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

90–165PS 2004

WHAT ARE THE

ADMINISTRATION PRIORITIES FOR

CLIMATE CHANGE TECHNOLOGY?

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

NOVEMBER 6, 2003

Serial No. 108–35

Printed for the use of the Committee on Science

(

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

(II)

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE

HON. SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York, Chairman

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas

CURT WELDON, Pennsylvania

DANA ROHRABACHER, California

JOE BARTON, Texas

KEN CALVERT, California

NICK SMITH, Michigan

ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan

GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota

GEORGE R. NETHERCUTT, JR.,

Washington

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland

W. TODD AKIN, Missouri

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois

MELISSA A. HART, Pennsylvania

JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia

PHIL GINGREY, Georgia

ROB BISHOP, Utah

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas

JO BONNER, Alabama

TOM FEENEY, Florida

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas

RALPH M. HALL, Texas

BART GORDON, Tennessee

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas

LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California

NICK LAMPSON, Texas

JOHN B. LARSON, Connecticut

MARK UDALL, Colorado

DAVID WU, Oregon

MICHAEL M. HONDA, California

CHRIS BELL, Texas

BRAD MILLER, North Carolina

LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas

ZOE LOFGREN, California

BRAD SHERMAN, California

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington

DENNIS MOORE, Kansas

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York

JIM MATHESON, Utah

DENNIS A. CARDOZA, California

VACANCY

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois, Chair

CURT WELDON, Pennsylvania

ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan

GEORGE R. NETHERCUTT, JR.,

Washington

W. TODD AKIN, Missouri

MELISSA A. HART, Pennsylvania

PHIL GINGREY, Georgia

JO BONNER, Alabama

SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York

NICK LAMPSON, Texas

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois

LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California

DAVID WU, Oregon

MICHAEL M. HONDA, California

BRAD MILLER, North Carolina

LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee

RALPH M. HALL, Texas

KEVIN CARROLL Subcommittee Staff Director

TINA M. KAARSBERG Republican Professional Staff Member

CHARLES COOKE Democratic Professional Staff Member

JENNIFER BARKER Staff Assistant

KATHRYN CLAY Chairwoman’s Designee

(III)

C O N T E N T S

November 6, 2003

Page

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

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

Opening Statements

Statement by Representative Judy Biggert, Chairman, Subcommittee on Energy, Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives ........................... 8

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 9

Statement by Representative Nick Lampson, Minority Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Energy, Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives ....................................................................................................................... 10

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

Witnesses:

Mr. David Conover, Director, Climate Change Technology Program, U.S. Department of Energy

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 11

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

Biography .......................................................................................................... 16

Mr. George Rudins, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Coal and Power Systems,

U.S. Department of Energy

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 17

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 18

Biography .......................................................................................................... 22

Dr. Sally M. Benson, Deputy Director for Operations, Lawrence Berkeley

National Laboratory

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 23

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 25

Biography .......................................................................................................... 27

Financial Disclosure ......................................................................................... 28

Dr. Marilyn A. Brown, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Program,

Oak Ridge National Laboratory

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 29

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 31

Biography .......................................................................................................... 36

Discussion ................................................................................................................. 36

Appendix 1: Additional Material for the Record

Letter to Robert Card from Chairman Boehlert and Chairman Biggert, dated

October 17, 2003 ................................................................................................... 56

Letter to Chairman Boehlert from Robert Card, dated November 6, 2003 ........ 58

Report on Responses to the Request for Information Regarding the National

Climate Change Technology Initiative, U.S. Department of Energy ............... 60

(1)

WHAT ARE THE ADMINISTRATION PRIORITIES FOR CLIMATE CHANGE TECHNOLOGY?

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 2003

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

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:10 a.m., in Room

2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Judy Biggert

[Chairwoman of the Subcommittee] presiding.

2

3

HEARING CHARTER

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

What Are the

Administration Priorities for

Climate Change Technology?

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 2003

10:00 A.M.–12:00 P.M.

2318 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING

Purpose

On Thursday, November 6, 2003 at 10:00 a.m., the Energy Subcommittee of the

House Science Committee will hold a hearing to examine the Administration’s

progress on its climate change technology programs.

The Administration is significantly behind its own schedule for developing a climate technology research and development (R&D) plan. Meanwhile, the Administration is emphasizing one particular R&D project related to carbon sequestration,

which raises several fundamental policy and budget questions. (See below.)

Witnesses

The following witnesses will testify at the hearing:

Mr. David Conover is the Director of the interagency Climate Change Technology

Program (CCTP) housed at the Department of Energy (DOE). Previously, he was

Republican Staff Director & Chief Counsel of the Senate Environment and Public

Works Committee. Mr. Conover holds a J.D. from the Georgetown University Law

Center.

Mr. George Rudins is the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Coal and Power Systems

at the U.S. Department of Energy.

Dr. Sally Benson is Deputy Director for Operations at Lawrence Berkeley National

Laboratory (LBNL) and director of the Geological-Sequestration (GEO–SEQ) Project

supported by the Office of Fossil Energy. She was the Division Director for Earth

Sciences at LBNL from 1993 to 2001. She is a coordinating lead author on the geologic storage chapter of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)

study related to CO2 Capture and Storage.

Dr. Marilyn Brown is the Director of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy at

the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL). Dr. Brown recently co-led ‘‘Scenarios

for a Clean Energy Future,’’ a planning exercise that examined the potential role

of hundreds of technologies in reducing carbon dioxide emissions over the next two

decades. Dr. Brown serves on the Board of Directors of the Alliance to Save Energy

and the National Commission on Energy Policy.

