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) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

35–447 PDF 2007

THE FISCAL YEAR 2008 BUDGET REQUEST FOR

THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND

COMMERCE

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

FEBRUARY 8, 2007

Serial No. 110–3

(

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce

energycommerce.house.gov

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan, Chairman

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey

BART GORDON, Tennessee

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois

ANNA G. ESHOO, California

BART STUPAK, Michigan

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York

ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland

GENE GREEN, Texas

DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado

Vice Chairman

LOIS CAPPS, California

MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania

JANE HARMAN, California

TOM ALLEN, Maine

JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois

HILDA L. SOLIS, California

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas

JAY INSLEE, Washington

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas

DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York

JIM MATHESON, Utah

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina

CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana

JOHN BARROW, Georgia

BARON P. HILL, Indiana

JOE BARTON, Texas

Ranking Member

RALPH M. HALL, Texas

J. DENNIS HASTERT, Illinois

FRED UPTON, Michigan

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois

HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona

CHARLES W. ‘‘CHIP’’ PICKERING,

Mississippi

VITO FOSSELLA, New York

STEVE BUYER, Indiana

GEORGE RADANOVICH, California

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania

MARY BONO, California

GREG WALDEN, Oregon

LEE TERRY, Nebraska

MIKE FERGUSON, New Jersey

MIKE ROGERS, Michigan

SUE WILKINS MYRICK, North Carolina

JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee

PROFESSIONAL STAFF

DENNIS B. FITZGIBBONS, Chief of Staff

GREGG A. ROTHSCHILD, Chief Counsel

SHARON E. DAVIS, Chief Clerk

BUD ALBRIGHT, Minority Staff Director

(II)

(III)

CONTENTS

Page

Baldwin, Hon. Tammy, a Representative in Congress from the State of Wisconsin, opening statement ................................................................................... 12

Barton, Hon. Joe, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas,

opening statement ................................................................................................ 6

Boucher, Hon. Rick, a Representative in Congress from the Commonwealth

of Virginia, opening statement ............................................................................ 4

Burgess, Hon. Michael C., a Representative in Congress from the State of

Texas, prepared statement .................................................................................. 16

Butterfield, Hon. G.K., a Representative in Congress from the State of North

Carolina, opening statement ............................................................................... 13

Cubin, Hon. Barbara, a Representative in Congress from the State of Wyoming, prepared statement ................................................................................... 16

Dingell, Hon. John D., a Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan, opening statement ....................................................................................... 2

Doyle, Hon. Mike, a Representative in Congress from the Commonwealth

of Pennsylvania, opening statement ................................................................... 10

Engel, Hon. Eliot L., a Representative in Congress from the State of New

York, opening statement ...................................................................................... 15

Eshoo, Hon. Anna G., a Representative in Congress from the State of

Califonia, opening statement .............................................................................. 7

Ferguson, Hon. Mike, a Representative in Congress from the State of New

Jersey, opening statement ................................................................................... 8

Harman, Hon. Jane, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, opening statement ........................................................................................ 11

Hill, Hon. Baron P., a Representative in Congress from the State of Indiana,

opening statement ................................................................................................ 14

Inslee, Hon. Jay, a Representative in Congress from the State of Washington,

opening statement ................................................................................................ 11

Matheson, Hon. Jim, a Representative in Congress from the State of Utah,

opening statement ................................................................................................ 13

Murphy, Hon. Tim, a Representative in Congress from the Commonwealth

of Pennsylvania, opening statement ................................................................... 5

Pallone, Hon. Frank Jr., a Representative in Congress from the State of

New Jersey, opening statement .......................................................................... 5

Schakowsky, Hon. Jan, a Representative in Congress from the State of Illinois, opening statement ....................................................................................... 14

Solis, Hon. Hilda L., a Representative in Congress from the State of California, opening statement ........................................................................................ 11

Stupak, Hon. Bart, a Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan,

opening statement ................................................................................................ 9

Sullivan, Hon. John, a Representative in Congress from the State of Oklahoma, opening statement .................................................................................... 9

Upton, Hon. Fred, a Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan,

opening statement ................................................................................................ 3

Wynn, Hon. Albert R., a Representative in Congress from the State of Maryland, opening statement ...................................................................................... 15

WITNESS

Bodman, Hon. Samuel, Secretary, U.S. Department of Energy .......................... 16

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 58

(1)

THE FISCAL YEAR 2008 BUDGET REQUEST

FOR THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 2007

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE,

Washington, DC.

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:09 a.m., in room 2123

of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John D. Dingell [chairman of the committee] presiding.

Members present: Representatives Markey, Boucher, Pallone,

Eshoo, Stupak, Engel, Wynn, Green, DeGette, Capps, Doyle, Harman, Allen, Schakowsky, Solis, Gonzalez, Inslee, Baldwin, Ross,

Hooley, Matheson, Butterfield, Barrow, Hill, Barton, Upton,

Stearns, Whitfield, Cubin, Shimkus, Wilson, Pitts, Walden, Terry,

Ferguson, Sullivan, Murphy and Burgess.

Staff present: Sue Sheridan, Bruce Harris, Jonathan Cordone,

Chris Treanor, Seth, Alec Gerlach, Sharon Davis, chief clerk; and

Elizabeth Ertel.

The CHAIRMAN. Good morning. The committee will come to order.

The purpose of today’s full committee hearing is to receive the

testimony from the Secretary of Energy regarding the President’s

fiscal year 2008 budget request. Mr. Secretary, welcome to the committee.

As I explained at Tuesday’s hearing, the chair is going to follow

slightly different procedures with respect to opening statements

and questions during full committee hearings. This is going to be

simply to expedite the business of the committee and see to it that

we can not only conduct the business but also can treat all Members fairly according to clear and understandable rules.

Now, consistent with the rules and past practices of the committee, the chairman and the ranking member of the full committee

will be recognized for a 5-minute opening statement. Today the

chairman and the ranking member of the subcommittee on Energy

and Air Quality will be recognized for 3-minute opening statement.

All other Members will be recognized for 1-minute opening statements but they may waive their opening statements for additional

1-minute of questioning during the first round. The chair will recognize Members who are here when I called the meeting to order

by order of their seniority on the full committee. Once all these

Members have delivered or waived an opening statement, the chair

will recognize all remaining Members in the order that they arrived at the hearing. The clerks will keep a careful accounting of

this attendance to be assured that it is properly dealt with. The

2

chair will also recognize Members for the purpose of questioning

Secretary Bodman under the same procedures just outlined.

The chair reminds Members, as previously noted, that Members

and staffs are invited to a briefing by the Intergovernmental Panel

on Climate Change regarding his recently announced fourth assessment report tomorrow at 10 a.m. The chair suggests very strongly

that Members should be here because this is a matter that is going

to receive full and vigorous attention of this committee.

The Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality will hold two hearings next week on global climate change: Tuesday at 10 a.m. to

hear the views from the private sector panels and Wednesday at

10 a.m. to examine how human activity has affected global warning.

Before we proceed, I think most of the Members know that our

friend and colleague, Charlie Norwood, has been fighting cancer

with dignity and with courage. He has decided, however, to decline

further treatment and will be returning home to Augusta, Georgia.

His service in this House and on this committee has been one of

great distinction and great honor. My wife Debra and I will be

praying for him and his family during this difficult time, and I

know that his family would appreciate your thoughts and prayers

also.

The chair now recognizes himself for the purposes of an opening

statement for 5 minutes.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN D. DINGELL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN

Mr. Secretary, we are pleased to welcome you back to the committee to discuss the fiscal year 2008 budget request of your Department. This is an important opportunity for the committee to

understand the Department’s priorities and for you, Mr. Secretary,

to hear the concerns of committee members.

First, we are going to confront the issue of climate change. As

you know, the committee is going to endeavor to write legislation

addressing this issue, a complex and difficult matter we are going

to have to work very hard on. We seek and we hope that we can

count on the administration’s involvement, and I mean, that, Mr.

Secretary. It is important that the members of the committee understand the actions of Federal agencies to date as well as the fiscal year 2008 budget proposal’s impact on these programs. In addition, Members need to know the administration’s position on the

question of climate change legislation and all the subtleties and

issues that are associated therewith. I have seen recent press reports quoting you on the matter and I am sure the committee will

have questions later for you to better understand your statements

and position.

Second, the Department administers a wide variety of statutory

responsibilities that we will want to proceed on and to discuss with

you, Mr. Secretary. For example, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 included an array of statutory deadlines on energy efficiency and conservation matters that are important for both energy independence

and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In particular, the Department does not have a strong record in meeting appliance efficiency

3

rulemaking deadlines. Representatives Boucher, Markey and I

have asked the Government Accountability Office to examine this

problem, and I am sure Members will have questions for you on

this matter.

Mr. Secretary, third, I would raise the Yucca Mountain nuclear

waste repository program. This has been a program in much disarray and the Department has estimated that it will file a license

application with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission by 2008,

which the Commission must evaluate for scientific merit. If the

Commission adopts this proposal or grants approval, DOE said

that it could begin accepting waste at Yucca Mountain by 2017.

None of this, however, can occur if the Department lacks the necessary funding. As you know, Mr. Secretary, the committee was

disappointed that the administration sent a bill to Congress last

year without fully funding the necessary reforms. These reforms

would ensure that the contributions of ratepayers to the nuclear

waste fund are preserved for their intended purpose and not dissipated for other extraneous and conflicting purposes. Absent reform, consumer funds are in peril and so is the program, and we

all know that a major piece of litigation is going to continue to

bother you and the Department because of the failure of the Government to properly deal with these matters.

Finally, Mr. Secretary, you will probably be asked about repeated

security breaches at Department facilities, particularly Los Alamos

National Laboratory. This was a matter of concern to us long years

ago and seems to remain a thorny, difficult and poorly handled

problem.

Mr. Secretary, you have appeared before this committee on prior

occasions and I am satisfied that you can and will be an honest

broker. I know that you understand that the tough questions to be

asked today are part of the responsibilities of the members of the

committee and that they will support present, past and future work

of the committee. I am grateful for the work you do at the Department on behalf of the American people and for your appearance before this committee, and I want you to know the affection and respect in which you are held by the current occupant of the chair.

I will note, Mr. Secretary, that we will probably follow up with

some questions in writing which will be sent to you either by mail

or other way, and that we will be requesting your answer to these

questions so that we might have a more full record and the record

will of course remain open for the purpose of receiving those answers.

The chair now recognizes my distinguished friend from Michigan,

Mr. Upton, for 1 minute.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRED UPTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN

Mr. UPTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I had stitches so my

shoulder is particularly sore this morning.

I want to share the chairman’s remarks and echo his remarks for

the kind words and the competence, Mr. Secretary, that you have

exhibited as Secretary of the Department of Energy, a very important spot as we look to this next year and to the final 2 years of

the Bush presidency.

4

I for one am a strong supporter of nuclear power. I went through

the budget and looked at the nuclear waste trust fund and saw the

increases in essence from $17 billion in 2006 to what will be nearly

$20 billion in 2008, so one of the things that I will be asking in

my questions is the continued committee of the administration to

push to get this particular facility in Nevada open, but I also want

to compliment you on the increase in alternative energy. That remains a priority not only with this administration but certainly

Members on both sides of the aisle. We look forward to your leadership and to your discussion this morning.

I yield back my time.

The CHAIRMAN. The chair thanks the distinguished gentleman.

The chair recognizes now our good friend from Virginia, the chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Boucher. Three minutes.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RICK BOUCHER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH

OF VIRGINIA

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and welcome, Secretary Bodman. We are delighted to have you with us this

morning, and I want to thank the chairman for providing this opportunity to hear from the Secretary regarding the Department of

Energy’s priorities for the fiscal year 2008 budget request, and with

this hearing we can begin to focus on what the Department’s priorities are for the entire 110th Congress.

I am particularly interested today in hearing about the budget

request for coal and for clean coal technologies including carbon sequestration. The advancement of carbon sequestration technologies

is essential to ensuring that coal, which is our nation’s most abundant energy resource, can continue to play a vital role in the national fuel mix at a time of a carbon-constrained economy, and so

having a clear understanding of the status of carbon sequestration

technologies and what the Department intends to do in order to advance those technologies to the point where they can be commonly

utilized is very important to us.

In addition, I look forward to hearing from the Secretary regarding the administration’s efforts with regard to implementation of

the loan guarantee program for alternative transportation fuels

that we authorized as a part of EPACT 2005. To date, there have

been no loan guarantees issued under the program and I understand that the continuing resolution which is currently pending includes an appropriation of $7 million to administer the program

and provides the potential to guarantee up to $4 billion in loan

guarantees. In addition, it is my understanding that the Department’s fiscal year 2008 budget includes a request of $9 billion for

loan guarantees as well as $8.4 million to operate the administrative office. While I think it is encouraging that we see this movement, I am concerned about the pace of this program and the fact

that we haven’t seen guarantees put forward to date and would

welcome your comments about why that hasn’t happened and what

you foresee happening in the near term.

I very much look forward to a discussion of these and other matters that are of importance to our Nation’s security and again I

5

thank the Secretary for joining us here this morning and thank the

chairman for providing this opportunity. I yield back.

The CHAIRMAN. The chair thanks the distinguished gentleman.

The chair now recognizes the gentle lady from Wyoming, Ms.

Cubin, 1 minute.

Mrs. CUBIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I waive my opening

statement so that I have an extra minute for questioning.

The CHAIRMAN. The chair recognizes now the distinguished gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Terry, for 1 minute.

Mr. TERRY. I will waive.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman waives also. The chair recognizes

now the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Murphy.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TIM MURPHY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

Mr. MURPHY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, as our Nation looks towards energy independence, it is very important that

we look at our energy security, our economic security, our national

security and note how they are closely intertwined. In this budget,

there is a number of things which I am pleased with that is going

to help us move towards some of that energy independence and security with moves towards such things as nuclear technology and

looking at how that is helpful as a clean energy source.

I must admit though that I continue to be very concerned about

some of the cuts and what is going on with clean coal technology,

particularly as it may relate to some of our national energy technology labs. One is located in my district. I think it is very important to recognize that while parts of the world may only have a few

decades left of oil resources, we have over a couple centuries left

of coal and we need to be working towards ways that we can work

at having clean coal technology and maintain those investments.

We have abundant coal throughout the Nation and as needed for

our manufacturers. Our manufacturers are also concerned that

when it comes to natural gas and coal used for energy that by having the higher costs for that, we are in a position where we are

driving more jobs out of our Nation unless we reach some answers

to that. So I am hoping as we go through this some of the issues

that we can work towards are increasing some of that funding for

research for clean coal technology, eliminating emissions for the

sake of our health but also for the sake of our jobs and our Nation,

and I am pleased to have this time and I welcome and I am looking

forward to the Secretary’s comments on these issues.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. The

chair recognizes now the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Pallone,

for 1 minute.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE JR., A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This budget proposal

seems to be at odds with the administration’s recent promises. During the State of the Union, the President referred to the serious

6

challenge of climate change and suggested an initiative to reduce

our dependence on oil, and these are certainly noble goals but I am

afraid the reality doesn’t match the rhetoric. If the President were

serious about clean energy, perhaps he wouldn’t slash energy efficiency and renewable energy funding by 18 percent from current

levels. Perhaps he wouldn’t zero the entire geothermal and hydropower programs or sharply reduce critical energy saving programs

like weatherization assistance, and if he realizes the serious challenge of climate change, he wouldn’t propose an alternative fuel

standard that has no mechanism for limiting carbon emissions,

meaning that it could actually exacerbate global warming.

The President should simply do the right thing and support mandatory controls on carbon emissions, and I am still the optimist and

I hope that the President can live up to his rhetoric.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. The chair thanks the distinguished gentleman

and the chair recognizes now my good friend and colleague from

Texas, Mr. Barton, for 5 minutes.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOE BARTON, A

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS

Mr. BARTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome back, Mr.

Secretary. It is always good to have a friend before the committee.

We are here to review the fiscal year 2008 budget of the Department of Energy. I will note that in the last several years since you

have been the Secretary, it is my opinion that the Department’s

performance has improved and I want to congratulate you on that.

We do want to keep the trends going in the right direction, given

the state of the energy markets both in our country and overseas.

That is not an easy job.

There are two issues before this Congress that seem to be converging at the same time. One is the perennial issue of energy security. The other is what is now called global warming or climate

change. Energy security has preoccupied this Congress and our

country since the Department of Energy was created back in the

1970’s. Global warming is becoming a larger and larger issue for

the public each day. It also has not only policy significance but political significance. This may be the year that we have a meeting

of those two issues at the same time. Because of the mission of the

Department and Energy and its expertise, the Department is going

to be right in the middle of that. I hope the Energy and Commerce

Committee, is also going to be in the middle of it since we are the

committee of the Congress with the greatest depth and greatest

amount of experience on both sides of the aisle.

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 gave your Department greater responsibilities for energy efficiency, electricity transmission and security, nuclear power, clean coal development, renewable energy,

hydrogen and of course oil and gas. All of the Energy Policy Act

authorities are central to the debate on energy security and global

warming. The President has announced plans in his State of the

Union address this year to have a goal of 35 billion gallons of alternative fuels by 2017 and wants to reduce gasoline usage by 20 percent over the next 10 years. Again, your Department is right in the

middle of those initiatives.

7

The challenge ahead is daunting. It is going to take leadership

and vision to successfully manage all of these programs and initiatives to ensure a bright future for America. The President’s budget

is a road map but just that, a road map, to show how we can balance priorities and get the job done. I certainly hope that we can

work together on the President’s budget and with this committee

to help make some of those plans realities.

We need more energy here in the United States, not less. We expect that our electricity production is going to increase by 50 percent to meet the growing demand over the next 15 to 20 years.

That is average of 2 to 3 percent a year. That is just to supply the

current demand for a growing job-creating economy. That is not a

bad thing that our electricity demand is increasing. It is a good

thing because United States is the most productive economy in the

world. As we use more energy, we produce more goods and services, not just for the United States of America but for the entire

world economy.

