate your help with 

fixing the unintentional omission of high altitude wind power research in bill 

HR3165, the Wind Energy Research and Development Act of 2009 . 

High-altitude wind represents an enormous and untapped form of highly concentrated renewable energy. The US appears to seriously lag several countries in 

research and funding to find a commercially practical technology to tap this abundant potential resource. The DOE currently has no apparent activity in this area. 

SkyMill Energy, other US based high altitude wind power researchers, propose 

to demonstrate such transformational technologies. SkyMill’s innovative system is 

performing successfully in subscale prototypes and high-fidelity engineering simulations. The results to date suggest that a full-scale commercial system could outperform current-technology land based wind turbines by over a factor of five. 
52 

* Document has been retained in subcommittee files. 

Due to the current complete lack of DOE interest in airborne wind power technologies, SkyMill Energy is investigating a mix of Chinese venture capital, Chinese 

government funding and Chinese airspace to commercialize our system. This is not 

our preferred development path, but one we may be forced to follow with out a 

change in policy. 

HR3165 properly supports a variety of programs to advance terrestrial wind turbine technology, however, the current bills wording precludes funding for any high 

altitude wind power technologies. Following are two suggested changes. 

Sec. 2 (b) (6) advanced control systems and blade sensors to improve performance and reliability under a wide variety of wind conditions and altitudes; 

Sec. 2 (b) (new line item after item (8) Airborne wind power technologies. 

Thanks for your assistance. 

STATEMENT OF CRISTINA L. ARCHER, DEPARTMENT OF GEOLOGICAL AND ENVIRON- MENTAL SCIENCES, CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY CHICO, CHICO, CA ON H.R. 

3165 

I am writing to encourage your support of amending HR 3165 to include language 

that would promote exploration of high altitude wind energy and research and development of airborne wind turbines for capturing this immense resource. Inclusion 

of this language in the Wind Energy Research and Development Act of 2009 would 

help innovators in the emerging high-altitude wind power sector to bring this new 

technology to fruition. 

It is known that winds typically get stronger with increasing altitude. Through 

research at Stanford University and California State University we have extensively 

characterized this phenomenon and estimated the power potential of global tropospheric winds. The power contained in high-altitude winds is not just higher but 

also more consistent, in general, than winds near the Earth’s surface. 

In November 2009, we hosted the first annual High-Altitude Wind Power conference in northern California, drawing participation from several technology developers and researchers in this field. The results of their work show tremendous 

promise for the deployment of low-cost, reliable and clean energy. 

I believe the research and development of technologies to harness the power of 

high-altitude winds can dramatically increase our renewable energy generation 

while establishing our technical leadership and enabling energy independence. 

Again, I encourage you to support these amendments that are crucial to help solve 

our energy crisis. 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL G. WHEELER, COUNTY COUNCIL CHAIR, LOS ALAMOS

COUNTY, LOS ALAMOS, NM, ON H.R. 2729 

On behalf of the Incorporated County of Los Alamos, New Mexico (‘‘County’’), I 

am writing to express the County’s support for the National Environmental Research Park Legislation (H.R. 2729, To authorize the designation of National Environmental Research Parks by the Secretary of Energy, and for other purposes) 

(‘‘NERP Legislation’’) provided certain amendments are made to the NERP Legislation that are described in this letter and set forth in Attachment A.* 

The NERP Legislation will provide funding for ongoing environmental research at 

U.S. Department of Energy (‘‘DOE’’) sites around the country. The important mission of each environmental research park is to conduct research, train people in ecological and environmental sciences and to educate the public. 

The County has learned that NERP activities at those DOE sites where they are 

sufficiently funded have been valuable to the adjacent communities. The current 

programs have ensured that the communities adjacent to DOE sites are educated 

on the positive environmental activities at the DOE sites. Further, the NERP Legislation will provide researchers at Los Alamos National Laboratory with sufficient 

funds to continue their important environmental research and expand the program 

to include community education. The County supports such activities and wants 

similar education, outreach, and research programs to occur throughout Northern 

New Mexico. 