Overarching Questions

The hearing will address the following overarching questions:

1. What milestones has the Administration set for its climate change technology programs? How are the Administration’s goals for its climate change

technology development programs linked to its goal of achieving atmospheric

stabilization of greenhouse gases, or to achieving its greenhouse gas intensity

goal?

2. How does the Administration determine which energy technologies qualify as

climate change technologies? How does the Administration set R&D investment priorities among these technologies? What weight should be given to

non-climate benefits such as improved economic efficiency, reduced emissions

of criteria pollutants, and enhanced energy security?

4

1 ‘‘President Bush Discusses Global Climate Change,’’ http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/06/20010611–2.html.

3. Why has the Department decided to place so much emphasis on geological

sequestration of carbon, a technology that is less likely than other technologies to have benefits unrelated to climate change?

Overview

• On June 11, 2001, President Bush announced the creation of two initiatives

to address climate change: the Climate Change Research Initiative (CCRI) to

address areas of scientific uncertainty, and the National Climate Change

Technology Initiative (NCCTI) to support applied research and demonstration

projects.1 At the working level, the CCRI was to be headed by the Department of Commerce, and the NCCTI was to be headed by the Department of

Energy. The CCRI has since been renamed the Climate Change Science Program (CCSP), and NCCTI has since been renamed the Climate Change Technology Program (CCTP).

• The science initiative has made significant progress over the last two years.

The CCRI released an interagency inventory of science activities in July 2002,

and a draft strategic plan in the fall of 2002. After extensive public comment,

it released its final strategic plan and program plan in July 2003.

• In contrast, the Climate Change Technology Program has not yet released a

review of existing climate-related programs or a strategic plan for technology

programs. In discussions with Science Committee, DOE Under Secretary Robert Card indicated that a draft plan for the CCTP would be released by July

2002. Under Secretary Card testified to the Committee in February 2003 that

a review of climate change technology programs would be complete by the

summer of 2003, but that deadline has passed as well.

• The Administration’s criteria for selecting and prioritizing climate change

technology projects have not been released for public comment.

• In February 2003, the Department announced a new ten-year, $1 billion

project, FutureGen, which is to build a prototype plant that would combine

the production of hydrogen and electricity from coal with geologic sequestration of carbon.

• On September 30, 2003, the White House Council on Environmental Quality

(CEQ) released a fact sheet outlining the Administration’s climate change initiatives. The fact sheet featured three major initiatives: the Hydrogen Initiative (the DOE program designed to develop hydrogen-based fuels and cars);

the international fusion experimental reactor known as ITER; and

FutureGen. All three of these initiatives involve technologies that are not expected to be available for widespread use for at least 10 or 20 years.

Current Issues

What criteria are being used by the Administration to determine which climate technology projects to undertake and are those the right criteria?

Most experts recommend that a climate technology R&D portfolio be balanced between shorter- and longer-term projects and among different types of technologies,

and that it be able to accommodate a variety of energy price and regulatory scenarios. The projects that the Administration labels as climate change technology are

all longer-term, but DOE does fund a wide variety of other R&D (e.g., energy efficiency) that could have an impact on greenhouse gas emissions.

How do the CCTP and other climate technology programs relate to the Administration’s stated greenhouse gas emissions goals?

On February 14, 2002, President Bush announced the Administration’s goal of reducing U.S. greenhouse gas emission intensity (the amount of emissions per unit of

production) by 18 percent by the year 2012. According to Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimates, U.S. emissions intensity will decrease by 14 percent

by the year 2012 in the absence of further action. Thus, the Administration goal requires a reduction in emissions intensity of four percent over ten years compared

to the baseline case.

In the same speech, the President stated that the goal of U.S. climate policy was

to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere, but did not say at

what concentration level or by what date.

5

2Fiscal Year 2004 Report to Congress on Federal Climate Change Expenditures, Office of

Management and Budget.

The Administration has given conflicting information about whether the objectives

of its climate change technology initiatives will be linked to its broader climate

goals. The Administration has also not identified the milestones it will use to evaluate the progress made under its climate change technology programs.

What were the criteria used to select carbon sequestration as a major climate change

technology initiative?

Carbon sequestration technologies refer to mechanisms designed to capture carbon emissions and store the carbon to prevent it from entering the atmosphere. Possible carbon sequestration methods include piping carbon dioxide deep into the

ocean or underground into geologic formations. The latter approach is referred to

as ‘‘geologic sequestration.’’

Carbon sequestration is significantly less mature than many other technologies

that could reduce greenhouse gas emissions, such as renewable energy and energy

efficiency technologies, and there are fundamental questions that still require research on such matters as the safety and long-term stability of geologic sequestration.

Moreover, carbon sequestration is harder to characterize as part of a ‘‘no regrets’’

strategy—that is a climate change strategy that provides benefits to the environment and the economy regardless of whether human-induced climate change turns

out to be a significant problem. For example, renewable energy and energy efficiency

technologies can reduce emissions of pollutants and dependence on foreign oil, as

well as reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Background

What is the Department of Energy spending on climate change technologies?

It depends on what is considered a climate change technology—a question made

more difficult by the lack of any plan for the CCTP. The Department of Energy

spent $2.7 billion in fiscal year (FY) 2002 on applied energy research, development,

and deployment programs. In a report to Congress, the Office of Management and

Budget estimated that in FY 2002 the government spent more than $3.7 billion on

climate change technologies, with $1.6 billion (43 percent of the total) spent at the

Department of Energy.2

What is FutureGen?

In February 2003, Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham announced the FutureGen initiative, a $1 billion, ten-year government-industry partnership. The

goal of the initiative is to build a prototype coal-fired power plant that would combine electricity and hydrogen production with geologic sequestration of carbon dioxide (CO2).