On the transportation side, we know that in the short term we

are going to have to import more oil and there are things that we

could do in this committee, in fact, this committee has done some

of those things in the last Congress that would increase the fuel

efficiency. Hopefully the bill that passed this committee and passed

the House but didn’t pass the Senate might be a bipartisan vehicle

for increasing fuel efficiency standards in this Congress. It is my

view that every source of energy that makes any sense at all

should be reviewed and see if we can enhance it, make it more efficient, make it more available for the consumers of the United

States. I think the United States has the ability to produce more

energy. I think it can do it in an environmentally affordable and

environmentally safe way. If we have more energy at affordable

prices that is produced in an environmentally safe fashion, we are

going to have a stronger economy and more opportunities for our

citizens.

Again, Mr. Secretary, we appreciate you being here and we look

forward to hearing your testimony. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. The chair recognizes the distinguished gentlewoman from California, Ms. Eshoo,

for 1 minute.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ANNA G. ESHOO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Ms. ESHOO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, welcome

to the committee.

While there is much that I don’t agree with in the administration’s approach to energy policy, I do want to commend you and

DOE Undersecretary for Science, Dr. Ray Orbach, for the commitment you have made to funding science at DOE in the last two

budgets, and it is very important for our country and I would like

to start out on a very positive note by recognizing this. I think this

is exactly the kind of investment that my constituents in Silicon

Valley, leaders as you know in academia and high technology have

been calling for for years in order to maintain our Nation’s ecoVerDate 11-SEP-98 14:37 Jun 04, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 Q:\DOCS\110-3 SCOM1 PsN: SCOM1
8

nomic and technological leadership. So I want to commend you for

that.

Speaker Pelosi and many of my colleagues worked on an effort

that we will bringing forward in the Congress called our innovation

agenda, and in that proposal we call for doubling the budget for the

Office of Science as well as the National Science Foundation and

other agencies. These are really nonpartisan issues. Therefore,

there should be a bipartisan effort and I hope that we can work

together on it.

I also agree with the administration’s call for reducing our dependence on foreign oil by embracing alternative fuels. What I have

very serious concerns about are the fuels that the administration

plan considers alternatives which I believe will undermine air quality and the effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

So thank you for being here, I look forward to working with you.

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the distinguished gentlewoman has

expired. The chair recognizes now the gentleman from Illinois, Mr.

Shimkus, for 1 minute.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will waive.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has waived. The chair recognizes

now the distinguished gentleman, Mr. Ferguson, for 1 minute.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE FERGUSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

Mr. FERGUSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for holding

this hearing, and I appreciate the Secretary for being here with us

today.

I am pleased to see the President’s budget reflects some investments in renewable energy. In my home State of New Jersey, the

market for solar power is one of the fastest growing solar markets

in the country. In 2001, our State began offering 70 percent rebates

on solar power installation. Five years later, some 2,000 homes and

businesses have taken advantage of this program and there continues to be a long waiting list. I am particularly proud that Halls

Warehouse Corporation, which is a company in South Plainfield,

New Jersey, in my district has recently completed installing 8,000

solar panels on top of their refrigerated warehouses. It is the largest roof-mounted solar electric system in the Nation and it is expected to save this particular company $600,000 a year in energy

costs and reduce C02 admissions by 24,000 tons over the next 30

years. Now, I realize the importance of making solar energy systems more accessible to homeowners—we have talked about this a

little bit—and businesses as well. That is why in the last Congress

I introduced the Clean and Green Solar Tax Credit Act which

would extend the solar tax credits that were in our Energy Policy

Act. I plan to expand upon this and reintroduce it in this Congress,

and I thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. The

chair recognizes now the distinguished gentleman from Michigan,

Mr. Stupak.

9

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BART STUPAK, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN

Mr. STUPAK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, welcome

to the committee. As the new chairman of Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee, I look forward to working with you and your

staff. The subcommittee has already held an important hearing on

the security at the Los Alamos National Lab and I appreciate your

continued cooperation and assistance in this issue.

For the past several years Americans have paid record-high

prices to fill up their cars and heat their homes from industry to

agriculture, businesses continue to struggle with wide energy price

fluctuations. As the President has stated in several of his State of

the Union speeches, we remain dangerously dependent on foreign

energy sources. Unfortunately, I see nothing or very little from the

President’s 2008 budget that will change this any time soon. The

President’s budget drastically cuts proven programs such as

LIHEAP, weatherization assistance, building efficiency programs

and vehicle technologies. These cuts place the burden of the high

energy prices on lower-income Americans and small businesses.

The Federal Government should be investing in these programs as

well as wind, solar, geothermal and other renewable energy sources

to help Americans with high energy prices now. Unfortunately, the

President’s budget seems focused on increasing Federal handouts

to his friends in big oil, increasing the funding for fossil fuel energy

up by 33 percent. We can do better.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. The

chair now recognizes our good friend and colleague, Mr. Pitts, for

1 minute.

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, I waive.

The CHAIRMAN. The chair recognizes our good friend and colleague, Mr. Sullivan, for 1 minute.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN SULLIVAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

Mr. SULLIVAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don’t have a lot to

say but I want to thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being here today

and I think this is an important time in energy policy in this country.

We have a lot to do, and I am for a lot of alternative fuels, I support them, I am going to continue to support them. I think it is exciting that we are doing that, but we can never forget about domestic production of oil and gas. We are never going to be able to totally eliminate the use of gas and oil. We need to make sure too,

I think it is important we do all we can with secondary recovery,

going in drilling domestically on the outer continental shelf offshore, doing all we can here domestically, and I think too that a

lot of people, especially on the left, think that the oil and gas industry is bad, people are like J.R. Ewing that are in it, and that

is not true. They don’t all go out drinking at lunch and drive a

Cadillac with horns on it. They are good people. Mainly the domestic oil and gas that is produced in the United States is done by

independent producers and they are like small-business people, and

10

I think that they need to be recognized more and they are not, and

there is always a lot of byproducts that come from oil and gas that

need to be talked about, and I guess what I am trying to say is,

sir, that we need to have some kind of educational effort out there

maybe in the Department of Energy and other places as well that

can educate us on this important issue. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. The

chair recognizes now the gentlewoman from California, Ms.

DeGette, for 1 minute.

Ms. DEGETTE. Colorado, Mr. Chairman. I will waive my opening.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman passes. The chair recognizes

now the distinguished gentlewoman from California, Mrs. Capps,

for 1 minute.

Mrs. CAPPS. Thank you, and I will waive my opening statement.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman waives. The chair recognizes

now the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Doyle, for

1 minute.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL F. DOYLE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH

OF PENNSYLVANIA

Mr. DOYLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome, Mr. Secretary.

After declaring us addicted to oil in his State of the Union address, I was disappointed last year to see that the President did

not provide you with the additional resources required to break

this addiction. Sadly, we see this trend continue this year, even

after the President has declared that America is on the verge of

technological breakthroughs that will enable us to live our lives

less dependent on oil. Once again, the President has said the right

thing and then delivered a budget that will produce the exact opposite result. Mr. Secretary, I find it incredible that your entire budget, a budget that it tasked with breaking our so-called addiction to

oil, is a mere $24.6 billion. That is barely more than what we

spend in Iraq every 3 months. I can only imagine the breakthroughs that your Department could achieve if the President actually backed up his rhetoric with real new funding designed to make

our country truly energy independent. I appreciate the tough position you are in as you attempt to defend this bait-and-switch but

we need to provide substantial new funding as I believe this will

do more to change our foreign policy, protect our environment and

strengthen our economy than any other action we could possibly

take her in Washington.

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. The

chair recognizes now our good friend from Pennsylvania, Mr. Pitts,

for 1 minute. The gentleman has waived. The chair recognizes now

the distinguished gentleman from Texas, Mr. Burgess, for 1

minute.

Mr. BURGESS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In the interest of time,

I will submit for the record and leave time for questions.

The CHAIRMAN. Very well. The gentleman waives. The chair recognizes now the gentlewoman from California, Ms. Harman, for 1

minute.

11

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JANE HARMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Ms. HARMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Two observations. First

on Charlie Norwood, unfailingly courteous, optimistic, a ray of sunshine and hope. He is missed in this Congress and on this committee.

Second, on the need for courage as we confront the threat of global warming, which may prove an even bigger challenge than the

threat of terrorism. Mr. Secretary, this budget is far too timid and

will do far too little. Hopefully this committee will not be timid and

will show the kind of courage Charlie Norwood exemplifies. I yield

back.

The CHAIRMAN. Ms. Harman yields back. The chair recognizes

now the distinguished gentleman from Maine, Mr. Allen.

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I will waive my opening.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman waives. The chair recognizes now

the distinguished gentlewoman from Illinois, Ms. Schakowsky. The

chair recognizes now the distinguished gentlewoman from California, Ms. Solis.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. HILDA L. SOLIS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Ms. SOLIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning, Mr.

Secretary.

In the district I represent in California, gas prices have increased

by 104 percent. In January our temperatures plunged during the

worse freeze in 9 years, driving up heating costs and foodstuffs.

Revenue at 71 percent of small businesses in California have decreased as a result of increased energy costs but the budget before

us today fails again to deliver stability for these working families,

growth for small businesses and a health environment for future

generations. Only 5 percent of the overall Energy Department’s

budget is dedicated, by the way, to clean renewable technology,

weatherization programs are cut by 41 percent, and assistance programs for low-income families are cut by $200 million. The budget

fails to address disproportionate impact on global warming, especially on low-income communities and communities of color. Mortality rates associated with global warming could increase twelvefold

just in the Latino community. The rate of infectious diseases will

climb, exacerbating impacts for the uninsured. The price of foodstuffs will increase, impacting the large Latino workforce in California. Latinos gathered, as you know, last September to report on

the National Latino Congresso. I would ask that we may consider——

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman has expired. The

chair recognizes now the distinguished gentleman from Washington, Mr. Inslee.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAY INSLEE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

Mr. INSLEE. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being here. I wanted

to explore with you later some schizophrenia in the budget and the

two items I mention, and one is the clean coal research which I

12

support. I think it is good research. We should find out if we can

sequester CO2. But the problem is because the President refuses to

accept the regulation on carbon, we may spend a billion dollars in

taxpayer money and no one will ever deploy a clean coal plant because why would you ever do it when you can put your carbon dioxide into the Bush plan for free and unlimited amounts up the

stack. That is schizophrenia. The second issue is, you have money

in for alternative fuels but you include coal to liquids which doesn’t

save us anything in any realistic amount in carbon dioxide.

So you have got two major schizophrenias going on in here and

I look forward to discussing that with you because if we are going

to get serious on CO2 reductions, we need consistent policies that

will match the research with the deployment. I look forward to

that. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. The

chair now the distinguished gentleman from Texas, Mr. Green, for

1 minute.

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to reserve

my time and also just join in all our colleagues in your comment

about our colleague, Charlie Norwood, in his illness.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman waives. The chair recognizes now

the distinguished gentlewoman from Wisconsin, Ms. Baldwin.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TAMMY BALDWIN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WISCONSIN

Ms. BALDWIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome, Mr. Secretary.

I was pleased that President Bush in his State of the Union address spoke so candidly about his goals for improving American’s

energy policy including increasing production of renewable fuels,

modernizing fuel economy standards and investing in new technologies such as cellulosic ethanol. Our President even changed

course, acknowledging to the National that global climate change

must be taken seriously. However, his ambitious words fail to come

across in the budget that we have before us. The budget lacks any

proposals for curbing emissions. At the same time, the budget proposes a decrease in funding for an energy-efficiency and environmentally sound power source, wind. With the focus so strong on renewable energy sources, I wonder why the administration is proposing cuts to its investment in wind power.

Mr. Secretary, the spotlight is really on us right now. It is time

for us to lead by example and show that we are committed to addressing energy efficiency and global warming. The President’s

words alone are not enough. I only hope that we will be able to correct the shortcomings that we have highlighted today and address

the real problems before it is too late. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the distinguished gentlewoman has

expired. The chair recognizes now the gentleman from Utah, Mr.

Matheson.

13

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JIM MATHESON, A

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF UTAH

Mr. MATHESON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome, Mr. Secretary.

Three specific points I want to raise. First, the significant budget

increase for RRW is concerning. The rationale for RRW used to be

aging plutonium pits. As we just heard in December, the pits are

fine for at least 100 years, so I have to question DOE’s rationale

in attempting to move forward on new nuclear warheads that we

might have to test at some point.

Second, Senator Reed and I have been working on legislation

calling for interim onsite nuclear waste storage at nuclear power

plants. Dry cask storage, which wasn’t even on the table back when

Congress enacted the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, combined

with the Federal Government taking title of the nuclear waste, is

likely a better option than throwing good money after bad with respect to Yucca Mountain.

And third, I am still very concerned about the Moab uranium

tailing pile. I see huge budget numbers in the Department’s budget

for programs that don’t seem nearly as urgent, so I have to question how DOE can say that the budget can provide the $500 million

it will likely take to clean up 16 million tons of radioactive mill

tailings sitting on the banks of the Colorado River. The alternative

would be a 20- to 25-year schedule. That is a difficult timeline for

people at Utah, Arizona, Nevada and California. These are all critical issues and I look forward to hearing from you during the question period.

I yield back.

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. The

chair now recognizes the distinguished gentleman from North

Carolina, Mr. Butterfield.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. G.K. BUTTERFIELD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NORTH

CAROLINA

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr.

Secretary, for coming forward today and giving us the benefit of

your testimony.

I am not so sure that the American people really understand our

need for energy independence. I know that is not the case in my

congressional district, and so I want to encourage the Department

to have a more aggressive campaign to educate the American people on the seriousness of this issue.

I am also concerned, Mr. Secretary, about the Department’s proposal to cut by 40 percent the funds for weatherization programs.

I represent a poor district in eastern North Carolina and we are

vitally concerned about that particularly when we are spending $2

billion a week in Iraq. Low-income people in my district are suffering from unbearable heating costs and your decrease, if it is true,

will exacerbate this problem. I hope my statistics are wrong, but

if not, please take care of our citizens who are cold.

I yield back.

14

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. The

chair recognizes now the distinguished gentleman from Georgia,

Mr. Barrow, for 1 minute.

Mr. BARROW. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I waive opening statement.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman waives. The chair recognizes now

the distinguished gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Hill.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BARON P. HILL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF INDIANA

Mr. HILL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr. Secretary, for joining us here today.

The budget before us today is an ambitious one. I would like to

concentrate on provisions that are important to my constituents in

Indiana, specifically the Twenty in Ten gasoline initiative that

aims to reduce our gasoline usage by 20 percent in the next 10

years. As you know, Indiana currently has the resources to produce

fuel and electricity from crops, coal and biomass. Our citizens will

remain a leader in reducing United States’ dependency on foreign

oil and oil in general by continuing to research and develop methods to produce clean energy from our homegrown resources. I look

forward to hearing details of how you propose to accomplish this

lofty goal through law or regulatory changes and how we can work

together to ensure its success.

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. The

chair recognizes now the distinguished gentlewoman from Illinois,

Ms. Schakowsky.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, A

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Thank you, Chairman Dingell, and thank you,

Secretary, for being here.

The President’s budget for the sixth time in a row to me shows

that the President favors tax cuts for the wealthy above meeting

basic human needs like heating and home weatherization assistance and seriously combating climate change by reducing carbon

emissions. In my view, this is a dangerous budget. The President’s

budget cuts LIHEAP, which helps low-income families pay their

heating and cooling bills, by $1.4 billion and it slashes weatherization assistance grants which help low-income households make

their homes more energy efficient by 40 percent below last year.

Based on the President’s proposal, 40 percent fewer families will

receive weatherization assistance next year. For Chicago, the cost

of those cuts will be human lives. Already at least one person has

died due to the deep freeze that gripped Chicago this week. At

minus 30 degrees wind chill, people die if they don’t have adequate

heat. The cold snap we are currently experiencing has been responsible for at least 13 deaths already across the country. Each cut,

more people at put at risk. So Secretary Bodman, I look forward

to hearing from you and what the administration have to say about

those cuts as well as the flat funding of energy efficiency, renewable energy. Thank you.

15

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman has expired. The

chair now the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Wynn.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ALBERT R. WYNN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND

Mr. WYNN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome, Mr. Secretary.

Let me begin by echoing the sentiments of my colleagues on the

subject of weatherization. I too am concerned about the 41 percent

reduction that has been proposed. We have a waiting list in Maryland, and this was before the budget was put out so that we are

very concerned.

I also want to say that although the administration maintained

its commitment on hydrogen fuel cells, it did not maintain its commitment on the transition programs. We talk about energy independence, but if we don’t have market transition programs that

would create markets for these new technologies, they don’t work.

Third, I would like to mention the issue of the loan guarantees

again for new technologies. That program was significantly delayed. I hope we will expedite this process so that the companies

that are trying to provide new technologies will be able to benefit

from a program that we passed more than 18 months ago. I thank

you and relinquish the balance of my time.

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. The

chair recognizes now the distinguished gentleman from New York,

Mr. Engel.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ELIOT L. ENGEL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW

YORK

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome, Mr. Secretary.

I too was happy to hear the President’s words at the State of the

Union but we heard those words last year and nothing was done,

so I hope this time we back up the words with action. We need action to make our vehicles more fuel-efficient, action to help provide

our motorists with clean alternative fuels and actions to help commercialize plug-in hybrid technology.

Congressman Kingston and I in a bipartisan fashion have introduced H.R. 670, the Drive Act, to achieve these goals. We have got

about 80 or 90 bipartisan cosponsors. We shouldn’t wait for the

perfect bill. We think this is the perfect bill but we should act on

this now, and we need the administration and you, Mr. Secretary,

to help us push it because this is something that the American people need. We need to help American automakers transform their

fleets to run on biofuels. We need to act now to transform our fuel

infrastructure to allow electricity and renewable fuels to power our

vehicles and we need to make dramatic strides to make us energyefficient, and we need to pass H.R. 670, the Drive Act, and I hope

you put your influence and the administration’s influence behind it,

and I yield back.