Upon reviewing the NERP Legislation, the County has two primary concerns: 1) 

the need for community input into the creation of formal environmental research 
53 

parks, and 2) the potential unintended consequence that environmental research 

parks may impact ongoing activities at DOE sites—including land transfer which 

is critical for the County’s future self-sufficiency and economic diversification. To address these two concerns, the County recommends the following amendments to the 

NERP Legislation (which are inserted into the legislation as Attachment A for your 

reference): 

• Section 2(b) is amended by inserting: ‘‘(b) Local Government Involvement-Prior 

to designating each National Environmental Research Park, the Secretary of 

Energy shall seek input from the effective units of local government surrounding each site regarding each local National Environmental Research 

Park.’’ 

• Renumber previous Sections 2(b) through 2(f) accordingly. 

• Section 2(f) (as renumbered) is amended by inserting: ‘‘(4) update local communities on National Environmental Research Park activities.’’ 

• Section 3 is amended by inserting as the last sentence: ‘‘Nothing in this Act 

shall be construed to constrain the transfer of lands otherwise surplus and excess to programmatic needs of the Federal Government to surrounding local 

communities.’’ 

Each of the suggested changes should not change the actual operation of these 

proposed environmental research parks and should only clarify what the County has 

been told by the parties advocating this NERP Legislation—that the NERP legislation will not impact ongoing activities at the sites. The County also believes the suggested amendments will enhance involvement and participation by the local governments at the other DOE sites identified in the NERP Legislation which will only 

enhance the educational outreach activities and ensure that a broader community 

is aware of these scientific endeavors. 

STATEMENT OF KLAUS S. LACKNER, MAURICE EWING AND J. LAMAR WORZEL PROFESSOR OF GEOPHYSICS, CHAIR, DEPARTMENT OF EARTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING, COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY, DIRECTOR, LENFEST CENTER FOR SUSTAINABLE

ENERGY AT THE EARTH INSTITUTE, COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY, NEW YORK, NY 

I saw the hearing notice for the Air Capture Prize and am pleased to submit a 

testimony for the record. While it is understood that capturing carbon dioxide emissions from power plants is necessary to reduce greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, 

dilute capture of carbon dioxide is of particular long-term importance. Unlike more 

widely known carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies, dilute capture development would especially benefit from a prize such as the one being considered by 

this bill. 

We need new technologies like air capture to complement existing CCS strategies. 

Since capture from dilute sources can be done anywhere at any time, it is particularly well-suited to start small in niche markets where there is demand for commercial carbon dioxide. Offering a prize for the development of dilute carbon dioxide 

capture technology is a positive move to encourage technology research and development. The prize creates visibility and will foster entrepreneurial approaches and a 

healthy spirit of competition. With successful implementation, it will stimulate efforts in the right direction which will ideally have future government involvement 

to ensure long-term success. 

I am encouraged by this Air Capture Prize bill and believe it will result in valuable advances in the development of new technologies in the dilute capture of carbon dioxide. 

Thank you for your time and attention. 

ATTACHMENT

November 30, 2009. 

I am Klaus S. Lackner, Ewing-Worzel Professor of Geophysics at Columbia University. My research focuses on the management of carbon and carbon dioxide to 

avoid climate change. I am investigating technologies that can provide plentiful, 

clean energy from fossil fuels without contributing to the build-up of carbon dioxide 

in the atmosphere. While I certainly build on a foundation of earlier work, I am generally considered to have started the concept of air capture of carbon dioxide for 

managing the atmosphere’s carbon loading. By now there are a number of different 

research groups pursuing this goal. and I have helped found a company that aims 

to develop commercially viable air capture. I am also working at Columbia Univer-
54 

sity to understand the underlying basic mechanism of dilute capture of carbon dioxide. 

While one might debate the highest acceptable level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, there is little argument that there is a threshold that should not be exceeded. Unfortunately, holding the carbon dioxide level of the atmosphere constant 

at any reasonable level will require drastic reductions in emissions before the world 

breaches this threshold. It is not sufficient to hold emissions constant. Persistent 

global emissions, even if they were three times smaller than today’s emissions, 

would drive the carbon dioxide concentration over any such threshold. The natural 

return to an earlier level, even after stopping all emissions. could take many centuries or even millennia. Holding the line at a third of current global emissions 

would permit a world average per capita emission that is but a few percent of the 

current per capita emissions in the United States. The concerns over climate change 

challenge the viability of fossil fuels, which unavoidably produce carbon dioxide 

when they are consumed. 