The FutureGen project would combine an Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle

(IGCC) mid-sized coal plant (275 megawatts) with processes to separate, capture,

and permanently store the CO2 emitted by the plant. Separating out the carbon

would leave a stream of hydrogen-rich gas that could then be combusted in a turbine, used in a fuel cell, or fed into a refinery to upgrade petroleum products. Once

captured, the CO2 would be injected deep underground into a geologic reservoir.

Experts in geologic sequestration emphasize that the selection of an appropriate

site will be critical to the success of the FutureGen project. For a site to be considered appropriate it would have to provide a high degree of confidence that the CO2

would be permanently isolated from the atmosphere. An exceedingly small (less

than 0.1 percent per year) leak rate for the stored CO2 would likely be needed to

ensure the intended climate mitigation benefits. Other important siting considerations include public safety and the ability to build comparable plants elsewhere

using similar geologic formations.

One concern with the FutureGen project is that it focuses on building an actual

plant while much basic research may still need to be done to answer fundamental

questions about the nature and feasibility of geologic sequestration.

What technological developments will geologic sequestration of CO2 require?

The technology to inject CO2 into geologic formations, developed for enhanced oil

recovery is mature and directly applicable to carbon sequestration. However, far less

is known about whether CO2 can be stored successfully for long periods of time underground in petroleum-bearing rock formations. Moreover, still less is known about

how to store CO2 in other, more common types of geologic formations, such as saline

aquifers (underground rock formations containing salt water).

6

Only one large-scale demonstration of carbon sequestration in a saline aquifer has

been done worldwide. This project, owned and operated by Statoil, Norway’s state

oil company, has injected about a million tons of CO2 into the Sleipner aquifer below

the North Sea since 1996. The Sleipner aquifer is an uncommon formation, and it

is unclear if the lessons learned on that project will be widely applicable.

Three types of reservoirs are candidates for geologic sequestration: depleted oil

and gas fields, unmineable coal beds, and saline aquifers. Characterizing these reservoirs—their geologic stability, their capacity to absorb CO2, and their rates of CO2

leakage—will be one of the primary technical challenges to geologic sequestration.

Depleted oil and gas fields are known to be geologically stable to a high degree

of certainty. Carbon storage in these fields builds on extensive experience with enhanced oil recovery using CO2. But depleted oil and gas fields are relatively few in

number, and at current rates of CO2 generation from energy use, all such reservoirs

would be filled in a matter of decades.

Injecting CO2 into unmineable coal seams could provide carbon storage along with

economic benefits through methane generation. Carbon dioxide injected into the

seam dislodges methane that is adhered to the surface of the coal, leaving the methane free to flow out of the seam. A pilot project of CO2-assisted coal bed methane

production has been underway in the San Juan Basin, New Mexico, since 1996.

Saline aquifers are plentiful throughout North America, and in theory could provide enough storage for carbon generated over centuries. Carbon dioxide injected

into the aquifers either slowly dissolves into the water within, or is converted to a

mineral form over decades. Technical questions remain about the long-term stability

of this type of carbon storage. Further work is needed to determine leakages rate

into drinking water and the atmosphere.

Another crucial area for further technical work is the development of adequate,

cost-effective monitoring systems. Monitoring of subsurface CO2 flows will be essential to ensuring that the CO2 contained in the reservoirs remains isolated from the

atmosphere. Monitoring is also important for achieving public acceptance of geological sequestration. In large concentrations, CO2 is an asphyxiant. Long-term carbon

storage will require sophisticated monitoring devices to detect escaping CO2 before

dangerous concentrations accumulate.

How are hydrogen technologies related to climate change?

The FutureGen project will be designed to produce hydrogen, which would help

accomplish the Administration goal of moving toward a ‘‘hydrogen economy.’’ Hydrogen is not a greenhouse gas, and has no known detrimental effects on the environment. Hydrogen can be produced from many sources other than coal with far fewer

environmental concerns. Some experts believe that the Administration may be placing too much emphasis on producing hydrogen from coal.

Questions for Witnesses

In the invitation to testify, the witnesses were asked to address the following

questions:

Mr. Dave Conover

1. When will the Administration release for public comment its draft strategy

for the Climate Change Technology Program (CCTP)? What milestones has

the Administration set for its climate change technology programs?

2. What were the total federal expenditures on climate change technologies in

fiscal year 2003? Please include a breakdown of these expenditures by agency, or by project. What are the proposed expenditures for fiscal year 2004?

3. How are the Administration’s goals for climate change technology development linked to achieving its stated greenhouse gas intensity goal, or to its

stated goal of achieving atmospheric stabilization of greenhouse gases? What

is the timeline for the latter goal?

4. How does the Administration determine which energy technologies qualify as

climate change technologies? How does the Administration set R&D investment priorities among these technologies? What weight should be given to

non-climate benefits such as improved economic efficiency, reduced emissions

of criteria pollutants, and enhanced energy security?

5. Why has the Department decided to place so much emphasis on geological

sequestration of carbon, a technology that is poorly understood and is less

likely than other technologies to have benefits unrelated to climate change?

7

Mr. George Rudins

1. What are the most important outstanding technical issues associated with

geologic sequestration of carbon dioxide? What technical questions will the

FutureGen project be designed to address? Is our state of knowledge sufficient to proceed with a full-scale carbon sequestration demonstration project?

2. How did the Department choose the scale and scope of FutureGen? How did

the Department determine the cost of this project? What levels of funding

will be provided by industry and international partners?

3. What factors will the Department consider in selecting geological sites for

carbon sequestration projects and experiments? What work should be done

prior to selection of the FutureGen site?

Dr. Sally Benson

1. What are the most important outstanding technical issues associated with

geologic sequestration of carbon dioxide (CO2)? Please describe the geologic,

environmental, economic, and technical uncertainties. What portion of these

uncertainties could be reduced through additional research?