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. The

Chair notes that that concludes the opening statements. Other

statemetns will be accepted for the record.

[The prepared statements of Mrs. Cubin and Mr. Burgess follow:]

16

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA CUBIN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS

FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING

I represent a State where the budget depends largely on our Nation’s energy policy.

Wyoming accounts for approximately 40 percent of all coal mined in the United

States. We are in the top five onshore natural gas-producing States, eighth in crude

oil production, and first in both trona and uranium. Wyoming truly is the ‘‘energy

breadbasket’’ of our Nation.

However, Wyoming also has an unmeasured potential for renewable and cleanburning fuels, and I want to compliment the Department of Energy on submitting

a budget proposal that promotes new science and technology, as well as better utilization of renewable resources.

At least one coal-to-liquids facility is already moving forward in my State, which

will bring to market roughly 13,000 barrels per day of refined, ultra-low-sulfur diesel fuel. The southeastern Wyoming corridor is one of the most favorable locations

for wind power development in the country. These are the types of energy projects

we should be incentivizing at both the State and Federal levels.

We live in a time when our national energy policy has a direct effect on the safety

and prosperity of our Nation. I look forward to hearing the Secretary’s thoughts on

how this budget helps achieve those vital goals.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL C. BURGESS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS

Mr. Chairman, thank you for convening this hearing today.

One of my most important responsibilities as a Member of Congress is to ensure

that my constituents’ tax dollars are being spent wisely. It is for that reason that

I look forward to the ongoing debate about our national funding priorities.

Secretary Bodman, thank you for appearing before us this morning. As we begin

the fiscal year 2008 appropriations cycle, it will be helpful to hear from you about

the President’s budget request for the Department of Energy.

I am especially interested to hear your testimony regarding the President’s Proposed ‘‘Twenty in Ten’’ Initiative, as well as the oil and natural gas research programs that have been zeroed out in the President’s proposed Budget.

Secretary Bodman, thank you again for appearing before us this morning. I yield

back.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Secretary, we recognize you for your statement. Mr. Secretary, welcome.

STATEMENT OF HON. SAMUEL W. BODMAN, SECRETARY, U.S.

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Secretary BODMAN. I will try to be brief, Mr. Chairman. Let me

begin by noting the good relationship that I have enjoyed with the

chairman and the ranking member over the last couple of years

and I hope that we can strengthen that because we have a lot before us, as I have just listened to the views of so many members

of this committee. I too would like to take note of the absence of

Mr. Norwood. He has become a friend of mine during my brief tenure here, and I miss him.

As you heard in the State of the Union address, the President

announced several new energy initiatives that will shape our Department’s work over the coming 2 years. The President announced

a goal of reducing our gasoline usage by 20 percent over the next

10 years, the so-called Twenty in Ten program, first by requiring

35 billion gallons of renewable and alternative fuels by the year

2017, nearly five times the 2012 target, which we should meet as

soon as next year, I believe, as best I see it, and second, by reforming and modernizing the CAFE standards for automobiles and extending the current light truck rule which already exists. Together

we believe these measures will help reduce our dependence on unstable regimes and will also check the growth, in fact should reVerDate 11-SEP-98 14:37 Jun 04, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 Q:\DOCS\110-3 SCOM1 PsN: SCOM1
17

verse the increase of carbon emissions from the transportation sector.

In addition, the President proposed doubling the size of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to further protect our Nation from shocks

in oil markets. We look forward to working with the Congress and

with other parts of our administration to accomplish these important goals.

Let me now just take a minute to mention a few of the highlights in our $24.3 billion budget request of Congress. To maintain our

economic prosperity by encouraging scientific innovation, the President last year proposed the American Competitiveness Initiative.

Our budget proposes, as has been noted, a $4.4 billion budget or

an increase of about $300 million over the 2007 request to fund

basic research in the physical sciences and to support science and

technology education programs in our Office of Science. We are also

requesting $2.7 billion to accelerate the Advanced Energy Initiative, also announced last year. Through this initiative, we will continue to develop the most promising clean energy technologies including clean coal, biomass, solar and wind power, hydrogen research and new technologies in nuclear energy. The President and

I believe that nuclear power must play a significant role in meeting

future energy needs in our country. Our budget requests a total of $400 million for the President’s

global nuclear energy partnership, an international effort to expand

the availability of safe proliferation-resistant nuclear power. To

make the expansion of nuclear power possible, we must of course

address the matter of nuclear waste. Our budget requests $495

million for the continued development of the geologic waste repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. For the NNSA, the budget proposes $6.5 billion for weapons activities which includes funding for

our complex 2030 program to create a smaller, more efficient weapons complex that is better able to respond to changing global security challenges. Also within the NNSA, we request $1.7 billion for

our nuclear nonproliferation activities.

One of the most important responsibilities concerns our commitment to public health and safety. Our fiscal year 2008 budget proposes $5.7 billion to clean up hazardous radioactive waste left over

from the Manhattan Project and the Cold War. It is amazing to me

that we are still working on this but we are and we will be for

some years to come. I am proud to note that we have completed

cleanup of 81 sites through the end of 2006 as well as three sites

in Ohio, Fernald, Columbus and Ashtabula this year. So we are

making some progress there.

Mr. Chairman, there are many other productive and promising

initiatives underway in our Department. I look forward to discussing them with the members of this committee during the questionand-answer session. Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Secretary Bodman appears at the

conclusion of the hearing.]

The CHAIRMAN. You performed a middle-sized miracle and something that I hope my colleagues up here including myself will learn

to do and that is, you have completed your statement with time

left, a remarkable accomplishment. Mr. Secretary, the chair recognizes himself for 5 minutes.

18

At a recent press conference, Mr. Secretary, you were reported as

saying in effect the question of whether man is contributing to the

planet’s warming is no longer up for debate. Is that still your view?

Secretary BODMAN. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Secretary, you should know that this committee is going to, by direction of the Speaker, spend considerable

time meeting a deadline of June 1 with regard to presenting the

Congress with a piece of legislation on global warming. So we will

be looking forward to your assistance as we proceed with an extensive program of hearings to write a bill to address this. Mr. Secretary, it is the intention of the committee that this bill be fair and

that it be fairly and properly conceived and that it be, if humanly

possible, a bill which will both be bipartisan in character and have

the support of members of both sides and will be able to pass both

the House and Senate and arrive at the President’s desk for signature. My question, Mr. Secretary, will you help us in that undertaking?

Secretary BODMAN. Of course.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, Mr. Secretary, is it still the administration’s position that it will oppose any type of mandatory cap on carbon emissions?

Secretary BODMAN. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Secretary, the office of Mr. Ward Sproat, director of the Office of Civilian Waste Management, testified before

the committee regarding the Yucca Mountain nuclear test repository. He testified that he plans to submit a license application to

NRC by 2008, and if that succeeds, to open the repository in 2017.

Are those timetables still valid?

Secretary BODMAN. I believe they are valid, sir. It will be a challenge to get it done but I believe they are valid. This timetable was

constructed with the assumption that we do not have outside interference with our moving forward, things like lawsuits and——

The CHAIRMAN. I am aware of that, so what you are telling me

is that we really don’t think that date is necessarily a valid date?

Secretary BODMAN. Well, it is the only date that I can put forth,

that we can put forth that deals with matters that we can control.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, Mr. Secretary, we asked Mr. Sproat when

he was before us that he would provide us with an updated version

of the projected costs for the repository program. This he agreed to

do, but Mr. Secretary, it has not been done. When will we receive

that information?

Secretary BODMAN. I looked at the numbers. We still are working

on it. I would tell you that my own estimate is something like $20

billion.

The CHAIRMAN. We would like to have the response to those

questions as soon as it is comfortable because I would like to have

that in the record. Now, Mr. Secretary, does the administration’s

budget provide enough funding to keep the program on track with

Director Sproat’s timetable?

Secretary BODMAN. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. There is enough money there to do this?

Secretary BODMAN. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. All right. Now, Mr. Secretary, I have long advocated a nuclear waste fund being taken off budget. The bill which

19

the administration sent up to the Congress last year did not include such and it did not, in my view, provide the critical element

of protecting the $20 billion or so in the corpus of this nuclear

waste fund from diversion by the budget and the Appropriations

Committee. If I read this budget correctly, of the $770 million that

is expected to be collected from ratepayers, only $202 million actually be appropriated, leaving $568 million to be added to the unprotected balance of the fund. Now, does the administration support

the taking of the corpus off budget?

Secretary BODMAN. Let me say that, as I said before, my own estimate is that this is about a $20 billion project. There is already

$19 billion in the fund. As you pointed out, there is some $700 million that will be paid in this year. The income from the fund, from

the $20 billion, is also going to be something like $700 or $800 million. You have a billion-five——

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Secretary, the nub of the question is, what

is the administration going to do to protect this money which

doesn’t belong to anybody except for the ratepayers and the fund

for the purpose which the fund was created.

Secretary BODMAN. We are certainly happy to work with Congress, sir, on that question.

The CHAIRMAN. You have got a fine lawsuit going on in this regard.

Secretary BODMAN. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. I would like to have you submit to us an answer

to the question of what the administration proposes to do about

this matter because this has been a source of considerable irritation to all and sundry. My time has expired. And we will, I note,

Mr. Secretary, be submitting to you a list of questions which members of the committee and the occupant of the chair would like to

have answered in view of the shortness of the time.

The chair now recognizes my distinguished friend and colleague

from Texas, Mr. Barton, for 5 minutes.

Mr. BARTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me say that at the

hearing with the Secretary of Commerce, you commented that you

seemed a bit rusty. My observation is, you are not at all rusty

today, so your learning curve is accelerating. You are back in your

old form, which is a good thing for the committee.

Mr. Secretary, the first thing I want to ask you is the status of

the project for clean coal technology, which we call FutureGen. I

believe the President’s budget requests $108 million for that

project. Could you comment on that?

Secretary BODMAN. Yes, sir. The goal is to pick one of the four

contending communities. There are two in Texas, two in Illinois,

that are competing for this. They were down-selected from a group

of I think 13 different communities. I would add, if I may interject,

that it was a rare privilege for the Secretary of Energy to have actually calls coming from State leaders requesting that this facility

be built in their State, which is not usually the case, and so we will

be selecting one of the four communities this summer. This is a result of the environmental study, and we will be proceeding later on

this year with the preliminary design and construction.

Mr. BARTON. My next question is also on the coal area. Section

3104 of the Energy Policy Act authorized $300 million for fiscal

20

year 2007, $100 million for 2008 and $40 million for 2009 to work

with private industry to go out and pick existing coal-fired power

plants that were not using the latest technology and retrofit those

plants to bring their emissions up to current Clean Air Act standards. I can’t see anywhere in the budget that the Department has

funded that program. If you haven’t, why not, and if you have,

where is it?

Secretary BODMAN. It is not there. You are reading it correct.

The initial interest, that is to say last year, was that we had felt

that there were other programs in place that were dealing with

that particular question and that particular issue so when we

stacked it up versus other parts of the Energy Policy Act, it did not

have the same priority as those that were judged to be appropriate.

The reason that this year the program has been discontinued in its

entirety is that there are now regulations in place that force the

utilities to deal with matters related to mercury, to sulfur oxides

and to nitrogen oxides.

Mr. BARTON. Well, that was put in the Energy Policy Act at the

personal request of the then-chairman of the committee.

Secretary BODMAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. BARTON. So as ranking member, it still is a high priority and

we on the minority side catch some flack in the appropriation process by members of the majority that say the administration talks

a good game but it doesn’t deliver and specifically in some of the

coal areas, and this is an example of that. I would strongly urge

and request that you go back and take a look at that particular

program because the whole point was to clean up existing coal-fired

plants so that you keep the jobs there, you keep the resource base,

which is American-manufactured coal, and we also meet the latest

environmental standards. It is a win, win, win. It is not that much

money and the private sector has to participate, so I understand

the legislative initiative that you talked about or the administration initiative but I would hope that we could still see some money

put into that.

Secretary BODMAN. I will certainly comply with your request, sir.

I will go back and look at it.

Mr. BARTON. And then last but not least, a perennial problem at

Los Alamos, which you are aware of as I am, in our hearing in the

Oversight Subcommittee last week on Los Alamos, it was pointed

out that there are a huge number of vacant positions in the field

office, so these are direct Department of Energy employees, and if

my memory is right, there are over 20 vacancies. What steps, if

any, are being planned to fill those slots so that we can have good

administrative oversight of that program?

Secretary BODMAN. You are correct that there are a significant

number of vacancies in that office. As a result of the recent problems at Los Alamos, I made the difficult decision—you and I have

talked about this—of relieving the administrator of his responsibilities. The acting administrator of NNSA has changed up the management, the leadership of the site office, the one to which you referred. The new manager arrived there on Monday of this week.

Monday was his first day. He will be addressing questions of exactly the sort that you asked promptly. There are two individuals

that have been identified from our independent oversight office,

21

that is to say from the HHS organization here in Washington, and

two of those who are very knowledgeable on security matters will

at least on an interim basis fill the gap and be working for the new

manager in the site office to help strengthen that activity. So there

are a number of things that are ongoing.

Mr. BARTON. Mr. Chairman, could I ask one very brief question?

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, so ordered.

Mr. BARTON. Mr. Secretary, Mr. Dingell and myself and several

of the members of the committee have introduced legislation to

take the oversight authority over Los Alamos and other weapons

programs away from the NNSA and give it directly back to the Department of Energy. Have you taken a position on that legislation?

Secretary BODMAN. Yes. I was in testimony before the Armed

Services Committee last week. I said that I had appointed a committee a year ago roughly to look at the question of the organization of NNSA, how it relates to the Department, and they came up

with a number of suggestions that would improve in their judgment the management structure of the NNSA. I agreed with them

their suggestions would improve the structure. But I have to tell

you, none of those changes really would have prevented the problem that we had.

Mr. BARTON. My question is, do you support the legislation that

Mr. Dingell and I have introduced?

Secretary BODMAN. I have not asked for any legislation.

Mr. BARTON. That is a no. Can we make it a maybe or a yes if

we work with you?

Secretary BODMAN. Sure. I mean, I would be happy to work with

you but I just would tell you that the challenges before us relate

to the culture that exists in Los Alamos, in my judgment, and that

is where I am putting my time and effort and my focus, but of

course I am happy to work with you and the chairman on that.

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. The

chair observes that his questions are very important. We have had

a splendid succession of scandals down there at Los Alamos and

somebody has to clean it up and there is no sign that the current

system is working and we have got to get it in the hands of somebody like you who I think will try to do something about it.

Secretary BODMAN. I am attempting to do something as we

speak, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. The distinguished gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Boucher, is recognized for

5 minutes.

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and Mr.

Secretary, thank you for your participation here this morning. I

want to focus for a few moments on the very important question

of carbon sequestration and state of the art and what we are seeking to learn and when we are going to learn it. DOE now has seven

regional partnerships that are focused on carbon sequestration, and

your budget request for fiscal year 2008 asks for $79 million in

order to begin four large-scale field tests. I am told these field tests

would be of about 1 million tons per year per project of sequestered

carbon. Could you describe the goals of your partnership and also

what you hope to learn through these field tests, and can you give

us a sense of when you think carbon sequestration technology could

22

be sufficiently reliable for deployment and for something we can actually begin to rely upon as we structure legislation that in fact

might require the capture and sequestration of carbon?

Secretary BODMAN. First, I think there are seven partnerships.

Mr. BOUCHER. You have seven, and you are proposing four largescale field tests.

Secretary BODMAN. Well, I think there are going to be seven

large-scale field tests. That is what the money is intended to do

and it is about $10 million per year per partnership, and the goal

is to determine what kind of geological formations are receptive to

the carbon dioxide. Once you put it down there, does it stay there,

in its simplest form, so we are going to have to do enough monitoring and work in order to do a material balance and measure what

is there. Your G2 is quite good, sir, in terms of the size and scale

and scope. We have been working on this for the past 3 or 4 years,

first doing paper studies. We are now embarking on programs that

will put this effort into real practice to deal with the physics of it,

if you will, and I would think we would start to have a sense of

this over the next 4 or 5 years. I mean, it is going to take a period

of time in order to be sure that once you put the carbon dioxide

down there, that it stays there, that it accomplishes that which you

had anticipated when you started.

In addition to this, we also have the so-called FutureGen project

which also involves sequestration and seeks to convert most of the

energy that is in the coal into a stream of hydrogen and then simultaneously sequestering the carbon dioxide. So we will also learn

from that. That is supposed to start up about 5 years from now.

So I think 5 years is sort of my sense of it.

Mr. BOUCHER. And at the end of 5 years, we should have some

sense of the reliability of sequestration?

Secretary BODMAN. Yes, sir, I believe so.

Mr. BOUCHER. OK. Let me focus briefly on the loan guarantee

program for alternative transportation fuels. There is a little bit of

frustration that loan guarantees have not been issued to date. This

program is authorized in EPACT 2005. Some of the companies that

want to apply have expressed an interest in self-funding the Government’s risk in issuing the loan guarantee which would be a way

in the absence of appropriations that would fund that risk to get

a loan guarantee issued, and I am told that self funding is a rather

common practice with regard to loan guarantees in other program

areas historically. I know that you have asked for language that

would be in appropriations bill that would authorize the self-funding for this. Assuming that you have that language provided, how

long do you think it will be before you can put out a request for

proposals, a solicitation for projects and actually begin to issue the

loan guarantees?