At the same time, all countries that strive for improvements in their living standards and desire to maintain economic growth will need ready access to affordable 

energy. Policies must provide access to increasing energy supplies while stopping 

the accumulation of carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere. This is the conundrum of climate change. Simply abandoning fossil fuels over the next few decades in favor of other alternatives is impractical. The enormous price strains in the 

oil sector over the last decade were driven by far smaller mismatches in supply and 

demand than would occur if more than 80% of the world’s energy infrastructure 

would need to be phased out. Fortunately, it is not necessary to stop the use of fossil 

fuels if the carbon dioxide produced can be kept out of the atmosphere. It is the 

emissions of carbon dioxide not the use fossil fuels that need to be eliminated. 

Although carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies by themselves may be insufficient for stabilizing the climate in a timely fashion, without CCS, stabilization 

is a nearly impossible task. This is especially true if the commonly cited threshold 

of 450 parts per million (ppm) of CO2 in the air proves to be the critical limit. While 

one must consider all options from improved energy efficiency, to non-fossil energy 

alternatives, one must include carbon dioxide storage, because abandoning fossil 

fuels would be extremely disruptive to the global economy. 

Much of the focus in CCS has been on capture from large concentrated sources 

of carbon dioxide, like power plants, steel plants and cement plants. However, a 

large fraction of all emissions comes from small, dilute and distributed emission 

sources. CCS could make a far larger contribution to climate stabilization if it could 

also address the capture of carbon dioxide from dilute sources, among them the atmosphere itself If CCS is to contribute significantly to an emissions reduction of 

80% in the United States by 2050, then it is necessary to address the transportation 

sector, the home sector, and all those emissions that would otherwise be too difficult 

to control. Capture from dilute streams, particularly from the air. offers the opportunity to reduce emissions across the board. Capture from dilute streams is quite 

different from other methods of capturing carbon dioxide. Its feasibility seems 

counterintuitive to some. Why should it be possible to collect carbon dioxide from 

streams that are several hundred times more dilute than those encountered in 

power plants? Yet the thermodynamic analysis is quite clear. The additional energy 

required for air capture when compared to flue gas scrubbing is indeed small. While 

some detractors still point to engineering rules of thumb, these generic rules do not 

address the specifics of real implementations that have been demonstrated, and 

these rules seem similar to those used to ‘‘demonstrate-that heavier-than-air flight 

is not possible. These types of objections ignore that birds can fly and trees can collect carbon dioxide from the air. 

Analysis reveals that a windmill that would reduce emissions by displacing fossilfuelproduced electricity would be far larger than a carbon dioxide collector that 

would recapture an equivalent amount of carbon dioxide. Moreover, I and others 

have shown that the minimum binding strength of the carbon dioxide absorber need 

not be much larger than the binding strength required to capture carbon dioxide 

from the flue stack of a conventional coal fired power plant. The analogy to windmills suggests that contacting the air is not limiting the process; the analogy to 

power plants suggests that the dominant costs are similar to those encountered in 

flue gas scrubbing. 

Unlike carbon dioxide capture from large concentrated sources, capture from the 

air can be done anywhere and anytime. This means it is possible to start small. 

Rather than trying to solve the carbon management problem at once, one can begin 

by filling the small market niche of industrial and commercial carbon dioxide demand. A big power plant would immediately overwhelm any local market for carbon 

dioxide. Unlike power plant capture and storage, capture from dilute streams can 
55 

become a standalone business that can operate on any scale. One can start with individual entrepreneurs and small companies that sell physical carbon dioxide or create carbon dioxide credits. The market for carbon reductions is potentially very 

large, but today’s prices are low. The market for physical carbon dioxide that is used 

for industrial, agricultural and commercial applications is much smaller, and prices 

vary geographically, but in some locations where carbon dioxide is trucked in over 

large distances these prices are currently very high. Carbon dioxide capture from 

dilute sources, specifically from the air, provides an enormous arbitrage opportunity 

that—even in its early stages when a ton of carbon dioxide is still expensive—can 

satisfy commercial demands. Thus, dilute capture will create a business opportunity 

that allows bootstrapping the technology in ways that are not possible in the utility 

sector. Such a business will see climate change demands as an opportunity, in contrast to an existing utility, which at best will see carbon management as an unavoidable cost of doing business. 