2. Is our state of knowledge sufficient to proceed with a full-scale carbon sequestration demonstration project? By concentrating funding in one large

project, do we run the risk of moving to large-scale sequestration before the

technical uncertainties have been adequately addressed?

3. What factors should the Department consider in selecting geological sites for

carbon sequestration projects and research? What work should be done prior

to selection of the FutureGen site?

4. What are the costs of CO2 injection? How directly do the injection technologies developed for secondary recovery of oil apply to the injection of CO2

for sequestration?

Dr. Marilyn Brown

1. How would you define a well-balanced climate change technology portfolio for

the U.S.? Are there climate change technologies that you feel the Administration should give greater emphasis? What evidence do we have that R&D

investments in greenhouse gas mitigation technologies can deliver products

that industry, businesses, and consumers will choose to use?

2. If we counted the non-climate benefits of federal climate change R&D investments, such as improved economic efficiency, reduced emissions of criteria

pollutants, and enhanced energy security, would we be making the same investments we are now making?

3. The ‘‘no regrets’’ strategy pursued in the George Herbert Walker Bush Administration targeted cost-effective energy efficiency measures as the first

priority in funding projects to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. What

are our best quantitative estimates of the benefits from a concerted investment in cost-effective energy efficiency technologies? Please include estimates

of emissions reductions, improvements in GHG intensity, and reductions in

criteria pollutants, and economic benefits.

8

Chairwoman BIGGERT. The hearing will come to order. I want to

welcome everyone here today to this hearing of the Energy Subcommittee, the purpose of which is to review the Administration’s

progress on its climate change technology programs.

On June 11, 2001, President Bush announced the creation of two

initiatives to address climate change, the Climate Change Research

Initiative, CCRI, to address areas of scientific uncertainty, and the

National Climate Change Technology Initiative, now known simply

as the Climate Change Technology Program, or CCTP, to support

applied research and technology demonstration project. The Administration has made significant progress over the last two years with

respect to the science initiative releasing in July, 2002, an inventory of science activities across agencies that will fill the gaps in

our understanding of climate change. After extensive public comment, it released a final strategic plan and program in July of

2003.

In contrast, the Climate Change Technology Program is still at

the study line. The Administration charged the Department of Energy with leading the interaction CCTP effort back in July of 2001.

Since then, we have asked the Department for a report on its Climate Change Technology Initiative, and today, we did receive the

first down payment, or the first installment of the report, and I

hope that this will be addressed in somewhat in the hearing today.

Since I have not had a chance to read it, it is hot off the press,

nor have the other Members, so—but I would ask unanimous consent to include the report in the record at this time. So ordered.

[The information referred to appears in the Appendix.]

Chairwoman BIGGERT. The pieces that we have already had included, the President’s Hydrogen Initiative, the subject of a hearing

by the Full Science Committee earlier this year and one of the Administration’s major actions relating to climate change, according

to the White House Council on Environmental Quality. Another big

piece that we are aware of is the FutureGen, a new 10 year, $1 billion project to generate hydrogen electricity from coal while sequestering the carbon and geological formations. This will enable DOE

to demonstrate on a large scale that existing sequestration technologies and perhaps those still under development work on the

ground, or perhaps I should say work in the ground and work well

enough to convince investors to put their money into what hopefully becomes the next generation of coal power plants.

While we are talking about hydrogen, FutureGen, or sequestration, these initiatives could pay off substantially in the long-term,

not only by reducing emissions, the greenhouse gases, but also by

improving America’s energy independence. In the short-term, there

is much more R&D already underway at the DOE and other federal agencies that could result in technologies with immediate climate change benefits. Is this R&D and our resulting technologies

a part of the DOE’s Climate Change Technology Program? If so,

how did the DOE decide which technologies made the final cut for

inclusion in the CCTP.

But the questions don’t stop here. How will FutureGen and carbon sequestration programs build off and complement DOE’s existing energy efficiency and renewable energy programs. How will the

technology milestones for these programs help us meet the PresiVerDate 11-MAY-2000 23:13 Apr 08, 2004 Jkt 090165 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\WORKD\ENER03\110603\90165 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
9

dent’s goals of reducing the carbon intensity of our economy and

stabilizing atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases?

I am asking these questions because I want the DOE to succeed.

I think my colleagues here today share the sentiment. We want

FutureGen, carbon sequestration and all of DOE’s other climate

change technologies to work and to work well. I think we can all

agree that our investments in such technologies serve as a kind of

insurance policy against climate change, supporting a diverse portfolio of climate change technologies such as energy efficiency, carbon sequestration and carbon neutral energy technologies, including even nuclear energy, will provide us with the most insurance

coverage for the best price.

I want to thank the witnesses for sharing their expertise with us

today. I am confident that you can give us a first installment of

DOE’s plan and the promise of climate changes technologies like

hydrogen, FutureGen and carbon sequestration. So I look forward

to our discussion. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Lampson, the

Ranking Minority Member on the Energy Subcommittee, for his

opening statement.

[The prepared statement of Chairman Biggert follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN JUDY BIGGERT

The hearing will come to order.

I want to welcome everyone to this hearing of the Energy Subcommittee, the purpose of which is to review the Administration’s progress on its climate change technology programs.

On June 11, 2001, President Bush announced the creation of two initiatives to address climate change: the Climate Change Research Initiative (CCRI) to address

areas of scientific uncertainty, and the National Climate Change Technology Initiative, now known simply as the Climate Change Technology Program or CCTP, to

support applied research and technology demonstration projects.

The Administration has made significant progress over the last two years with respect to the science initiative, releasing in July 2002 an inventory of science activities across agencies that will fill the gaps in our understanding of climate change.

After extensive public comment, it released a final strategic plan and program plan

in July 2003.