Secretary BODMAN. Let me say for the record that we have been

attempting to implement the Energy Policy Act of 2005, the title

that contains the provision of the loan guarantees. That has been

of great interest to a variety of Members of Congress as well as

members of my Department. During fiscal year 2006, about a year

ago, we asked for a reprogramming of $1 million in order to get

sufficient funding so that we can start the office, we could hire

some people and get it going. That request was denied by the ApVerDate 11-SEP-98 14:37 Jun 04, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 Q:\DOCS\110-3 SCOM1 PsN: SCOM1
23

propriations Committee of this House, and it was a bipartisan denial, so I want to point that out. It was a matter that is sort of

frankly still—I then was before the Senate yesterday. I know it is

a matter of some concern here. I was criticized yesterday. I expected to be criticized more today for my failure in this regard.

Mr. BOUCHER. Well, please understand, I am not criticizing, I am

just asking for information, but let us assume that you get this——

how soon could you actually begin the solicitation process?

Ms. DEGETTE [presiding]. The gentleman’s time has expired.

Secretary BODMAN. Well, first, as I understand it, the rule—we

will be required to issue and get approved a rule that under which

we operate. We will only be permitted to move forward. We had attempted and had requested that we would deal under guidelines

which we would have been started already had we been funded and

permitted to go. It is going to take 6 months, I think at least, to

get the rule done. That is how long it takes, and if we were to successfully complete the solicitation and program a year from now,

we would be doing well in my judgment.

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.

Ms. DEGETTE. The chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Upton, for 5 minutes.

Mr. UPTON. Thank you, Madam Chair, and again, Mr. Secretary,

we welcome your presence here and in the future as well. As you

know, I have got two nuclear plants, facilities in my district on the

shore of Lake Michigan. Both of them have exceeded their capacity

in wet storage for their spent nuclear rods, and I have been out to

Yucca Mountain a couple different times. It has been a number of

years since I was there. I think there was a genuine concern as we

looked through the budget request, as I looked through the nuclear

trust fund as I indicated in my opening statement, that we will actually expand the nuclear waste trust fund by about $2 billion from

the actual 2006 until what is estimated to be in 2008, and of

course, that is paid for by us, the ratepayers, as we use that. And

as much as we want this facility to open, I can remember when

they first started talking about having it open I think in 2010 and

then 2012 and 2015 and now, as you indicated in your testimony,

about 2017. Yet it seems that the funding for the project is about

flat from 2006 to what the request is for 2007. I don’t know if you

have been there recently. I remember when you were first sworn

in, you talked about this was a project that you were going to really grapple with and make sure that the right people were there

and making progress and I am just wondering what you might say

about what has happened in your tenure since you have been Secretary.

Secretary BODMAN. Well, I have been there and I have visited

the facility. I have to tell you, I was quite impressed and encouraged by the state of the geology and the efforts that have gone into

characterizing the geology of that site. Ward Sproat has been on

the job, again I have lost track of time, but close to a year, I guess.

He is coming up on a year. And he is the Assistant Secretary for

Radioactive Waste Management and he has done a very good job.

He tells me when I talk to him, as recently as yesterday, that the

amount of money in the budget is sufficient to move forward and

get this license approved, or not approved but get it finalized and

24

submitted within a period of 18 months, and so that is what our

intentions our.

Mr. UPTON. Well, that is great to hear, and I know that this committee and the subcommittee will follow through to make sure that

we try to stick with those deadlines. I don’t know if you saw yesterday’s Wall Street Journal, ‘‘Can Bush Reach Our Goal With Proposed Spending Plan’’. They in essence—and I know you were on

the House floor for the President’s State of the Union address.

Secretary BODMAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. UPTON. You saw the fervor and the passion in support of alternative fuels when the President mentioned that in his speech.

This story goes on to say that analysts suggest that increasing production of corn-based ethanol would result only in enough fuel to

meet half of the President’s alternative fuel usage goal for 2017. It

talks about a number of budget numbers. It does go up but I would

say that probably not e significant amount to try and make sure

that at some point we can follow through, as your spokesman said,

that we need to be more reliant on farmers of the Midwest than

on oil sheiks of the Mideast, and I thought that was a great statement. But where is the beef to make sure that we can get this

done?

Secretary BODMAN. First of all, the statement of half refers to

about 15, let us say 17 billion gallons that could come from corn

and the production of virtually all ethanol that is used today in

this country comes from corn, and——

Mr. UPTON. Well, we can do it from sugar, right? Brazil has

proved that they can do it from sugarcane.

Secretary BODMAN. Sugar is the best alternative. We have very

expensive sugar in our country for a variety of reasons, sir. Going

back to the corn, the goal is to have corn-based ethanol that could

produce about 15 billion gallons, 15, 16, 17 billion gallons. That is

the half. In order to get to the President’s goal, we need cellulosic

base which is the production of ethanol from materials that are

ways of much cheaper feedstocks—switchgrass, sawdust,

woodchips, that sort of thing. And we have a program to do that

and we are working on it. The President has asked in this budget

for $180 million to increase the commitment to that endeavor at

our renewable energy laboratory out in Colorado and I am encouraged by that. I was apprehensive when I heard the President say

the words that he said because we are the ones that have t deliver

on that. I would tell you that I felt better the next day after I visited the DuPont Company with the President. The Energy Department has a relationship with the DuPont Company for the last 3

or 4 years developing a so-called biorefinery. They told me during

the visit that they felt they would have an industrially attractive

process in the next couple of years, so I felt good about that. And

if could just say one additional thing. I am sorry for this. I started

out life as a venture capitalist in Boston and this is the first time

in the 43 years that I have been in and around the venture capital

business that we have seen the private venture capital community

putting big money, billions of dollars, every year into renewable energy including cellulosic ethanol and that also increases my optimism.

Mr. UPTON. Thank you.

25

Ms. DEGETTE. The chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Markey, for 5 minutes.

Mr. MARKEY. Welcome, fellow Bostonian.

Secretary BODMAN. Thank you, sir.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Secretary, does President Bush support a mandatory cap and trade system to control emissions of carbon dioxide

and other greenhouse gases?

Secretary BODMAN. No, sir.

Mr. MARKEY. No. Does the President believe that climate change

is a serious problem given the U.N. scientific panel’s conclusions

that were released last week?

Secretary BODMAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. MARKEY. Is the President aware that the United States contributes 25 percent of the world’s total of greenhouse gases, far

more than any other nation in the world?

Secretary BODMAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. MARKEY. Is there any reason to believe that the President

is going to take the world leadership on this issue if he will not

support mandatory controls on the emissions of greenhouses gases

into our environment, not just our, meaning the United States, but

the global environment?

Secretary BODMAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. MARKEY. And what evidence would we have to indicate that?

Secretary BODMAN. There are a number of things that are in this

budget that is before you that relate to this. One is the requirement that 15 percent of the gasoline that is now, or is anticipated

to be used 10 years from now, be a renewable or alternative energy. Second, we have had a program in place for some time to reduce the intensity of emissions of greenhouse gases by 18 percent

by the year 2012. We are ahead of target in order to accomplish

that. We are ahead of virtually every country that has been a signatory to the Kyoto Agreement, and so the mere commitment to a

regulatory regime does not accomplish that which you wish to accomplish.

Mr. MARKEY. Let me just stop you there, Secretary. As you know,

that 15 percent number includes coal to liquid which actually results in more CO2, so I dispute the numbers that the administration uses. Let me go to some specific big items here. Would President Bush support mandating a fleet-wide improvement in car and

SUV efficiency in the law so that we can be certain that the President’s promise is actually carried out?

Secretary BODMAN. We are happy to work with you on that subject.

Mr. MARKEY. So a mandate is possible? The Bush administration——

Secretary BODMAN. We are happy to work with you on that subject and work with Congress on matters related to that which the

President proposed was to give the Department of Transportation—

as you know, that is where the legal authority resides in order to

set CAFE standards which is I think the question that you are asking, and we would have requested that the same pattern be put in

place for automobiles that has existed for SUVs——

Mr. MARKEY. May I say, Mr. Secretary, the big problem we are

going to have is that the people of the United States don’t trust the

26

Department of Transportation anymore, that we need to have a

mandate that they actually apply. We can determine what the level

is. I think we can negotiate on that. Four percent per year, 3 percent, 5 percent, we can discuss that. But we can’t discuss whether

or not it is optional. That is where the Department of Transportation has let down the country.

Secretary BODMAN. That is my view, just so that it is clear.

Mr. MARKEY. On appliance efficiency standards, the Bush administration has had an abysmal record in putting new regulations on

the folks to guarantee that appliances are more efficient so we

don’t have to build as many coal and natural gas plants to generate

the electricity for them. Would the President support allowing the

States to step in and set appliance standards if the Department of

Energy is more than 3 years late in issuing a new, revised standard?

Secretary BODMAN. I read during the days of my confirmation

hearings an article on the abysmal record that has existed, not just

in the Bush administration but I also say, sir, the Clinton administration before it.

Mr. MARKEY. Would you support after 3 years letting the States

do it——

Secretary BODMAN. I would be happy to talk to you about any

subject related to this matter. I will tell you that we have an agreement with the court that we have been sued as you are I am sure

aware and we have also had review that was required by——

Mr. MARKEY. You should not be sued, Mr. Secretary for doing

your job.

Secretary BODMAN. We have been sued. It is not a matter of

being sued or not a matter of whether we should be. We have been.

We have an agreement with the court. We have an agreement I believe with this Congress to get back on track by the year 2011 and

we are fully focused on doing that.

Ms. DEGETTE. The gentleman’s time has expired. The chair recognizes the gentle lady from Wyoming, Mrs. Cubin, for 6 minutes.

Mrs. CUBIN. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and welcome, Mr.

Secretary. Thank you for being here today. I wanted to follow up

on the loan guarantee questions that Representative Boucher was

asking and make sure that the information that I have or at least

the understanding that I have is correct. All right. So the Energy

Policy Act authorized $2 billion in loan guarantees and there has

already been solicitation on those $2 billion but no awards have

been made. Is that the correct status of that?

Secretary BODMAN. No, ma’am. I mean, I would be happy to give

you the facts if you would like the facts.

Mrs. CUBIN. I would.

Secretary BODMAN. The Energy Policy Act did not stipulate any

particular amount. That was an agreement between this Department and OMB related to the 2007 budget submittal and that is

what we put into the 2007 budget submittal. That is where the $2

billion limit came from. The second part of what you said related

to what, ma’am? My brain has gone dead.

Mrs. CUBIN. That there has already been solicitation on that $2

billion.

27

Secretary BODMAN. Oh. There was not solicitation. It was a presolicitation. It was an expression of interest because we knew full

well that we didn’t have the people in place because we were

turned down on the reprogramming, that we didn’t have the people

to evaluate it. So we had expressions of interest from over 100 companies that totaled some tens of billions of dollars of requests that

were made available.

Mrs. CUBIN. OK. Then in the CR for fiscal year 2007, $4 billion

was authorized and——

Secretary BODMAN. That is apparently so.

Mrs. CUBIN. OK. And then the DOE request for fiscal year 2008

is $9 billion.

Secretary BODMAN. That is correct.

Mrs. CUBIN. OK. So now, I am talking about the rulemaking that

you were discussing.

Secretary BODMAN. Yes.

Mrs. CUBIN. It is my belief that there needs to be a rulemaking

before any solicitation can be made or before the process can go forward for the $4 billion in the CR and for the $9 billion request, but

there doesn’t necessarily have to be a rulemaking before the $2 billion can be awarded. Do you agree with that?

Secretary BODMAN. No, that is contrary to what I have been told

by our general counsel but I will be happy to review that with him.

Mrs. CUBIN. Thank you. That is my understanding, but we will

just wait for the review.

Secretary BODMAN. My colleague just told me that at least our

understanding is that I was correct, that even with the $2 billion,

according to the 2007 CR language, that we would have to have a

rulemaking.

Mrs. CUBIN. However, that 2007 CR is subsequent to the $2 billion so it seems to me there is room there where maybe it wouldn’t

be, but we will follow through on that.

Secretary BODMAN. Thank you.

Mrs. CUBIN. Another understanding that I had is the regulation

requirement in the CR applies only to the new $4 billion solicitation authority, not the existing $2 billion, so we will work together

on that.

Secretary BODMAN. We will be happy to work with you, ma’am,

on that.

Mrs. CUBIN. And one issue that I heard a great deal of concern

about is the administrative change that the DOE has made regarding the interest range charged to the PMAs on the Federal power

investment. I know you would agree with me that PMAs are not

Government corporations nor Government entities. Is that right?

Secretary BODMAN. I am an engineer, not a lawyer, so I don’t

know the answer to that question.

Mrs. CUBIN. Well, trust me on this one. I know I am right on

that.

Secretary BODMAN. I accept your answer.

Mrs. CUBIN. Yes, the PMAs are not Government entities and so

I wonder if you can explain to me the justification in revising your

historic long-term yield rates to the agency rates that are charged

to Government corporations. In other words, the rates to the PMAs

28

haven’t been tied to the Government corporation rates, and this

wasn’t done by Congress, it was done by an agency.

Secretary BODMAN. The justification is the one that you have

given, namely that there is sufficient privilege that goes with operating a PMA that is in effect a monopoly in a given region or has

very strong market presence in a given region, and therefore there

is either the formal or informal financing that the rates for financing are similar to Government-owned corporations or Governmentsponsored corporations, GSCs, and therefore having interest rates

that are similar to other Government types of corporations makes

sense, and it is strictly that.

Mrs. CUBIN. Just one statement. I don’t think that is historically

the way the interest rates have been dealt with on the PMAs.

Secretary BODMAN. I am sure that is correct.

Mrs. CUBIN. And so there is a lot of complaints about that and

maybe we can discuss that too. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Secretary BODMAN. I would be happy to.

Ms. DEGETTE. Thank you. The chair recognizes now the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Stupak, for 5 minutes.

Mr. STUPAK. I thank the chairwoman. Mr. Secretary, over the

last 7 years, the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigation has

held a dozen hearings about security concerns at Los Alamos. You

have a number of ongoing reviews related to DOE and the security

at Los Alamos which are due at the end of February. I would like

your commitment to come before the subcommittee in early March

to discuss those reports. Can I have your commitment that you will

appear in early March before the O & I subcommittee to discuss

these reports?

Secretary BODMAN. I don’t want to commit on the terms of a

schedule. I will be happy to provide you with the information

and——

Mr. STUPAK. Well, we were already told that you would appear.

That is why I am just trying to get this nailed down.

Secretary BODMAN. The fact that you were told that I would appear is fine. If my colleagues said that I would appear, then I will

appear, but what I don’t want to do is to appear at a time that

where I have not had sufficient opportunity to make a judgment on

what is in those reports and I don’t know what my own schedule

is going to be late in February, early in March and when I will

have the opportunity to do that and so I——

Mr. STUPAK. All right. Well, when you are getting prepared,

would you please be prepared to discuss how the Department plans

to improve the process of granting high-level security clearance at

labs, if you would, please, sir?

Secretary BODMAN. That is certainly one of the questions that is

on the plate, yes, sir.

Mr. STUPAK. Thank you. Now, Mr. Secretary, on January 23,

same day of the State of the Union speech, you announced and the

President also announced in the State of the Union that he would

double the size of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve by 2027. You

announced that the U.S. would start buying 100,000 barrels of

crude oil a day starting this spring to accomplish this goal. The

same day the price of a barrel of crude oil for March rose $2.46 on

the New York Mercantile Exchange. This was the largest 1-day inVerDate 11-SEP-98 14:37 Jun 04, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 Q:\DOCS\110-3 SCOM1 PsN: SCOM1
29

crease in 16 months. Should we expect for the next 20 years that

crude oil prices will be t$2.50 a barrel more than it normally would

be because the administration is expanding the SPR, and is the

Federal Government achieving its goal of reducing gas prices if the

Federal Government is actually driving the prices higher?

Secretary BODMAN. No, and then yes.

Mr. MARKEY. OK. Well, should your announcement that the Federal Government will purchase 100,000 barrels of crude oil a day

be enough to cause such an increase?

Secretary BODMAN. No.

Mr. MARKEY. OK. Well, so far we got no, yes, no. Let me ask you

this. Has the Department of Energy done any research on the effect that these market swings have on the price of crude oil, gasoline and natural price?

Secretary BODMAN. Yes.

Mr. MARKEY. OK. I got a no, yes, no, yes. We are still going.

Secretary BODMAN. Could I amplify that?

Mr. MARKEY. Sure.

Secretary BODMAN. We announced that we would be working

with initially 50,000 barrels a day of acquisition. This country uses,

as has been suggested, 20 million barrels a day. The Energy Information Agency within the Department of Energy studied this matter because I was asked about it a year ago when I was in here.

Mr. MARKEY. Right. I asked you those questions. My next question——

Secretary BODMAN. The effect of this on the price of oil is trivial.

Mr. MARKEY. Trivial?

Secretary BODMAN. Trivial, because the day after I announced,

the price backed off a dollar and a half. You have markets that are

in the hands of human beings. Human beings are essentially emotional souls and so people bought on the grounds that there was

a story apparently going on that indicated that this would drive up

the price of oil. This is a 20-year program if we are successful in

accomplishing it, and we will be starting the acquisition——

Mr. MARKEY. I understand I have got a minute left. Let me go. If it is $2.46 and you said the next day it dropped $1.50, it makes

my point that there are these wild swings in the marketplace.

Secretary BODMAN. There are substantial swings in the marketplace.

Mr. MARKEY. And I asked you about it last time, so I take it

based on your answer you would agree with the legislation I reintroduced, the Pump Act, to prevent unfair manipulation of prices,

H.R. 594, to prevent these wild swings in the market because the

experts tell us if we would pass the Pump Act, we could lower the

cost of the price of crude oil by $20 a barrel by having the Commodity Futures Trading Commission oversee these trades. So

therefore I take it from your answer, you agree with the purpose

and intent behind the Pump Act?

Secretary BODMAN. Sir, I don’t agree with the Act from what I

know of it.

Mr. MARKEY. Why would you disagree with it?

Secretary BODMAN. I haven’t studied the Act.

Mr. MARKEY. Does the Department plan on taking a position on

the Pump Act? It didn’t last year. Will you this year?