Offering a prize, such as the one proposed by this bill, for the development of dilute carbon dioxide capture technology is a positive move to encourage technology 

development. The prize creates visibility, and it provides a clear sign of the realization that we need more than business as usual to lead us to carbon dioxide stabilization. By focusing on dilute streams, the prize is offered to the one sector in the carbon management arena that is open to entrepreneurial approaches. The prize. if implemented as intended, would offer a challenge and will stimulate efforts in the 

right direction. Just like the DARPA challenge for autonomous cars, it will bring 

forward numerous small entrepreneurs and academic institutions that will focus on 

the theoretical underpinnings. Supporting such development is a good idea. It will 

create more competition in a field that is new and accelerate it from a few players 

to a bigger development in a short time. 

Since, as I argue below, the technology is not only feasible but also transformative, a prize alone will not be sufficient to assure development of this field. 

The prize will focus entrepreneurial energy, engender debate and deliver a proof of 

principle. However, ultimately, a technology of such importance deserves ongoing 

governmental support. Capturing carbon dioxide from the air will be an important 

development. A recent article in Nature by Sarewitz and Nelson, pointed out that 

air capture if it can be done, has all the important features necessary to solve the 

climate change problem. Air capture, combined with CCS, addresses the root of the 

problem, which is the accumulation of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. It does 

so without forcing established technologies out of business, and it assures that any 

emission of carbon dioxide, no matter how difficult to control at the source, can be 

canceled out or compensated for. Institutional barriers are easier to overcome if entrenched interests are not forced out. Once air capture is implemented, it provides 

a baseline against which all other capture options could be measured. 

Capture of carbon dioxide from ambient air clearly could play a major role in the 

transportation sector. It would make it possible to retain gasoline, diesel and jet fuel 

for cars, trucks and air planes. Liquid carbon based fuels provide an exceptionally 

convenient and energy-dense option for storing energy on board of vehicles. The use 

of air capture makes it possible to retain these fuels. 

It is my assessment that the cost of air capture can be driven down to the point 

where it would add no more than ten percent to the price of gasoline. While I can 

give reasons why this is plausible, the only way to prove such a bold statement is 

to deliver on this goal. The prize will spur such development. 

It is quite possible that Jim Hansen is correct and that we have already exceed 

the safe limit of carbon dioxide in the air, or that even with the best of intentions, 

we cannot reduce emissions fast enough to stop climate change. Even if all emissions were stopped today, global warming could continue for decades. In that case 

it may be necessary to reduce the carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere. 

Air capture is one of the few technologies that could accomplish this in a reasonable 

amount of time. Yet one should not rely on air capture to achieve a last minute rescue. It is worth noting that an even a short excursion above the safe threshold poses 

a severe risk of irreversible damage. For example, it is not possible to refreeze glacier fast enough to prevent irreversible damage. 

Finally, air capture is not something that would be implemented at the expense 

of other alternative energy forms. Indeed, air capture provides an opportunity to 

give these alternatives a much wider range of applications. It can provide carbon 

dioxide for growing algae for biofuels, which need carbon dioxide supplements to 

maintain rapid growth. Air capture could also provide carbon dioxide for the production of synthetic fuels from carbon dioxide, water and renewable energy. A world 

with ample renewable energy could produce synthetic fuels to solve the complex 

problem of storing energy on board of vehicles and planes. 
56 

It is refreshing to see a bipartisan approach to finding a practical solution to the 

climate change/energy conundrum. The Barasso-Bingaman bill makes a strong 

statement that technology is important for solving the climate change problem. I believe that carbon capture from dilute sources is of particular long-term importance. 

Unlike most CCS technologies, dilute capture development would benefit from a 

prize. After development has begun, I would hope for deeper government involvement for this new and vital technology. 

Æ