In contrast, the Climate Change Technology Program is still at the starting line.

All we know is that the Administration charged the Department of Energy with

leading the interagency CCTP effort back in July 2001. Since then, we have asked

the Department on numerous occasions for a report on its climate change technology

initiative, and it has promised to provide one. At this point, the DOE is significantly

behind its own schedule to provide that report. We hope today to hear something

about what that report will look like, and when we can expect to see it.

Without this report, Congress is left to complete a puzzle for which we don’t have

the full picture, or all the pieces. The pieces we do have include the President’s hydrogen initiative, the subject of a hearing by the Full Science Committee earlier this

year, and one of the Administration’s major actions relating to climate change according to the White House Council on Environmental Quality.

Another big piece we are aware of is FutureGen, a new ten-year, $1 billion project

to generate hydrogen and electricity from coal while sequestering the carbon in geologic formations. This will enable DOE to demonstrate on a large scale that existing

sequestration technologies, and those still under development, work ‘‘on the

ground’’—or perhaps I should say, work ‘‘in the ground’’—and work well enough to

convince investors to put their money into what hopefully becomes the next generation of coal power plant.

Whether we are talking about hydrogen, FutureGen, or sequestration, these initiatives could pay off substantially in the long-term, not only by reducing emissions

of greenhouse gases, but also by improving America’s energy independence.

In the short-term, there is much more R&D already underway at the DOE and

other federal agencies that could result in technologies with immediate climate

change benefits. Is this R&D, and are the resulting technologies, a part of the DOE’s

10

climate change technology program? If so, how did the DOE decide which technologies made the final cut for inclusion in the CCTP?

But the questions don’t stop there. How will FutureGen and carbon sequestration

programs build off and complement DOE’s existing energy efficiency and renewable

energy programs? How will the technology milestones for these programs help us

meet the President’s goals of reducing the carbon intensity of our economy and stabilizing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases?

I am asking these tough questions because I want the DOE to succeed. I think

my colleagues here today share that sentiment. We want FutureGen, carbon sequestration, and all of DOE’s other climate change technologies to work and work well.

I think we can all agree that our investments in such technologies serve as a kind

of insurance policy against climate change. Supporting a diverse portfolio of climate

change technologies such as energy efficiency, carbon sequestration, and carbon-neutral energy technologies—including even nuclear energy—will provide us with the

most insurance coverage for the best price.

I want to thank the witnesses for sharing their expertise with us today. Despite

the absence of a report or plan for the CCTP, I am confident that you can give us

at least a sneak preview of the DOE’s plan, and the promise of climate change technologies like hydrogen, FutureGen, and carbon sequestration. I look forward to our

discussion.

Mr. LAMPSON. And I thank you, Chairwoman Biggert, for the

time to speak this morning, and for your putting together this

hearing, and I look forward to hearing the comments of all of our

panelists.

I know that when President Bush announced the criterion for

two climate change initiatives in June of 2001, it was hoped that

the Administration was beginning to focus on the climate change

problem. And while the Science Initiative at the Department of

Commerce has made a significant amount of progress since President Bush’s speech, the Climate Change Technology Program at

the Department of Energy has yet to share a view of—a review of

existing programs, or a strategic plan with this Committee, and I

understand that, you know, we have missed some deadlines and

certainly this report this morning is helpful and shows the good

faith that we, indeed, want, are most interested in, in as far as

reaching the completion and completing the review of climate

change programs, and we also do not yet know DOE’s criteria for

selecting and prioritizing these projects.

In the meantime, the White House Council on Environmental

Quality recently outlined the Administration’s major climate

change initiatives. These include the Hydrogen Fuels and Cars Initiative, the ITER Fusion Project and FutureGen, the billion dollar

prototype plant that will combine the production of hydrogen and

electricity from coal with geological sequestration of carbon, and I

am hopeful that we can hear from our witnesses today about the

criteria that this Administration is using to choose which climate

technology projects should be pursued.

I have concerns about pursuing research and development

projects that are not expected to be available for widespread use for

at least 10 or 20 years from now. We need to put more emphasis

on technologies and energy efficiency which could have real benefits today. I am also anxious to learn what technological benefits

the geologic sequestration of carbon will provide to help us in the

climate change arena.

Again, I thank our witnesses for joining us, and I look forward

to learning more about the Administration’s climate change—climate technology research and development plans, and I yield back

my time.

11

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lampson follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE NICK LAMPSON

Chairwoman Biggert, thank you for holding this hearing today on the Administration’s progress on its climate change technology programs. I look forward to hearing

from our outstanding panel of witnesses today.

When President Bush announced the creation of two climate change initiatives in

June of 2001, it was hoped that the Administration was beginning to focus on the

climate change problem.

While the science initiative at the Department of Commerce has made a significant amount of progress since President Bush’s speech—the Climate Change Technology Program at the Department of Energy has yet to share a review of existing

programs or a strategic plan with this committee.

It is my understanding that DOE has missed deadlines for releasing a draft plan

for the program and completing the review of climate change programs.

We also do not yet know DOE’s criteria for selecting and prioritizing these

projects.

In the meantime, the White House Council on Environmental Quality recently

outlined the Administration’s major climate change initiatives.

These include the Hydrogen fuels and cars initiative, the ITER fusion project, and

FutureGen, the $1 billion prototype plant that will combine the production of hydrogen and electricity from coal with geological sequestration of carbon.

I am hopeful that we can hear from our witnesses today about the criteria that

this Administration is using to choose which climate technology projects should be

pursued.

I have concerns about pursuing research and development projects that are not

expected to be available for widespread use for at least 10 to 20 years.

I am also anxious to learn what technological benefits the geologic sequestration

of carbon will provide to help us in the climate change arena.