30

Secretary BODMAN. I don’t know, but I would be happy to study

it.

Mr. MARKEY. Would you and get back with us, especially since

you have indicated in your answer there are these wild swings in

the market——

Secretary BODMAN. There are substantial swings in the market.

The reason there are substantial swings in the market is that the

suppliers are having a terrible time keeping up with the demand

and therefore the price is set in the marketplace and it is like a

share of stock.

Mr. MARKEY. But I don’t think that demand would drop a buck

fifty in one day or go up $2.46 the next day based on a pronouncement from the Secretary of Energy.

Secretary BODMAN. Of course it didn’t.

Mr. MARKEY. It shouldn’t, but it did.

Secretary BODMAN. Of course it shouldn’t and it did but it doesn’t

mean that the system is broken.

Mr. MARKEY. What it means is speculation based on fear leads

to greed and therefore——

Secretary BODMAN. I guess there are varying views on that subject, sir.

Mr. MARKEY. We look forward to your response to the Pump Act.

Thank you, and I thank the gentlewoman.

Ms. DEGETTE. The chair now recognizes Mr. Shimkus of Illinois

for 6 minutes.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Mr. Secretary,

thanks for being here. A couple things. I just want to just for clarification, in the discussion with Joe Barton—of course, he has great

interest in FutureGen and so do I. Your response to him was, we

will make the decision on location. Didn’t you really mean the alliance will make the decision?

Secretary BODMAN. Yes.

Mr. SHIMKUS. And that is important.

Secretary BODMAN. That is right. I think that is right, yes.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Because we are going to be highly competitive in

this field. We think science— and when you have all these different

partners in the FutureGen project, they are going to look at all

these variables and I would say that is kind of an arm’s length

transaction from the political environment that——

Secretary BODMAN. I think your criticism is valid.

Mr. SHIMKUS. No, it is just clarification.

Secretary BODMAN. Well, no, I think it is a correction.

Mr. SHIMKUS. And I think some of my colleagues will want to get

more knowledgeable because the alliance aspect of this project is

I think very important. The issue too, and I gave you kind of a

heads-up, the coal-to-liquid debate. When the President made the

State of the Union, he talked about the alternative fuels and had

the increase in alternatives, he to my disappointment didn’t mention coal-to-liquid but we were informed that the word ‘‘alternative’’

meant also the option of coal-to-liquid. Is that your understanding

as to the alternative debate?

Secretary BODMAN. That is my understanding.

Mr. SHIMKUS. That is great. Rick Boucher and I worked last year

and dropped a bill and we will do so pretty soon again and we

31

would just like for your input and advice and counsel on what we

are now terming price collar based on a loan application where the

industry puts in and above a certain ceiling price and they can recovery from the treasury based upon input if it goes below a floor.

We think it is going to score well, in fact, we are hoping a budget

neutral score because there is going to be money in early over a

certain ceiling price, and we would ask for your help and assistance

and due diligence on that. We are very, very excited about it and

we are seeing great fluctuations right now in the market and of

course based upon your business background, the higher the risk,

the higher the fluctuation, the cost of capital goes higher and

makes it more it more difficult to do, and this eases that because

we want to get that first plant on the ground and of course you

know that the first plant will make it opportunistic for other plants

to be developed. That also addresses our concerns on carbon dioxide

issues but that is the whole sequestration issue that FutureGen is

premised on and all these other research projects——

Secretary BODMAN. And the seven partnerships that exist

throughout the country.

Mr. SHIMKUS. And I encourage that. We know we can geologically store natural gas. We have done it for decades now in parts

of the country. We don’t think carbon dioxide is going to be a problem but I know we have to jump through the hoops. I want to now

just briefly turn to the renewable aspect of E–85 and I am very

pleased with where we are at. I applaud the administration. I am

on my third flex-fuel vehicle now. It is a Jeep Commander. I have

got 20 retail locations in my—I mention this all the time, and on

average, 20 cents cheaper a gallon. So in parts of the country it is

there and it is an opportunity for choice. There is a problem on infrastructure that you are aware of and this—Denny Hastert is recovering and he asked me to also address this concern. What are

you doing to ensure that the infrastructure is in place to provide

to meet the demand for E–85, and it is really the certification issue

and United Laboratories aspect and we have pumps and facilities

that aren’t being certified, they can’t be used, and can you address

that on the infrastructure side?

Secretary BODMAN. Yes, there are two questions at least on the

infrastructure. One is getting sufficient flex-fuel vehicles manufactured, and that is something that the President talked with the

CEOs of at least the American manufacturers.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Well, I have had a Ford Taurus, I have had a Ford

Explorer and now I have a Jeep Commander. They are out there

for the public to buy and many people don’t even know they have

them.

Secretary BODMAN. I understand that, and we are attempting to

get to be better known and to have the companies take a role in

that regard. The second part are the pumps and we are working

directly with the, I think it is Underwriters Laboratory to certify

the type of pump that needs to be installed so that we can get the

kind of protection that the insurance companies demand and so I

am optimistic that that will get done this year.

Mr. SHIMKUS. And I hope as we move on the global warming debate, of course my friend Mr. Markey already raised some points,

but he is also the number one opponent to nuclear power, and the

32

issue is, if global warming and the carbon debate is critical to meet

our electricity generation demand and needs, the nuclear portfolio

has to stay strong and it has to expand.

Secretary BODMAN. I agree with that very strongly.

Mr. SHIMKUS. And so we just want to help make that case, especially from the emissions side, and with that, I appreciate your

time. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I yield back.

Ms. DEGETTE. Thank you. I now yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Green.

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Welcome, Mr. Secretary.

Secretary BODMAN. Nice to see you, Mr. Green.

Mr. GREEN. Good to see you. I know we ran into each other a

couple weeks ago coming back from Houston. Mr. Secretary, what

can you update—I know Mrs. Cubin actually asked an earlier question but I would like an update on the energy loan guarantee program that was funded in the CR that the House passed. Assuming

the CR signed by the President, does the Department of Energy

have a time frame for some of the decisions to be made? And also,

obviously from our area, I have mountains of petroleum coke sitting there that we would like to see some of those things, the loan

guarantees the same as we would do for goal, and is there a time

frame we can look for for a decision?

Secretary BODMAN. Well, as I mentioned before, that my understanding is that we will require a rule to be promulgated. Six

months would be record time. We already are working on the rule,

anticipating that we get the CR that we think we are going to get

although I never want to count— as I have learned in dealing with

Congress, I never count my chickens until they are there. And so

if we were to get that rule done in 6 months, if we were to have

grants made a year from now, we would be doing well.

Mr. GREEN. Well, I know we will be visiting for our committee

on a bipartisan basis. We have an interest because that is again

some alternatives we could utilize. A few of the potential technologies such as FutureGen, zero emission coal-powered plants, or

the widespread adoption of biofuels has the capability to change

the game in terms of CO2 emissions. If we are facing a high probability of increasing global warming and a major regulatory regime,

it could be far-ranging restrictions over many decades. Should we

be engaging in more crash-course projects to make sure we get results as fast? It sure would be better if we could solve our global

warming with technology instead of regulation, especially since regulation won’t be global whereas the problem is global. Could you

just address that?

Secretary BODMAN. Well, I agree with you. We are doing everything we know how to do in order to accomplish an improvement

in the fuel mix that we have available to us, and we are happy to

get advice and counsel from members of this committee or others

if there are other things we ought to be doing.

Mr. GREEN. I think all of us would love to see the problem solved

technologically instead of regulation.

Secretary BODMAN. I agree with that, sir.

Mr. GREEN. And that goes across national lines. Let me jump

ahead on one. We hear that cellulosic ethanol is more efficient than

33

corn-based ethanol and more compatible with our existing fuel supply infrastructure. Is that generally the opinion of the Department?

Secretary BODMAN. Cellulosic ethanol would be produced over a

broader range of States. That is the advantage that it has and so

the goal here would be to have a series of regionally based industries based on different sorts of cellulose that could be grown within a State or a group of States in a region and so that is why it

is—and also, cellulosic ethanol has a substantial advantage in

terms of its contribution to global warming problem, namely that

it has a more substantial reduction in carbon dioxide emissions

than corn does.

Mr. GREEN. Well, and I know the interest of I think a lot of

Members and we are hearing it the last few weeks, that it would

be important for our renewable fuels policy to have a feedstock

neutral so we don’t pit our cattle raisers against our corn growers,

and I would hope the Department will pursue that objective when

we deal with those policies. My last question is, I would also like

to raise the issue of carbon sequestration in oil and gas production.

When exploration companies drill for oil and natural gas, they

often inject carbon dioxide gas into the underground rock formations to create pressure to put that product out. The fact that they

reinject the CO2 underground has two benefits. One, the gas does

not contribute to our global warming, and it creates a demand for

others to capture that CO2. For those reasons, I want to make sure

the Department of Energy works with this particular industry due

to their expertise with the DOE dealing with carbon sequestration,

and can the Department give us a commitment that we would like

to see that expanded, particularly when we are dealing with oil and

gas that we could sequestrate that CO2?

Secretary BODMAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. GREEN. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I actually

yield back a minute.

Ms. DEGETTE. Thank you very much, Mr. Green. We all commend you, and I am now pleased to recognize Mr. Stearns from

Florida for 5 minutes.

Mr. STEARNS. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Mr. Secretary, I

am just pulling up here on my little Web here. It says northern

Michigan is experiencing among the top-10 coldest starts ever in

the last 100 years. When you read this kind of information, does

it confirm or not confirm global warming?

Secretary BODMAN. I don’t think it is relevant, sir.

Mr. STEARNS. So when I read different parts of the country are

experiencing the coldest they have ever had in 100 years, that has

no relevance on the debate?

Secretary BODMAN. No, sir, I don’t believe so.

Mr. STEARNS. And why is that?

Secretary BODMAN. The existence of global warming as an issue

comes from observation, namely the fact that the temperature has

increased on average for the world coupled with an analysis of carbon dioxide percentage in the atmosphere, that also reaching a

record, coupled with an analysis done in part using Department of

Energy computers of various models that have been organized and

developed and worked on by scientists who work for some 12 or 13

different agencies within this Government.

34

Mr. STEARNS. Well, we have had a hearing on this and there was

some debate upon the statistical information that was used to come

up with these figures. Are you aware of any of that analysis that

there is some controversy on it?

Secretary BODMAN. Yes, I am aware of it.

Mr. STEARNS. So based upon that, some people would indicate

that it is still not scientifically 100 percent proven that the figures

that you quoted, the increased warming is accurate. Would that be

a fair statement?

Secretary BODMAN. Would it be a fair statement to say that some

people say that? I don’t happen to subscribe to that, as I suggested

to you, but it would be a fair statement that some people believe

that. I don’t.

Mr. STEARNS. Let me start out by saying there is some talk about

focusing on solar energy and biomass, ethanol. At the University

of Florida in my congressional district, they are developed new, innovative technologies for the conversion of renewable biomass into

fuel. We have 15 million acres of forestland and 10 million acres

of farmland, so Florida has a tremendous potential to become a national leader and producer of bioenergy. And so my question is, the

President has laid out his initiatives for biomass and alternative

fuels in his State of the Union recently. How will these goals be

met and how much is DOE proposing to spend on them and are

there other agencies that are involved?

Secretary BODMAN. We are spending what to me is a lot of

money in the 2008 budget that is before you, $180 million roughly

to be spent on cellulosic ethanol. We are proposing to spend significant amounts of money on wind, on solar energy, on electric transmission, all of which will contribute to the delivery of renewable

energy to large markets. So I am satisfied that we are spending a

good deal of money in our Department that is coupled with a similar kind of funding stream, even higher, I believe, for the Agriculture Department for their funding of work in exactly the area

that you mentioned, developing cellulosic-based ethanol.

Mr. STEARNS. I would to commend, as others have, the administration’s proposal to increase the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and

the Advanced Energy Initiative as part of the administration’s

overall strategy for reducing Americans’ dependence. The President

has called for this expansion .5 billion barrels to 1.5 billion barrels

and DOD has budgeted $168 million in fiscal year 2008 to begin

that process. If you could, please describe the long-term plan for

the Strategic Petroleum Reserve if you can just briefly.

Secretary BODMAN. First of all, the current reserve consists of

five different locations, two in Texas, two in Louisiana. The total

amount of oil in the reserve today is 690 million barrels. We have

enough funds to start purchasing oil at a rate of about 50,000 barrels per day, which is a very small fraction of what we use in this

country. It is like 2 percent. And so we will start that in the next

couple of months through a Presidential order to spend—we have

$500 million or so that we have in the kitty that we would set

aside from the sale previously of oil after Katrina and Rita that we

expect to get about a year from now. Late this year we expect to

have completed the purchase and to be back in a position where

we have 727 million barrels, which is the current capacity. The EnVerDate 11-SEP-98 14:37 Jun 04, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 Q:\DOCS\110-3 SCOM1 PsN: SCOM1
35

ergy Policy Act indicates that we are to expand the size of the SPR

to 1 billion barrels. We have a plan in place to do that that involves

the selection of a fifth site in Richton, Mississippi. We expect that

to take the next 5 years to get that built, to get two of the four

facilities expanded and then to add additional oil to it, and it will

take 5, 6 years before we accomplish that. The next half a billion

barrels will come after a thorough analysis and will take until 2027

to accomplish.

Mr. STEARNS. Thank you.

Ms. DEGETTE. The chair now yields herself 6 minutes. Mr. Secretary, let me add my thanks for you coming today. I want to talk

about a couple of issues. The first one is renewable energy. Both

the President in his State of the Union speech and you today in

your testimony have made it clear that this administration has a

goal of transitioning to renewable energy. Is that correct?

Secretary BODMAN. We have a goal of having renewable energy

as a far greater component of our motor fuels in our country, yes,

ma’am.

Ms. DEGETTE. Thank you. And in order to achieve that goal, it

would seem to me that we would have to have a national commitment to scientific research. Is that correct? We need more research

into renewable energy in order to increase that use?

Secretary BODMAN. That is fair, yes.

Ms. DEGETTE. I am really concerned therefore about the funding

cuts that the administration has proposed to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, which is in my home State of Colorado,

and which is the preeminent research facility on renewable energy

and energy efficiency in the world. According to the budget, it looks

to me like the 2007 requested amount was $187.5 million and this

year the Department is requesting a cut. They are requesting

$181.5 million. Is that correct?

Secretary BODMAN. This is for work on cellulosic ethanol?

Ms. DEGETTE. This is for the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden, Colorado.

Secretary BODMAN. No, I know that, but we are requesting about

$180 million for just renewable energy or just cellulosic ethanol,

much of that, most of that to be spent at NREL.

Ms. DEGETTE. Well, according to the DOE 2008 budget, the

NREL budget request for 2008, the entire NREL budget request is

$181,508,000 versus last year where the request was roughly

$187.5 million, right?

Secretary BODMAN. That is accurate, yes.

Ms. DEGETTE. So my question is, if we really are going to have

a commitment to renewable energy, how can we justify a cut to the

NREL budget?

Secretary BODMAN. The NREL budget has a number of different

initiatives. The budget for cellulosic ethanol, which is the component that you started asking me about, is going to increase by a

substantial amount over that which we requested last year.

Ms. DEGETTE. And is that research being done at NREL?

Secretary BODMAN. A lot of it is, yes.

Ms. DEGETTE. So what the administration is proposing then, if

I hear you correctly, is a big increase for cellulosic ethanol and

36

then you would have to drastically cut over types of renewable research, correct?

Secretary BODMAN. I don’t have the breakout of what work is

being done at NREL, and I would be happy to take the question

for the record and I would be happy to give you an answer.

I don’t have a working number on it. I would also tell you that

I think that as we work our way through this, it is highly unlikely

that we will end up with NREL being reduced.

Ms. DEGETTE. Well, I think you are right about that and I think

the reason is because just as in the continuing resolution where

Congress, the Democratic Congress put more money, I think Congress will increase these funds. But what I am concerned about is,

if the administration really has a commitment to renewables. It

would seem that in your budget for NREL, you would be asking for

an overall increase and not just really robbing Peter to pay Paul,

one type of renewable versus another.

Secretary BODMAN. I understand, and I don’t have an answer to

that, but I would be happy to get it for you.

Ms. DEGETTE. The other thing I will let you know, and this is

something else you should explore, Mr. Secretary, last year the

DOE tried to lay off 32 workers. In fact, they did lay off 32 workers

at NREL and then the President was scheduled to go there the

next week for a press conference at NREL and so they hurriedly

hired all those 32 workers back before he could come and announce

his renewable initiative. So the other question I have is, does the

Department intend this year to lay off scientists at NREL? And if

you can look at that, because I think that is really a direction going

backward and I don’t think that the administration should say it

is committed to research into renewable energy and then be laying

off scientists, and I think you would probably agree with that.

Secretary BODMAN. I do agree, and I don’t expect that that would

be the case.

Ms. DEGETTE. OK. I just want to ask you one more thing, because this Los Alamos situation. Mr. Barton and I went down to

Los Alamos a couple of years ago and did a site visit where we had

a complete change. Everyone had been fired and we had a complete

change of administration down there. This was after the last security breach and they were instituting new technologies and new

personnel techniques and so on, and I commend you for making a

quick and decisive change in the leadership down there but I guess

I would say that we need to work together to make sure that we

get some continuity and some high standards because it can’t be

helpful towards our goal of securing that facility having these continual personnel changes.

Secretary BODMAN. I agree with that, and I will be happy to

work with this committee as well as other committees in Congress

to accomplish that.

Ms. DEGETTE. Thank you so much, Mr. Secretary. I am now

pleased to recognize Mr. Whitfield from Kentucky for 5 minutes.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and Mr. Secretary, we are delighted that you are with us this morning.