Again I thank our witnesses for joining us today and I look forward to learning

more about the Administration’s climate technology research and development

plans.

Chairwoman BIGGERT. I would like to ask at this time for unanimous consent that all Members who wish to do so have their opening statements entered into the record. Without objection, so ordered.

It is my pleasure to welcome our witnesses for today’s hearing

and to introduce them to you. They are Mr. David Conover, the Director of Interagency Climate Change Technology Program, CCTP,

at the Department of Energy, welcome. And then, Mr. George

Rudins, the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Coal and Power Systems at the Department of Energy, welcome to you. Dr. Sally Benson, Deputy Director for Operations at Lawrence Berkeley National

Laboratory; and Dr. Marilyn Brown, the Director of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, welcome to you both.

As the witnesses know, spoken testimony will be limited to five

minutes each, after which the Members will have five minutes each

to ask questions, so we will begin with Mr. Conover.

STATEMENT OF DAVID CONOVER, DIRECTOR, CLIMATE

CHANGE TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Mr. CONOVER. Madam Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee,

thank you for this opportunity to testify today on the Bush Administration’s climate change technology priorities.

The Climate Change Technology Program, or CCTP, is a multiagency research, development and deployment coordination activity, organized under the auspices of the Cabinet-level Committee

12

on Climate Change, Science and Technology Integration. CCTP was

established in 2002 to implement the President’s National Climate

Change Technology Initiative. By focusing federal RD&D programs

on achieving the President’s climate change goals, both near and

long-term, our multi-agency organizational structure provides an

opportunity across the Federal Government, to develop a coherent

plan for climate change technology R&D.

Our draft plan should be available in the first calendar quarter

of 2004. As an initial part of the plan, we are establishing an inventory of climate change technology activities using a set of defined criteria. To be included in the CCTP inventory, R&D activities must be aimed at one or more of the following: current and future reductions in, or avoidances of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions; greenhouse gas capture and/or long-term storage; conversion

of greenhouse gases to beneficial uses in ways that avoid emissions

to the atmosphere; monitoring and/or measurement of emissions,

inventories and fluxes in a variety of settings; technologies that improve or displace other GHG-emitting technologies, thereby reducing emissions compared to technologies they displace; technologies

that could enable or facilitate the development, deployment and

use of other greenhouse gas emission reduction technologies; technologies that alter, substitute for, or otherwise replace processes,

materials and/or feed stocks, resulting in lower net emission of

greenhouse gases; basic research activities undertaken explicitly to

address a technical barrier to progress on one of the above climate

change technologies; greenhouse gas emissions resulting from clear

improvements in management practices.

Using the inventory as a baseline, we will then apply principles

to guide our investments. These principles include diversification,

the logical sequencing of R&D investments, systems integration

and planning in the face of uncertainty. Let me highlight three of

those. Diversification is important for several reasons. The potential magnitude of the technological challenge posed by climate

change makes it extremely unlikely that a single technology could

meet the challenge on its own. A diversified portfolio is a hedge

against the possibility that some advanced technologies may not be

as successful as hoped, while others in the portfolio could exceed

expectations. A diversified portfolio maintains the flexibility to respond to new information, and a diversified portfolio is better able

to balance short and long-term objectives.

The principle of sequencing R&D investments to quickly resolve

critical uncertainties and to demonstrate early the feasibility of determinate technologies is also very important and helps explain our

increased attention to carbon sequestration research. If large-scale

geological sequestration is proved successful, then continued use of

fossil fuels will be possible and future climate change strategies

could be built on existing infrastructure, thus accelerating progress

and avoiding the early, costly retirement of that infrastructure.

If large-scale geologic sequestration were to prove unsuccessful,

the longer-term climate change technology portfolio will need to

place even more emphasis on energy efficiency and zero emissions

technologies such as renewable energy and nuclear power.

The principle of recognizing uncertainty and planning for the

long-term requires a robust portfolio that can be successful under

13

a number of economic and energy policy scenarios. While nearly all

such scenarios rely heavily on further advances in energy efficiency, we will also need significant new sources of low carbon or

zero carbon energy supply. Thus, some investments focus on development of low carbon fossil fuel technologies that employ sequestration. Others focus on building a new energy backbone, envisioning increased roles for renewable energy and advanced concepts

for nuclear power.

Some activities are long-term, more risky, but potentially transforming technologies, such as fusion energy and advances in biotechnology. We also want to ensure that innovative, cross-cutting

technology ideas with significant potential to reduce, avoid, or sequester greenhouse gas emissions are not overlooked.

Using these principles and the professional judgment of the

interagency participants, the CCTP will assess the inventory of activities to clearly articulate priorities in the context of the President’s FY 2005 budget. These will likely be consistent with the Administration’s current priorities, such as the Hydrogen Fuel Initiative, FutureGen and fusion, which are well-aligned with our planning principles and are highlighted in my written testimony.

Madam Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, these current priorities and other climate change technology efforts together

constitute a diverse portfolio of energy technologies that has the potential to bring about dramatic improvements in our energy systems with significantly reduced greenhouse gas emissions.

I look forward to working with the Members of this Subcommittee as the Climate Change Technology Program moves forward in evaluating, making recommendations and reporting

progress on our technology-based approaches to address the risk of

climate change.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I look forward to

answering your questions.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Conover follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DAVID W. CONOVER

Madam Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee,

Thank you for this opportunity to testify today on the Bush Administration’s activities for climate change technology. My testimony will cover the mission and activities of the Climate Change Technology Program; criteria and principles for climate change technology investments; and some highlights of our current climate

change technology activities.

Climate Change Technology Program

As part of the President’s National Climate Change Technology Initiative,

launched on June 11, 2001, the President directed the Secretary of Energy, in coordination with the Secretary of Commerce and the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, to lead a multi-agency review of the Federal R&D portfolio and make recommendations. The Climate Change Technology Program (CCTP)

was established in 2002 to implement the President’s Initiative. I am the Program’s

Director.

The CCTP is a multi-agency research and development (R&D) coordination activity, organized under the auspices of the Cabinet-level Committee on Climate Change

Science and Technology Integration (CCCSTI). Participating federal agencies include

the Departments of Energy, Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Health and Human

Services, Interior, State, and Transportation, as well as the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and the National

Science Foundation.

14

The mission of the CCTP is to focus federal research and development activities

and deployment programs more effectively to help achieve the President’s climate

change goals, both near- and long-term. The CCTP provides a forum for interagency

exchange of information on on-going R&D activities. The CCTP’s multi-agency organizational structure provides an opportunity to develop, across the Federal Government, a comprehensive, coherent, multi-agency, multi-year plan for the development

of climate change technology. We expect a draft of such a plan to be available in

the first calendar quarter of 2004.

As the Subcommittee is aware, the recent Federal Climate Change Expenditures

Report to Congress reported that total federal expenditures for climate change technology research, development and deployment (RD&D) was $1.728 billion for FY

2003. The total amount requested in the President’s budget for FY 2004 was $1.759

billion. In FY 2003, these expenditures were broken down by agency as follows: Department of Energy, $1.583 billion; Environmental Protection Agency, $106 million;

and Department of Agriculture, $39 million. These amounts do not include substantial additional expenditures for climate change science ($1.722 billion) and international assistance ($276 million).

As part of our review of the federal RD&D portfolio, CCTP is developing an inventory of federal climate change technology activities using a set of defined criteria.

This process is designed to get a more complete picture of climate change technology

RD&D by ensuring that all CCTP member agencies analyze their portfolios using

consistent criteria. RD&D activities classified as part of the Climate Change Technology Program (CCTP) are those activities that are relevant to providing opportunities for:

• Current and future reductions in or avoidances of emissions of greenhouse

gases;

• Greenhouse gas capture and/or long-term storage, including biological uptake

and storage;

• Conversion of greenhouse gases to beneficial use in ways that avoid emissions

to the atmosphere;

• Monitoring and/or measurement of GHG emissions, inventories and fluxes in

a variety of settings;

• Technologies that improve or displace other GHG emitting technologies, such

that the result would be reduced GHG emissions compared to technologies

they displace;

• Technologies that could enable or facilitate the development, deployment and

use of other GHG-emissions reduction technologies;

• Technologies that alter, substitute for, or otherwise replace processes, materials, and/or feedstocks, resulting in lower net emission of GHGs;

• Basic research activities undertaken explicitly to address a technical barrier

to progress of one of the above climate change technologies.

• Greenhouse gas emission reductions resulting from clear improvements in

management practices.

The development of this inventory is a very important component of the CCTP’s

activities, and we look forward to sharing the results of this work with you and your

colleagues when it is complete.

CCTP Goals and Objectives

CCTP seeks to address both the President’s near- and long-term climate change

goals. In the near-term, the President has committed to the goal of reducing the

greenhouse gas intensity of the U.S. economy by 18 percent by 2012. Over the

longer-term, the President has reaffirmed the U.S. commitment to the 1992 United

Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which calls for long-term stabilization of concentrations of greenhouse gases in the Earth’s atmosphere.

The CCTP intends to develop the technological capability that will enable both

sustained economic growth and reduced risk of potential climate change and its impacts. Accordingly, the CCTP aims to accelerate the development and deployment

of new technologies that can significantly contribute to the accomplishment of the

President’s goals.

CCTP participating agencies are pursuing research, development , and deployment activities, as appropriate to their specific agency missions, that are consistent

with and supportive of the development of technology that can enable or advance

the achievement of the following CCTP goals:

• Reduce or avoid emissions from energy end-use and infrastructure

15

• Reduce or avoid emissions from energy supply

• Capture and sequester carbon dioxide (CO2)

• Reduce emission of non-CO2 greenhouse gases

The achievement of these CCTP goals will be pursued, in general, by stimulating

the science and technology enterprise of the United States, through coordinated federal leadership of its own R&D programs, and through partnership with others, at

home and abroad. Specifically, the CCTP seeks to pursue the following strategic objectives:

• Strengthen Climate Change Technology RD&D

• Strengthen Supporting Basic Research at Universities and National Laboratories

• Enhance Opportunities for Partnerships with Businesses, States and Others

• Increase International Cooperation on Related Science and Technology

• Support Cutting-Edge Demonstrations

• Improve the Means for Measuring and Monitoring Greenhouse Gases

• Support Exploratory Research of Novel Concepts

• Ensure the Education and Training of an Adequate Technical Workforce

The CCTP function is interagency coordination and prioritization, not direct support of research, development and deployment. As such, CCTP will not advance

these objectives directly, but will help agencies and programs that comprise the

CCTP to advance them by making recommendations to reallocate and refocus resources consistent with agency and program missions.

Principles for Determining Priority Programs

Our investments in climate change technology will be guided by a few basic principles, which include diversification, a logical order of technological development,

systems integration, and planning in the face of uncertainty.

Diversification of research and development activity is important for several reasons:

• The potential magnitude of the technological challenge posed by climate

change makes it extremely unlikely that a single technology could meet such

a challenge on its own;

• A diversified portfolio is a solid hedge against the possibility that some advanced technologies may not be as successful as hoped, while others in the

portfolio could exceed expectations;

• A robust, diversified science and technology capability will maintain the flexibility to respond to, and assimilate, pertinent information from other countries, institutions, or areas of scientific inquiry; and,

• A diversified portfolio is better able to balance short- and long-term technology objectives.