Secretary BODMAN. Thank you, Congressman.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you for the great job that you do in trying

to use more nuclear power. We have a 250-year reserve of coal,

37

more renewables, and we appreciate your effort in helping develop

clean coal technology. Mr. Secretary, as you know, USEC is operating the gaseous diffusion plant down in Paducah and it is the only

uranium enrichment plant operating in the country today, and the

Environmental Management Office in Lexington of course oversees

the environmental cleanup, and the Oak Ridge Operations Office

has historically managed the lease to make sure that USEC is complying with the terms of that lease, and they have always had a

contract and most recent there has been a firm named Hazelwood

that provides that service for Oak Ridge operations, and unless I

am mistaken, it looks like that in the fiscal year 2008 budget, that

money for that purpose has been zeroed out, and we have always

had some concern that there may be an effort made to move that

responsibility from Oak Ridge operations up to the Environment

Management Office in Lexington and merge that responsibility. A

lot of us have concern about that and it is certainly possible that

I misread the budget but I was wondering if you would make a

comment on that or you are aware of that.

Secretary BODMAN. I have no idea, sir. I would be happy to find

out for you and give you an answer.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Well, I would really appreciate that, and I know

in the past you all have been very good in getting back with a lot

of questions.

Secretary BODMAN. I will be happy to respond. I am unfamiliar

with that turn of events.

Mr. WHITFIELD. And then of course there has always been money

in the budget under safeguard and security at the USEC plant and

I have been told that the funding for that has been zeroed out for

fiscal year 2008 as well, and if your staff——

Secretary BODMAN. I would find that very surprising but again,

I don’t know that and I would be happy to respond to that question.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Well, I appreciate that very much and we look

forward to talking to your staff more about it as we go along.

Secretary BODMAN. Thank you, sir, very much. I appreciate it.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of

my time.

Ms. DEGETTE. The chair now recognizes the gentlelady from

California for 6 minutes.

Mrs. CAPPS. Thank you, Madam Chair, and again, Mr. Secretary,

as I said in the beginning, welcome to the committee, and thank

you for answering the questions and the ones I am about to pose.

As you know, the Department of Energy has been plagued for years

and through more than one administration by long delays in

issuing appliance efficiency standards. So far you seem to be meeting the aggressive schedule that you set last year for getting the

required standards out and I am pleased that you have asked for

additional funds, and we may get back to that topic, but however,

I am very concerned that recent proposed standards have been

weak and are not using the tremendous potential of this program

to address our energy needs. For example, the proposed home furnace standard is well below the norm that already exists in much

of the North. The only real savings from the furnace standard

would be if northern States were allowed to enact a higher standVerDate 11-SEP-98 14:37 Jun 04, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 Q:\DOCS\110-3 SCOM1 PsN: SCOM1
38

ard, and a similar situation exists in California. The State was prepared to put in place a new water efficiency standard for residential washing machines but just days before that rule was to take

effect on January 1, DOE denied California’s request to set the

standard. Californians could have saved a lot of money, water and

vast amounts of energy but we needed a Federal waiver to set the

new water standards, and why was it denied? Among the reasons

for this denial was the absurd, I believe, suggestion, and I am

going to put this in quotes, ‘‘that California failed to prove it has

unusual and compelling water interests.’’ We discussed where I

live, Mr. Secretary, in a coastal desert. Much of California treats

water like gold, and actually the delivery of water in California is

the single largest user of electricity. So we do have unusual and

compelling water interests and we have had these for decades. In

this case, instead of allowing a State to proactively and voluntarily

look inside its own jurisdiction for a way to save energy, the Federal Government actually stopped us from doing so, and I would

like to have you comment on DOE’s action, and also keeping in

mind the request by the northern States for home heating standards.

Secretary BODMAN. Well, first of all, I did ask about this at the

time that this was being done and I to be honest have forgotten

the rule. I will be happy to get it back to you. But there was a concern not that there were a lack of interest in water, I never heard

that before, but that there was a lack of legal standing that the

State had for some reason. There were other reasons offered in that

letter, I am sure, and I don’t have it there. I would be happy to

take a look at it or be happy to look it up. We have it. So it was

done on a, at least what I would term to be a technicality and not

on the merits of the case. I would also tell you that part of the reason that this Department has struggled, and this has been a bipartisan struggle, it has been back since the 1990’s that we have had

problems of setting proper standards of efficiency. When you set

things in our country, you mentioned furnaces in the North. Well,

furnaces in the North are different than furnaces in the South and

therefore one is required to set a standard and those standards are

a problem trying to deal across the board. So we are constantly

meeting with interest groups, both on the manufacturing side and

on the energy efficiency side, if you will, and we are attempting to

broker substantial interface and improvement by working together

with those two groups working together and it is that effort that

is yielding some significant results. We certainly didn’t achieve results for the State of California, and I will try to respond more fully

on that.

Mrs. CAPPS. I would appreciate an answer in writing on that

and——

Secretary BODMAN. I would be happy to do it.

Mrs. CAPPS. And it is also kind of ironic and difficult that the response didn’t come until 3 days before the end of the time and that

puts us again at 5 years until this can happen. I want to lead into

the question. I want to just beg that we do want Federal standards

whenever possible but you are right, we do have regional differences, and that is what the waiver process should be about, in

my opinion, to allow States to push ahead and sometimes the inVerDate 11-SEP-98 14:37 Jun 04, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 Q:\DOCS\110-3 SCOM1 PsN: SCOM1
39

dustries then will follow suit and then we get the desired result of

energy efficiency and that is the goal.

Secretary BODMAN. I understand.

Mrs. CAPPS. But back to the point that I did mention in the beginning when I commended you have gotten some increase in funds

and you set out an aggressive schedule, but I wonder if you could

tell us how you have analyzed the staffing and funding requirements to carry through the standards planned because there seems

still to be a bottleneck and some of the largest possible savings, for

example, some standards on furnaces and refrigerators are not included in the plan and thus won’t be considered for another 5

years. This seems to be a difficulty that should be surmounted, particularly with extra funds that you could for staffing.

Secretary BODMAN. Yes, I think that we will certainly encourage

that. I just will tell you that I don’t deal with the details of how

this happens but I do deal with the details that we have enough

resources and we have enough people and I have been satisfied

with what I have been told about our ability to comply with the

2011 date and getting back on a schedule that we have committed

to and so that is 4 years out, and we are committed to that.

Mrs. CAPPS. Maybe when you respond to the one question on the

washing machines, I could also hear how you plan then to implement along the path that you have to meet the standards.

Secretary BODMAN. I would be happy to.

Mrs. CAPPS. Thank you.

Secretary BODMAN. Thank you.

Ms. DEGETTE. Mr. Secretary, if I can inquire, we have, it looks

like, about six Members left to question and of course others may

come in, we don’t know. Would you like to have a 15-minute break

now or would you just prefer to go straight through?

Secretary BODMAN. I would rather get it done if we can get it

done.

Ms. DEGETTE. Thank you. That would be my preference as well.

The chair now recognizes Mr. Walden of Oregon for 5 minutes.

Mr. WALDEN. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I appreciate

it. Mr. Secretary, it is good to see you again. Thank you for the

work you are doing for the country. I want to thank you especially

for sending Dale Gardner out to the Oregon Institute of Technology’s renewable energy conference. We had invited you, and I

know your schedule is very complicated and we do appreciate sending Dale out there. There are some issues though that I would like

to raise with you. Of course, I would be remiss coming from the

Northwest if I didn’t raise some level of objection to the administration’s decisions regarding the Bonneville Power Administration

and the plan to capture the net secondary revenues above $500

million a year. We do appreciate the way this proposal came out

as opposed to the one last year which was going to set it in motion

immediately and rather this proposal at least allows and calls for

facilitation among various parties in the Northwest. So while we

appreciate that, we still obviously have concerns about the impact

this potentially could have on rates in the Northwest, and I want

to express that to you as I have before.

Secretary BODMAN. It is dutifully understood. I had the occasion

to testify before the Senate committee yesterday and there were a

40

number of Senators from northwestern States who offered even if

I say, even more vigorous tones——

Mr. WALDEN. I am not surprised.

Secretary BODMAN. I just would tell you what I told them, and

that is, in my judgment, there is a prudence about that that makes

sense to me just in terms of managing the business and trying to

put some money aside to save it for the future and you automatically pass everything through to your customers. I wouldn’t do that

if I were running a company and that is what we tried to encourage the management there to do, to think through, and that I think

is a reasonable and prudent thing to do.

Mr. WALDEN. And the notion that if we prepay debt which we are

on a schedule to pay now, agreed to by the Government, that if we

get into a problem we might be able to draw back on that.

Secretary BODMAN. That is the goal.

Mr. WALDEN. And that is a better proposal than just taking the

dollars off the top and never getting any——

Secretary BODMAN. No, and that is the goal.

Mr. WALDEN. Because you know how wide the swings can be in

terms of——

Secretary BODMAN. I understand.

Mr. WALDEN. Unless you are better at predicting the weather

than anybody on television and tell us what the snow pack will be

and the runoff will be.

Secretary BODMAN. I can tell you, sir, that I am not.

Mr. WALDEN. I appreciate that. I also want to raise some concerns about the funding specifically for the geothermal research

that again has been zeroed out in this budget and I have objected

to this before. As fate would have it, not only do we have this wonderful renewable resource center at Oregon Institute of Technology,

one of their great focuses is on geothermal energy production and

how you take what is sort of scientifically known and then convert

it into something that is practical, and there is some really exciting

opportunities in that field. Many parts of the country, and indeed

many parts of my district where existing known geothermal resources are, there are some new technologies they tell me could result in much lower temperature production of power among other

things, and I know the administration has been committed to advancing the idea of renewables and new technologies and research,

so I hope you would take another look at that. I know we will in

the Congress again but it is I think an essential element.

Secretary BODMAN. It would be of interest to me if the reason

that it has been zeroed out is that the general thesis is that the

research has been done. This is a matter now of applying the technology that has already been developed and getting it into the marketplace. Queried what role should the Government play, that

should be something the private sector does. But if there are areas

for research, and there are different voices on this subject, I would

like to know about it personally.

Mr. WALDEN. I would be happy to get that——

Secretary BODMAN. If you would do that for me, I would appreciate it.

Mr. WALDEN. It sort of reminds me of that old story, I think it

was out of the patent office, that somebody at the turn of the cenVerDate 11-SEP-98 14:37 Jun 04, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 Q:\DOCS\110-3 SCOM1 PsN: SCOM1
41

tury said we really didn’t need one because everything that had

what could be invented has been invented and I am finding even

in the area of warm water in the ground, they are finding new

technologies, new ways to——

Secretary BODMAN. Well, this whole area of what role the Government should play and how much we should do, it is very difficult to discontinue anything. Once you start down a path, it is

hard to discontinue anything once you get going because people

like it and they——

Mr. WALDEN. I understand.

Secretary BODMAN. Members of your committee like it. I am sure

I will hear more about it later.

Mr. WALDEN. And I appreciate that position, so we will continue

to——

Secretary BODMAN. We tried to be reasonable and tried to make

a judgment on where to put the money.

Mr. WALDEN. And we will help you even be more reasonable.

How is that?

Secretary BODMAN. All right.

Mr. WALDEN. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Ms. DEGETTE. The chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Doyle, for 5 minutes.

Mr. DOYLE. Thank you. Mr. Secretary, welcome and thank you

for spending all this time that Members can ask questions. Mr.

Secretary, I can’t think of anything more important to the future

of our country than lessening and hopefully somebody eliminating

the need to go outside our borders for oil and for energy. It seems

to me that we would not be in Iraq today had we had energy independence in the country and there is nothing more important. I

have voted for every energy bill that has come out of this committee since I have been a member of this committee. I have advocated

for a diverse portfolio of nuclear energy. I just can’t tell you how

frustrating it is to see that this is not being given the priority our

country needs to give this. I can’t think of anything more important, and every year we hear talk when the budget comes out, we

have lost more money in Iraq that we can’t even account for than

what we spend on making energy independence a priority, and it

is very frustrating. I was happy to hear you tell Mr. Shimkus that

coal-to-liquids was part of your definition of alternative energy

sources, and I have a question for you, sir. My State, Pennsylvania,

was about to become the first State in the Nation to site a plant

that would convert waste coal into zero-sulfur diesel fuel and home

heating oil. It was an $800 million project. The Department of Energy in 2003 had committed a $100 million zero-interest loan as

part of this project. Site preparation for this project started just

this past fall and construction was to start this spring of 2007. In

the President’s budget, this $100 million zero-interest loan was rescinded. I wonder, Mr. Secretary, if you could speak to me about

this rescission and why just as we were about to put online a facility that would have converted 1.4 million tons of waste into 60 millions gallons of fuel, that we have pulled the plug on this?

Secretary BODMAN. That particular project, there had been an inability on the part of the company and my Department to reach

agreement on the terms of whatever the loan was, and as I underVerDate 11-SEP-98 14:37 Jun 04, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 Q:\DOCS\110-3 SCOM1 PsN: SCOM1
42

stand it, we have been working at this for 4 years. This grant was

originally made some 4 years ago.

Mr. DOYLE. Two thousand and three. That is correct.

Secretary BODMAN. And our folks were of the view that the

project was not going to be real, I am just telling you that that was

the report that I was given. It was not going to be accomplished

and that they did not have a financial plan that held together and

therefore for that reason, that the financial viability of this program was called into question and that was the reason for the rescission.

Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Secretary, I would ask that you revisit this with

your staff. We have information quite to the contrary. Governor

Rendell and the State of Pennsylvania, which is also contributing

considerable funds to this project, has come out publicly and asked

the President to revisit this rescission in the budget. All indications

that are given to us is that this project is ready to start construction in a matter of months, so it is hard for me to understand how

we could have such different information on where this project is,

and I would ask that you at the very least revisit this with your

staff, and I would be interested if you could forward to my office

all of these reasons for the rescission so that we can address them

and make sure that at least we all agree that the facts are the

same.

Secretary BODMAN. I would be happy to do that, sir.

Mr. DOYLE. Thank you. I appreciate that. Mr. Secretary, in his

State of the Union address, the President said we must continue

changing the way America generates electric power by even greater

use of clean coal technology. The concern I have is every year we

hear good words but actions don’t seem to follow the words, and

while funneling money into FutureGen, a project that I think has

minimum support of industry and is way behind where it should

be, given the President’s goal, we are continuing to cut money from

clean coal programs in order to fund this other initiative at the

NETL, which is just outside my district and in Congressman Murphy’s district, they are seeing their core coal research program

being cut by $28 million while their oil and gas programs which

were getting $60 million have been eliminated. At the same time,

$149 million of clean coal technology deferred funding which was

to be used for the next clean coal power initiative solicitation has

been sent back to Treasury. The President has also stated that

these technologies will help us be better stewards of the environment and help us to confront the challenges of global climate

change but we are terminating a $23 million program, innovations

for existing plants, that is entirely concerned with the development

of environmental technologies necessary for the existing fleet of

coal-powered generation. We are talking about over 1,500 power

plants that provide 52 percent of the Nation’s electricity. And finally, the oil and natural gas research programs that are being zeroed out provide funding to 5,000 small, independent oil and gas

companies that employ an average of less than 20 people. Can you

explain to me how gutting all these programs helps further the

President’s goals that he states his State of the Union address?

Secretary BODMAN. One, oil and gas, oil at $60-plus a barrel, natural gas at 780 MCF. In the President’s view, and I subscribe to

43

it, that there is plenty of incentive for industry to develop whatever

technology needs to be developed in order to accomplish that. Secondly, with clean coal, I just simply have different numbers. At

least my number of the clean coal part of what goes on in fossil

energy is $385 million, up from $281 million in last year’s request,

up from $314 million the year before.

Mr. DOYLE. I will check our numbers and maybe you can send

me yours.

Secretary BODMAN. I would be happy to.

Ms. DEGETTE. The chair recognizes Mr. Gonzalez from Texas for

5 minutes.

Mr. GONZALEZ. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Welcome,

Mr. Secretary. My apologies, a lot of us have other things we——

Secretary BODMAN. No, I understand entirely. Not a problem.

Mr. GONZALEZ. But thank you for your patience and also I want

to tell you that I am quite impressed with the breadth of knowledge, specific questions to specific projects, so either you keep up

with everything or you have one heck of a staff that——

Secretary BODMAN. Well, I know the latter is true and I would

like to think the former is also accurate.

Mr. GONZALEZ. It is usually a combination. Now, it has been refreshing in the State of the Union address by the President, your

own remarks and what is coming out of the Department of Energy,

there seems to be a real emphasis now on alternatives, renewables,

biofuels, everything that we have been talking about for a number

of years but I never really believed that the administration embraced. Would you say that that portion of this part of the portfolio

is essential and fundamental to an energy policy when we are talking about the renewables, the alternatives, the efficiencies, which

all equate to conservation?

Secretary BODMAN. Yes.

Mr. GONZALEZ. So and the reason I say that, and you know

where I am probably coming, will you say that we have finally

reached the point where conservation is a sufficient basis for a

sound, comprehensive energy policy? And to be fair with you, you

know where I am going, to Vice President Cheney’s remark in 2001

where he said conservation may be a sign of personal virtue but

it is not a sufficient basis for a sound, comprehensive energy policy.

What I am sensing is that we have reached that point I would have

to ask the Vice President, that it is not just a personal virtue anymore.

Secretary BODMAN. I think it is fair to say that conservation is—

I don’t know that I would call it the basis of a comprehensive strategy or policy but it certainly is an important component of such an

animal, so I would agree with that.

Mr. GONZALEZ. Now, regarding ethanol, I am from Texas, and

you know how that works because you are very knowledgeable, but

the oil industry people made some comments recently on ethanol

and this is somebody in the San Antonio area. He said because gasoline demand is growing 1.5 percent to 1.7 percent a year, and I

am paraphrasing here—biofuels reaches 35 billion gallons, that is

not enough to keep up.

Secretary BODMAN. I am sure it is. The goal that the 35 million

gallons would accomplish would be that 20 percent of the thenVerDate 11-SEP-98 14:37 Jun 04, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 Q:\DOCS\110-3 SCOM1 PsN: SCOM1
44

amount of gasoline that we use would be alternative fuels 10 years

from now and so when you say—I guess I would respectfully disagree with whoever said that.

Mr. GONZALEZ. I wanted your opinion on it. Despite the growing

use—in other words, you are projecting out the next few years the

increased demand for standardized, good old gasoline is the way we

do it?

Secretary BODMAN. Yes.

Mr. GONZALEZ. And taking that into consideration, 35 billion

still——

Secretary BODMAN. The 35 million is 15 percent and then we accomplish the other 5 percent by the reduction of gasoline usage by

increasing CAFE standards for automobiles as well as trucks and

light trucks and SUVs.

Mr. GONZALEZ. And I know we are looking at hydrogen and others, how we fuel our vehicles, but ethanol is probably where we are

putting a big portion of our faith and investment. Wouldn’t you say

that?

Secretary BODMAN. Yes, sir, I would agree with that.

Mr. GONZALEZ. And part of it is so that we are not dependent on

foreign sources of energy, fuel, oil?

Secretary BODMAN. That is correct.

Mr. GONZALEZ. All right. And so in today’s paper we are now discussing agreements maybe with Brazil regarding ethanol, and what

is your view or your position regarding the degree that imported

ethanol will play in meeting some of our benchmarks?

Secretary BODMAN. First of all, I would not advocate changing either the tariff or the subside that exists. One lasts until 2009, the

other I think until 2010 or 2011, and as we start to approach that,

I would think that that was something that the administration and

Congress would work together to try to examine. There are a number of different proposals and ideas that I have heard and we

would like to share our views with yours and see if we can’t come

up with a proposal that makes sense.

Mr. GONZALEZ. And if you will indulge me, I have a few seconds

but I wanted to touch on, just give you a heads-up, we have a municipally owned utility company and we would like to make greater

investment in nuclear power, but there are no incentives when it

comes to municipal-owned utilities and representatives from CPS

Energy Company will be meeting with general counsel today from

DOE and I really would appreciate it if you could explore what

those incentives might be there that we may institute. Again, I

want to thank you for your patience, your time and your service.

Secretary BODMAN. Thank you. I appreciate that. Is it your view

that because of the municipally owned, that it is not eligible for

the——

Mr. GONZALEZ. That is my understanding, that under the law at

that time, that is what is being represented to me, and I really

would appreciate it if you would explore that.

Secretary BODMAN. That is a new one on me, and I will try to

take a look at it.

Mr. GONZALEZ. Thank you.

Ms. DEGETTE. The chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington State, Mr. Inslee, for 5 minutes.

45

Mr. INSLEE. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Many of us think the best

way to categorize the global warming challenge is a planetary

emergency, that it rises to that level, and that really to approach

it, we need to have an approach similar to John F. Kennedy’s effort

to go to the moon, and it takes that type of scope of national endeavor, and I have to say looking at the budget, I think we fall well

short of getting to the moon. I don’t think this plan will get it to

Cleveland when it comes to solving CO2, and I wanted to show you

a couple of charts while I talk about that, if we could get those up

on the screen. First one shows R&D budgets going back to the late

1970’s, 1978 on the left show our budgets. These are constant dollars, and you see over time they have shrunk down to 2005 we are

down here at less than a third of what we were spending during

the late years of the Carter administration investing in energy research, and you are not the only administration who has been short

in that regard. But I think this demonstrates how little we are investing in a planetary emergency relative to at least one other occasion where we were serious about energy, the late 1970’s, where

we actually increased our full efficiency of our cars by 60 percent.

If we look at the next slide, if you can look it, it compares our

declining investment in research R&D to other areas. On the left

it shows our energy investments in the little left-hand chart. We

had a spike during the Carter administration. It has been flat since

then. In the middle chart we show our R&D in health, and you see

it has thankfully gone up dramatically by a factor of eight or nine

during that same period. And on the right of the chart, the right

graph shows the increase in R&D for military R&D during that

same time period. What you will see is, in military R&D we have

this enormous increase in R&D but on another major threat to

America with global warming we have less than a third, now just

over a third with your budget, what we were spending in the late

1970’s, and I point this out because I think that our country is

going to have to come to grips with the scope of the challenge that

global warming faces and I just have to express that I think our

efforts are going to have to be much higher magnitude. I am going

to ask you a question about that in a moment.

Second, I ask you about the schizophrenia in the budget that I

had seen, and we are spending, you just told us, about $40 million

a year on clean coal technology on CGCC plants that might be able

to sequester CO2 some day, and I think that would be great. I support that research. But the problem is under your policies, no one

will ever build such a plant because under the President’s policies,

he doesn’t want to do anything to regulate carbon dioxide. He

wants to make it free for companies to put unlimited amounts of

carbon dioxide, which they do today, for free, at no cost, no regulation. They can put any gigatons of CO2 they want. As a result of

that, even if the taxpayers develop this technology, no one is going

to ever deploy it because under the Bush plan, he wants to let you

just keep putting carbon dioxide with no restrictions whatsoever

into the atmosphere, and I think that is a schizophrenic policy that

dooms us to failure to actually these new technologies deployed.

In the last slide I want to show you, I would like your comment.

If we can have the last slide up there? This shows the wheel-towheel global warming gas emissions per gallon for various sources

46

of fuel. First on the left is crude oil. The third bar I want to show

you is coal to liquids, and it is in two parts. It is CO2 emissions

on the light shade. The blue on this chart up here shows the tailpipe CO2 emissions and the last part is the production CO2 emissions, and what it shows is that the coal-to-liquids technology

which as I understand your budget and the President’s speech

would allow that to be considered a, quote, alternative fuel that

would get the benefits of your budget actually without sequestration has more CO2 emissions than crude oil and with CO2 sequestration or processing has essentially equivalent CO2, and this chart

actually shows a little bit more CO2 emissions than actually burning oil, so we are going, if not backwards, we don’t make any

progress on CO2 emissions. And you, as I understand, consider this

eligible for the alternative fuels credit. So my take on the budget

is a wholesale failure to really face this enormous challenge that

we have, one that I am very optimistic we are going to succeed in

eventually because we have got the know-how to do it and we are

going to grow markets, we are going to sell our technology to China

when we finally get this to be commercialized. So I would just ask

your comment on those observations, if you would?

Secretary BODMAN. Sure. First, in terms of the coal-to-liquids, I

would hope that part of this would be ways of sequestering the carbon dioxide that comes out of this process and so the production

part of this, I agree with you that in order to deal with coal-to-liquids, you have to account for the fact that you are producing a lot

of carbon dioxide in the production process, and one has to develop

technology to sequester it, so this would be dependent, in my judgment, on that effort to sequester carbon dioxide that we are already

working on. And as to the differences between the tailpipe, those

emissions are, at least it strikes me, are relatively inconsequential

differences from oil.

Mr. INSLEE. Just one closing comment. We are not going to be

able to solve this problem unless we put taxpayer money into CO2

reduction, and spending millions of dollars on something that does

not reduce CO2 emissions for a new fuel is not going to get us to

where we need to go, and that is my concern, and my time has expired.

Ms. DEGETTE. The gentleman’s time has expired. The chair recognizes Mr. Matheson from Utah for 5 minutes.

Mr. MATHESON. Thank you, Madam Chair, and Mr. Secretary, I

don’t expect you have detailed knowledge of the specific project in

Moab, Utah, but I am going to ask you about it anyway and we

may need a written response after we are done here.

Secretary BODMAN. Sure.

Mr. MATHESON. We talk about this a lot, and historically back

in 2000, Congress authorized moving the pile. There were some discussions about wanting to keep the pile in place in 2005. Going

through the record, a decision was issued to move the pile. And

then you and I had a discussion in a Science Committee hearing

about where the budget proposed last year showed what might

have been perceived as a smaller amount going into moving this

pile than what we would have needed to complete this in a reasonable time frame, and at the time we had a discussion about, OK,

you don’t spend the same every year. There is a ramping up, there

47

is associated timeline, and I would ask, if there was a sense of

what the timeline might be on a year-by-year basis to pay for this

project and I want to reiterate that request because I haven’t gotten an answer to that one yet about how we project doing this over

time in terms of dollars, how you budget it out over the years to

move this pile. The reason that I am particularly concerned about

this is that ultimately we have issued what is called a request for

task proposal. DOE issued that in just November of last year.

Secretary BODMAN. Right.

Mr. MATHESON. It should have been good news but what concerned me about it is, it talks about only cleaning up two and a

half million tons of a 16-million-ton pile, and I am curious why a

decision was made to break this apart and do a little bit of the pile

when the record decision said we are going to move the whole pile

anyway, and it just reflects a concern on my part about is there

a commitment to move this pile? Is there a rationale behind breaking this into two different contracts, and are we going to be talking

about this, or will this be talked about long after you and I are

both gone from being in this position?

Secretary BODMAN. I hope you are still here, sir. I am likely to

only be here for the next—in fact, for sure I will only be here for

the next 2 years and I will then have completed 8 years and I think

I will have completed my duty to my country. With respect to this,

this is something that the Department rightly or wrongly thinks

that we did the right thing. We made the judgment and we wrote

the ROD and we were the ones that made a decision that this was

the right thing to do is to move the entire pile.

Mr. MATHESON. I think that is the right decision.

Secretary BODMAN. Well, I would assume that you do so that and

we are committed to that. As to why the contract was broken in

half, I don’t know. We will get you an answer.

Mr. MATHESON. I would love to get a follow-up on that and also

the timing——

Secretary BODMAN. This is expected to take some 20 years to accomplish.

Mr. MATHESON. Well, that is news because we used to be talking

about it taking seven to 10 years and so——

Secretary BODMAN. Well, I am just telling you, at least the information I have, that 2028 is the schedule. It may be that this is a

matter that we have a lot of demands on our environmental management operation. We have a lot of demands on the budget, as you

I am sure are aware, and my guess is that that is the reason that

this was set up that way.

Mr. MATHESON. Well, if you would be able to follow up with just

explaining why we broke it into two and also what you think the

projected schedule is, I would appreciate it.

Switching issues, do you know how much the Department of Energy is going to spend on Divine Strake and other similar tests in

this fiscal year and the next fiscal year and which appropriations

acts those tests are funded from, from DOE, since you are the manager of the Nevada test site?

Secretary BODMAN. Well, it would be in the NNSA budget. That

would be coming out of that. That is where the test sites funding

comes from.

48

Mr. MATHESON. If you could give me follow-up, and I don’t expect

you to know this number but how much DOE plans on spending

on this test compared to what DOD is going to spend. I would appreciate it if you would follow up on that question.

Secretary BODMAN. Sure. I would be happy to do that.

Mr. MATHESON. The last question I wanted to throw at you was

about the reliable replacement warhead program. This budget provides about $89 million for it. The Navy is asking for an additional

$30 million. The Jason report, as I mentioned in my opening statement, on aging plutonium pits just came out and it seems to undercut one of the primary rationales for moving ahead with creating

these new nuclear warheads.

Secretary BODMAN. Right.

Mr. MATHESON. So I am wondering, and since we haven’t got a

design actually selected yet, I am wondering why we are now between your budget and the Navy looking at throwing $120 million

out of this year when we don’t have a design yet.

Secretary BODMAN. This is for the design. This is a major undertaking, and I believe that it is well justified. It is really unrelated

to the decision—not the decision but to the information we received

on plutonium aging that was encouraging because I was concerned

that we would have to deal with a very inherently unstable material. The weapons that we have in the stockpile today were designed at a time when our Nation was continuing to replace weapons on a regular basis. Every 4 or 5 years we got a new design,

a new weapon and therefore the design was done without adequate

tolerance for something that would have to last for many years,

that it was designed to only last 3 or 4 years and then it so we

had much more narrow tolerances in the overall approach to the

design.

So the goal of the reliable replacement warhead is to enable us

to design something that would have much greater tolerances built

into it, and where the Secretary of Energy and the Secretary of Defense each spring in the month of March—next month I have to

write a letter to the President as a part of my job certifying that

the weapons that, God forbid, if we need to use a weapon in the

stockpile that it will work. That gets harder to write every year.

This initiative is meant to deal with that question and to produce

a smaller number of replacement warheads to replace the stockpile

that we have.

Mr. MATHESON. I look forward to continuing the dialog. We will

submit written questions as well. Thanks, Madam Chair.

Ms. DEGETTE. The chair recognizes Mr. Murphy from Pennsylvania for 5 minutes.

Mr. MURPHY. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Secretary, I want

to go back to a point here about the National Energy Technology

Lab in my district which you visited and you know what fine work

they do there.

Secretary BODMAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. MURPHY. And I know you were talking about more money

that goes into FutureGen and other areas like that. What my understanding of the bill is that in the request for fossil energy research and development in 2008, it is $566 million as compared

with 2007 which was $592, a reduction of $25 million. There is also

49

some significant changes to fossil energy’s coal and power and oil

and gas programs, which I think are concealed on the appropriation. Specifically from the coal and power program, the existing

clean coal technology account of $257 million is eliminated by

transfer of $108 to the administration’s FutureGen initiative and

cancellation of the remaining $149 million. Also the $73 million

that has been allocated to the clean coal power initiative to conduct

a solicitation for fiscal year 2007, this amount together with the

prior year funding of what is likely to be available in 2008 is going

to be insufficient to make awards under the solicitation for 2008.

I see this is having been chipping away and pushing at the one

hand. We really understand we need coal, we have abundant supplies of it. We don’t have to fund both sides of the war on terror

when it comes to coal, but it is one of those things that I wish we

had the kind of energy, if you will pardon the pun, behind that of

looking at that much like we had under the launch of the moon initiatives we had back in the 1960’s. And so I am very concerned

about that. I wonder if you could elaborate any further, or if you

don’t have that information available today, I would appreciate if

you could get back to me with other information about that, how

we can continue to invest strongly in clean coal technology and the

National Energy Technology Labs.

Secretary BODMAN. I will be happy to get back to you on that.

I just would tell you it is the same answer I gave to Mr. Doyle a

minute ago that my figures show that we have significant increases

in the clean coal research area. I don’t have it broken out by laboratory so I don’t know what the funding would be for a particular

laboratory, but if that is what your question is, I will be happy to

get an answer for you.

Mr. MURPHY. Well, I would appreciate that because for that laboratory too, I know they do a lot of valuable work and have a long

legacy in terms of experience there, and although I understand

that sometimes the parties shift but when we have such an asset,

I hate to see funding cut where someone else starts up and every

couple years these sorts of things change, so please do that. I think

they are great people doing a lot of great work. The second thing,

you talked a little bit about nuclear. As you know, Westinghouse

Nuclear is headquartered in my district.

Secretary BODMAN. Right.

Mr. MURPHY. We are enjoying a lot of job growth there and obviously clean energy, and I am wondering with this, if other provisions in the budget are going to look at—if there are other things

you see in there that are going to encourage the construction of

more nuclear power plants and now we have the Yucca Mountain

issue and I know they are looking at about 20 power plants in

America, but do you see there is other things within that budget,

other initiatives that the Department of Energy will be looking at

to even push for more nuclear energy?

Secretary BODMAN. Absolutely. First of all, we are working on

Yucca Mountain, and a parallel and longer term effort, we are

working on GNEP, which is the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, which has to do with the treatment of, the recycling of or reprocessing of spent fuel. It is a way of getting at the spent fuel

problem. We still need Yucca Mountain but the goal is to reprocess

50

that fuel, extract more of the energy out of it that we have today

and still produce a waste that is much less toxic than the waste

that exists today from our standard utility plants. So that effort is

underway. And then the Energy Policy Act that you all passed, I

like to say it has every kind of incentive in there that one could

think of. It has got an insurance program at the back end. It has

got front-end loan guarantee provisions in the law. It has got production credits in the law. It has got all kinds of things that are

there, and we are doing our level best to encourage the development of more nuclear power in America.

Mr. MURPHY. I appreciate that. I know that we have a lot of

other issues too and I wish I had more time. I wanted to ask about

where we stand with some of the renewables like wind and solar,

et cetera. I don’t think if you could answer quickly, what level do

you think we can get up to in the next 5 to 10 years with regard

to using some of those renewables?

Secretary BODMAN. Wind energy, there is concern about a reduction in the amount of effort we are doing on wind. Wind has demonstrated that it is close to being economically viable and that the

goal, or the effort now has to be, how do we get the energy that

is produced by the wind devices to the marketplace and so we need

to worry more about transmission and we need to worry more

about the new technology for long-distance superconductivity, and

all of that is going on in another office, another part of the Department. So we are enthused about that. The President believes it can

be 20 percent of our total electricity, and that is a big number. It

is about 1 percent today.

Mr. MURPHY. Well, I appreciate that, Madam Chair.

Ms. DEGETTE. Thank you.

Mr. MURPHY. I hope that one of the things the Department of

Energy also can get us information on what we need to be doing

with those transmission lines, but I thank the——

Ms. DEGETTE. Without objection. The chair now recognizes Mr.

Barrow from Georgia for 6 minutes.

Mr. BARROW. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for being

here, Mr. Secretary. If I am not the last person to talk with you

today, I am getting close to the last, one of the guys you have been

waiting for today. I appreciate your patience in being with us

today. I want to follow up on some of the concerns that Mr. Boucher raised about getting this loan guarantee program but not just

along the lines that are of course of importance to him, clean coal

technology, but also to try and fund research and development of

cellulosic ethanol. I am going to put in a shameless plug for my

part of the country. I am old county commissioner and we would

have occasion from time to time to talk about what the highest and

best use for something is to try and decide how to zone some property.

Secretary BODMAN. Sure.

Mr. BARROW. And I think we need to apply that kind of thinking

toward ethanol production in this country because while I certainly

want to support corn to gas as much as possible, something tells

me that the highest and best use of corn isn’t necessarily putting

gas in our tanks. I don’t think America is going to want to be taking beef off the table, to be able to put gas in the tanks. But I can

51

tell you in my part of the country, we produce more cellulosic waste

doing the things we want to do and do better than they do anyplace

else in the world. We got pine waste and products that are a great

raw material. So I want to encourage you as your Department

moves forward in this area to look at cellulosic ethanol research

and development.

And back to Mr. Boucher’s concerns about the loan guarantee

program. If I heard you correct, I think I heard you say that the

Department would be doing well if we are cutting any kind of loans

or backing any loans by the end of the next year.

Secretary BODMAN. A year from now, I said, and I was just giving an honest——

Mr. BARROW. I just wanted to make sure I had—because you

didn’t say—you didn’t give us a hard deadline. You said you would

be doing well to be doing that, and it sounds like you would be

lucky to be doing that.

Secretary BODMAN. It takes 6 months to write a rule. We have

to write a rule, and you have to send out a notice of intent to write

a rule and then have to dod a draft.

Mr. BARROW. Well, we have got utilities and we got co-ops, we

got enterprises in this country that have never defaulted on a loan

before that are ready to go in this area. They need the full faith

and credit that you have offered in this program that is not going

anywhere, so whatever we can do to help you help us, please let

us know. We have got folks who need to go on this who can make

a lot of progress in this area if only we could free up that credit

that doesn’t seem to go anywhere.

Secretary BODMAN. I would just remind you, sir, that it is limited. I mean, remember, this is all kinds of industry are going to

be interested and I am concerned that the appetite——

Mr. BARROW. Which is why I prefaced my remarks with trying

to you all to try to think about this in terms of what has the longest term, most sustainable bang for our buck in renewable energy

development, and we have a lot of potential there that I want you

all to be aware of. Touching on the subject of the renewable fuel

mandates and the program to try and get 35 billion gallons a year

of renewable fuels by 2017, do you all have any idea of how many

flex-fuel vehicles we are going to need in order to be able to match

that supply? Because while we are straining and busting a gut

really to try and do incentives through credit, through research and

development, through direct grants, every way conceivable to make

sure that we have that kind of supply of renewable energy, what

are we doing to make sure that the demand is going to match the

supply, to make sure we have a sufficient supply so people can use

the stuff.

Secretary BODMAN. The problem we have is that we have 220

million vehicles roughly in America today so even as you sell 17

million a year, that takes you a long time to modify the averages,

if you will. So Detroit has committed, I believe, and I am hesitant

to give you a different answer if it turns out to be true but to

produce something like half of its vehicles in shape as a part of a

flex-fuel program, I think it is 4 years from now. It takes a number

of years in order to set up and operate and get in place the production activities so they have to plan well in advance and so——

52

Mr. BARROW. The point is, it is part of you all’s plan to make

sure that the supply of vehicles can meet the demand for this.

Secretary BODMAN. We are not ignorant of it. We are working on

it but it is a legitimate question as to we would like to do it frankly

without mandates, without saying you will have to produce so

many vehicles with such-and-such standard equipment and we

would like to do it without that. Obviously if it proves that we have

to do that, we will do it.

Mr. BARROW. One last thing. The Savannah River, which abuts

my district, drains a basis that serves both the Savannah River site

and Plant Vogel. Plant Vogel is probably the last commercial nuke

power plant in the country, if not the last to be commissioned. It

has got two cells with two more units are going to try to be put

online. Their unique concern is about the river that serves the surrounding riverside area. The environmental lab for the Savannah

River site is an institution long standing. I would like your staff

to look into how we can expand its mission and broaden its base

of support because it will provide a lot of support that we need in

order to do at Vogel what we want to do and to do at SRS what

we need to do. So I would like your staff to brief us on that so we

can expand their mission.

Secretary BODMAN. We would be happy to do that. As I think

about the laboratory, I was supposed to have been there last week

and then it was canceled but I think it is next week that I go so

I will be down there and get a chance to visit it personally, but

they have a lot of expertise in hydrogen because of the efforts of

the Savannah River site dealing with tritium.

Mr. BARROW. They are experts on hydrogen and they have developed a lot of groundbreaking work on groundwater and they have

been very good at that. They also have an advantage in that it is

the safest of all the laboratories that we have run in our whole district. That is something that is high on my list.

Mr. BARROW. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.

Secretary BODMAN. Yes, sir.

Ms. DEGETTE. The chair recognizes the gentleman from New

York, Mr. Engel, for 5 minutes.

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and thank you,

Mr. Secretary, for staying so long. I am sure it won’t be long now.

I mentioned in my opening remarks the Drive Act, which I am

doing with Congressman Kingston, which is H.R. 607 in this Congress. We dropped it in last year as the Kingston-Engel Bill and

we dropped it in this year, given the change in the politics in the

House as the Engel-Kingston Bill but the important thing is, is

that it is a bipartisan bill and we are trying to get as many people

on both sides of the aisle on the bill. I really think that the administration can go a long way in helping us to pass this bill. Everybody is talking about energy independence. The President mentioned it in his State of the Union last year, albeit briefly, and then

mentioned it more extensively this year. I spoke to the President

after the State of the Union about our bill when he was coming off

and last week at the Democratic retreat I spoke with the President

about it again and I think that this is something that we really can

make a difference in. It is modest but it is something I think that

is really doable, and last year frankly some of us went to the White

53

House to speak with the President and some of his aides. They told

both me and Congressman Kingston that there would be follow-up,

and there really wasn’t. So I am hoping that don’t kind of fall into

that this year. We believe that our bill would save 21⁄2 million barrels of oil a day by 2015 and 5 million barrels by 2025, which is

right in line with what the President said in his State of the Union,

and what our bill does, it helps U.S. automakers manufacture

more-efficient vehicles and provides the same performance consumers expect, so it is breaks both for the industry and for consumers

in terms of encouraging people to buy these cars.

Secretary BODMAN. How does it do it, sir? What does the bill provide?

Mr. ENGEL. Well, the bill provides tax incentives and tax breaks

for people who purchase these cars, for the industry to make these

cars. It mandates incentives for cellulosic biofuels, creates an alternative fueling infrastructure, funds for installation of alternativefuel pumps and things like that, and it provides incentives, tax

breaks to purchase these things. We don’t think it is an end-all and

a be-all and obviously we have got to build from there but we think

it is a great start, and we think it is a great bipartisan start and

it is a modest start and I really think this would be a great thing.

Another thing that is done in the bill is we talk about plug-in hybrid vehicles. It incentivizes the rapid commercialization of it, and

I am wondering if DOE has formulated plans to do that. Batteries

of plug-in vehicles are very expensive, and we want to see if we can

bring down the cost of batteries. So I am wondering if you can talk

about that, and I was a bit disturbed when I saw that the DOE

cut its funding request for vehicle efficiency research by $8 million.

That disturbed me a bit. I mean, $8 million isn’t a lot of money but

it is sort of an indication of what is important and what is not. So

I am wondering if you can——

Secretary BODMAN. Everybody has different comparisons they

are using with either the year before or 2 years before. My number

on vehicle technology is $176 million, up from $166 million, $10

million more than the 2006 request. It is true that it was $182 million in 2006, so depending on what one compares it with, it is up.

Battery technology is up some $15 million according to within that,

up some $27 million, so we are working to expand our efforts, research efforts with respect to batteries.

Mr. ENGEL. OK. I would like to obviously have more discussions

with you and your staff about this. I have one final question, which

is a somewhat parochial question. Indian Point nuclear power

plant in New York—and by the way, in your opening remarks I listened very carefully. You said that the administration looks at nuclear power as an important component.

Secretary BODMAN. Yes, it is.

Mr. ENGEL. I agree with that, and I never uttered a word about

Indian Point until after the September 11 attacks in 2001 when we

learned that one of the planes that hit the World Trade Center flew

directly over the Indian Point nuclear power plant which is less

than a 50 mile radius from Manhattan, and of all the power plants

in the country, that is the plant that is the closest to any major

metropolitan area, and of course, it is not just any metropolitan

area, it is the New York City metropolitan area. So we are conVerDate 11-SEP-98 14:37 Jun 04, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 Q:\DOCS\110-3 SCOM1 PsN: SCOM1
54

cerned and they are up for re-licensing and I am very unhappy

with NRC rubberstamping, what I regard as rubberstamping all

these things. It may be approved. I know my time is up and I just

want to ask you quickly, you mentioned Yucca Mountain in your

opening remarks, and what is the plan, since Yucca Mountain, if

it is ever built, is so far away and keeps getting pushed back. What

happens with the spent fuel at all these plants across the country

that really have no real place to go?

Secretary BODMAN. Your question is, what happens if I get Yucca

Mountain open?

Mr. ENGEL. Well, I think Yucca Mountain is not going to open

for a long time.

Secretary BODMAN. Well, we have it at 10 years out and the status quo would be unless Congress decides something other than

that would be the way it is situated the way it is now. Once we

get a license, under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, we are given

permission to discuss interim storage but I am precluded from

doing interim storage until I get a license. That is just the way is

written and so assuming I file and we get a license in a reasonable

period of time, you will be talking to a new secretary. I won’t be

here but the secretary would then be in a position to deal with this

matter at that point in time, would deal with interim storage and

you start setting this up. I sure wouldn’t create 30 different sites

the way one of the bills that was around last year suggested. It has

to be a smaller number.

Ms. DEGETTE. The gentleman from Arkansas, Mr. Ross, is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. ROSS. Thank you, Madam Chair, and Mr. Secretary, thank

you for joining us here today. One, let me just say that I am extremely disappointed that the administration is cutting the weatherization assistance program from $242 million in fiscal years 2006

and 2007 to $140 million in fiscal year 2008. The Department of

Energy has called it our Nation’s ‘‘most successful energy efficiency

program’’ and yet we are seeing this type of dramatic cut on America’s working families, especially the working poor. It is about priorities, and I think this gives us an idea of the priorities unfortunately of this administration. You did mention in your testimony,

sir, that in fiscal year 2008 there is going to be $180 million spent

on cellulosic ethanol research. My numbers indicate it is actually

$179 million, and you pointed out that that is actually an increase

over last year, and you are right, it is. It is a $29 million increase

over 2007. These are big numbers, at least where I come from, in

Hope, Arkansas.

Secretary BODMAN. I agree with that, sir.

Mr. ROSS. So let me put them in perspective in a way that I

would understand them and hopefully a lot of us will get a greater

perspective as we talk about priorities. The entire cellulosic ethanol

research budget is equal to less than 15 hours of the amount of

money we are going to spend in Iraq. We will spend more money

in Iraq in the next 15 hours than we are going to spend in fiscal

year 2008 on cellulosic ethanol research. I think that more clearly

puts into perspective what our priorities really are in investing in

alternative renewable fuels. We talk about it a lot. The administration talks about weatherization a lot and yet they cut the weatherVerDate 11-SEP-98 14:37 Jun 04, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 Q:\DOCS\110-3 SCOM1 PsN: SCOM1
55

ization funding. They talk about research and development a lot

and then they cut—if not cut, certainly do not properly fund cellulosic ethanol research. I am absolutely convinced—and by the

way, the $29 million increase over 2007 for cellulosic ethanol research amounts to about 3 hours of the amount of money—we will

spend more money in the next 3 hours in Iraq than we are going

to spend on the increase. So that is a couple numbers to put that

into perspective. The reason I raise that is because I represent 29

counties in Arkansas, about half the State, 21,000 square miles,

and in that area, included in that is a number of counties that fall

within the delta region, one of the poorest regions in the country.

Husbands and wives combined have an annual income of less than

$29,000 a year, and I really do believe that as a Nation if we will

properly invest in alternative renewable fuels like ethanol and particularly ethanol from cellulosic-based products, we can realize an

economic revival in the delta region of our country.

Finally, 2 weeks ago, Mr. Secretary, you said that the U.S. tariff

on ethanol imports probably would be lifted to meet President

Bush’s goal of increasing the use of renewable fuels. I am quoting

you, ‘‘We are probably going to need to remove the tariffs so we can

enforce more,’’ and that was your quote from a roundtable discussion at the World Economic Forum in Switzerland. Based on your

testimony today, perhaps you have reversed that position, but my

question is this: In order to meet the President’s goal of producing

35 billion gallons of renewable and alternative fuel by 2017, it is

necessary to maintain and create incentives that are favorable to

continue an expanded investment in renewable fuels. However,

your recent comments suggesting that the ethanol tariff be discontinued seem contradictory to that goal. Your statement seemed to

suggest that this county will be exchanging a dependence on foreign oil for a dependence on foreign renewable fuel. How does trading one source of foreign energy for another reconcile with our goal

of energy independence? Further, I am concerned that the administration continues to support tax incentives for oil and gas companies arguing that they are necessary to achieve energy independence but disavow similar treatment to the renewable and alternative fuels that you yourself, sir, stipulate will displace 15 percent

of projected gasoline usage by 2017? You suggest that you support

a decrease in foreign oil tankers in our ports but an increase of foreign ethanol tankers. Again, sir, how does this trading one source

of foreign energy for another meet the goal of energy independence?

Thank you.

Secretary BODMAN. One, I will try to answer. You have asked a

number of questions. Oil and gas, neither the President nor I support tax incentives for oil and gas companies. I have said that multiple times. That is not something the President advocated. It

wasn’t in the proposal and it was put in by those who wrote the

law, so that is comment one. Comment two, I was quoted as having

said what I said. I didn’t say that, and what I said was and what

I meant was, that this administration is an advocate for us looking

at the question of both the subsidy and the tariff closer to the time

when they run out so that we can then analyze it and work together to try to come up with something that makes sense. We

have had a very strong response on the subsidy side. We have a

56

lot of ethanol that is being manufactured in this country. One of

the questions will be, how much, how far, how fast, and we are also

going to get a sense of whether or not we are able to get cellulosic

ethanol commercialized. We are expecting that to happen over next

couple of years so we are working toward that end and so I have

an optimistic view.

I will conclude by saying I am the one that made the judgment

on weatherization and I understand that it is painful for some citizens in our country. I am able to do so much with the money I have

allocated to me and I made the judgment that I made, and that is

why are you looking at the proposal that I made.

Ms. DEGETTE. Last but never, ever least, the chair is pleased to

recognize the gentlelady from Oregon, Ms. Hooley.

Ms. HOOLEY. Thank you, and thank you, Mr. Secretary, for your

patience and your answers. There are a couple things I want to address, or have you address. One is, I also am from the Northwest

and BPA is an important part of our economy. What the President’s budget asks to do will increase 11 percent for ratepayers,

their energy prices at a time that we just sort of recovered from

a downturn in our economy. This would be devastating to our region. This is an agency that has never missed a payment to the

Government in 23 years, and in fact has prepaid $1.8 billion without raising in the last 6 years and we need that flexibility, and I

know you addressed that when you were talking to Representative

Walden, but again, I just want to emphasize our important BPA is

to our economy, and having this happen would just be devastating.

Secretary BODMAN. I appreciate your views, ma’am.

Ms. HOOLEY. There are some questions I have. First of all, we

have a lot of small businesses that are looking at putting together

biodiesel biomass programs. There are clearly some missing pieces,

distribution, having in the case of crushing seeds with canola. That

is a problem. Do you think it is appropriate that where you have

a viable source that is cost-effective and again to get us to that energy independence for the Government to step in and say here are

the missing pieces, this is where we are going to help out, provide

incentives, provide grants, provide loans?

Secretary BODMAN. That is what we are trying to do. We are trying to do it in a cost-effective way. We are trying to do it by doing

research, particularly on cellulosic ethanol, so that we can crack

the code, if you will, and see that we develop processes that can

be used by regions like Oregon, that have potential of growing cellulose in that region and making use of it, and perhaps you are already are growing it in the region and would make use of it. So

we are trying to do the research. We are also trying to work with

companies to encourage them to do research through growing efforts with us and we are having some success in that endeavor, so

I think there are areas where we are I think having very good programs that hopefully will deal with the question you raised.

Ms. HOOLEY. One of my universities, Oregon State University,

has been doing a lot of research on wave energy. Our State is obviously a State that is ripe for wave energy. What do you see a role

for that in the future?

Secretary BODMAN. I would be kidding you if I said I knew very

much about wave energy. I know that your university is leading

57

the activity in that area. I do know of all places from Utah there

is activity with a professor at the University of Utah that also has

an interest in this. I would be happy to put you in touch with our

assistant secretary for renewable energy because he deals with this

on a—Andy Carther deals with this every day and—not every day

but once a week he has got various activities involved in this. So

I would be happy to have you deal with him.

Ms. HOOLEY. I would like to have a conversation.

Secretary BODMAN. OK.

Ms. HOOLEY. And then my last question is, the two big issues

that are going to be talked about over and over and over again in

this Congress is energy independence, making sure that we have

our own energy supply in this country, and the other issue is going

to be climate change, global warming. I was just in the Science

Committee that had a hearing on this. Are you looking at how do

those two—as we develop our energy independence, is it also going

to be good for climate change and global warming and what we

need to do in that area? Are we coordinating these two efforts?

Secretary BODMAN. In most cases, they are very compatible, not

in every case as was mentioned on coal-to-liquids. I mean, that is

an issue we have to deal with, how to sequester carbon dioxide

coming from the coal. But that is what we are doing because we

have so much coal and so I think that is worth looking at. But

other areas, for example, cellulosic ethanol, 85 percent of the carbon that is emitted from the tailpipe of the car is saved because

the plant, the switchgrass or whatever plant grows, grows by absorbing carbon dioxide as part of the photosynthesis process and it

is very efficient and very effective in doing that and so only 15 percent of it is lost, 85 percent of it is gained and so you have a big

additional advantage in cellulosic ethanol and that is directly in

line with the President’s proposal.

Ms. HOOLEY. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for your patience and for

being here today.

Secretary BODMAN. Thank you very much.

Ms. DEGETTE. Mr. Secretary, thank you so much for appearing

in front of us and answering all of our questions so thoroughly. We

look forward to working with you and the rest of the Congress.

Secretary BODMAN. Thank you very much.

Ms. DEGETTE. The hearing is adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 1:20 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]

[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75