Sequencing of R&D investments in a logical, developmental order requires that

R&D investments should be evaluated upon:

• The expected times when different technologies need to be available and costeffective;

• The need to quickly resolve critical uncertainties; and,

• The need to demonstrate early the feasibility of determinant technologies.

These last two points help explain our increased attention to carbon sequestration

research. If large-scale geologic sequestration is proved successful, then continued

use of fossil fuels will be possible, and future climate change strategies could be

built on existing infrastructure for fossil fuels, thus accelerating progress and avoiding early and costly retirement of this infrastructure. If large-scale geologic sequestration were to prove unsuccessful, the longer-term climate change technology portfolio will need to be adjusted accordingly towards energy efficiency and zero-emissions technologies such as renewable energy and nuclear power.

Our R&D investments should also include attention to technology systems, including infrastructure, not just component technologies. The Hydrogen Fuel Initiative is

an example of adherence to this principle, as it includes R&D activities on all aspects of the hydrogen system, including hydrogen production, storage, and delivery

technologies, as well as fuel cells.

Finally, in setting R&D investment priorities, the CCTP recognizes uncertainty in

planning for the long-term and seeks to build a robust portfolio of technical activiVerDate 11-MAY-2000 23:13 Apr 08, 2004 Jkt 090165 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\ENER03\110603\90165 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
16

ties that can be successful under a number of economic and energy policy scenarios.

While nearly all such scenarios rely heavily on further advances in energy efficiency, we will also need significant new sources of low-carbon or zero-carbon energy

supply. Thus, some CCTP activities may focus on development of low-carbon fossil

fuel technologies that employ carbon capture and sequestration. Other activities

may focus on building a new energy backbone, envisioning increased roles for renewable energy, hydrogen, and advanced concepts for nuclear power. Some CCTP

activities may be focused on the long-term, more risky, but potentially transforming

technologies, such as fusion energy and advances in biotechnology. We also want to

ensure that innovative, crosscutting technology ideas with significant potential to

reduce, avoid, or sequester greenhouse gas emissions are not overlooked.

Priorities for the National Climate Change Technology Initiative

With these principles in mind and recognizing that not all climate change-related

activities can be priorities, the CCTP will assess the inventory of CCTP activities

and use professional judgment to clearly articulate its priorities in the context of

the President’s FY 2005 Budget. The priorities will likely be consistent with the Administration’s current priorities, which are well aligned with our planning principles. Some of these priorities are highlighted below.

• Hydrogen Energy. President Bush launched his Hydrogen Fuel Initiative in

this year’s State of the Union address. The goal is to work closely with the

private sector to accelerate our transition to a hydrogen economy, both on the

technology of hydrogen fuel cells and a fueling infrastructure. The President’s

Hydrogen Fuel Initiative and the FreedomCAR Partnership launched last

year will provide $1.7 billion over the next five years to develop hydrogen

powered fuel cells, a hydrogen infrastructure, and advanced automobile technologies, allowing for commercialization by 2020. The United States will pursue international cooperation to affect a more rapid, coordinated advance for

this technology that could lead to the elimination of air pollutants and a significant reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in the transportation sector

worldwide.

• ‘‘FutureGen’’—Coal-Fired, Zero-Emissions Electricity Generation. In February

2003, President Bush announced that the United States would sponsor, with

international and private sector partners, a $1 billion, 10-year demonstration

project to create the world’s first coal-based, zero-emissions electricity and hydrogen power plant. This project is designed to dramatically reduce air pollution and capture and store greenhouse gas emissions. This initiative is part

of an international Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum, chaired by the

Secretary of Energy, to work cooperatively with our global partners, including

developing countries, on research, development and deployment of carbon sequestration technologies in the next decade.

• Fusion Energy. In January 2003, President Bush committed the United

States to participate in the largest and most technologically sophisticated research project in the world to harness the promise of fusion energy, the same

form of energy that powers the sun. If successful, this $5 billion, internationally-supported research project will advance progress toward producing clean,

renewable, commercially-available fusion energy by the middle of the century.

Participating countries include the United Kingdom, Russia, Japan, China,

and Canada.

Conclusion

Madam Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, these programs and others

like them together constitute a diverse portfolio of energy technologies that has the

potential to bring about dramatic improvements in our energy systems with significantly reduced greenhouse gas emissions. I look forward to working with the Members of this Subcommittee as the Climate Change Technology Program moves forward in evaluating, making recommendations, and reporting progress on our technology-based approaches to address the risk of climate change.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I would be pleased to answer your

questions.

BIOGRAPHY FOR DAVID W. CONOVER

Appointed Director of the Climate Change Technology Program in January 2003.

The Climate Change Technology Program is a multi-agency research and development (R&D) coordination activity, organized under the auspices of the Cabinet-level

Committee on Climate Change Science and Technology Integration (CCCSTI).

17

Previously served as Minority Staff Director & Chief Counsel (2001–2003), Majority Staff Director (1999–2001), and Subcommittee Counsel (1999) to the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.

Prior to government service, was Federal Affairs Director for CH2M HILL, an

international environmental engineering, management and construction company.

Received degrees from the Georgetown University Law Center and the University

of Virginia. Licensed to practice law in the Commonwealth of Virginia.

Chairwoman BIGGERT. Thank you, Mr. Conover. Mr. Rudins, am

I pronouncing that correctly?

Mr. RUDINS. That is correct. Thank you.

Chairwoman BIGGERT. Thank you.

STATEMENT OF GEORGE RUDINS, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR COAL AND POWER SYSTEMS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Mr. RUDINS. Thank you, Madam Chairman and Members of the

Subcommittee.

In your letter of invitation, you requested I respond to specific

questions recording FutureGen and carbon sequestration, which I

attempted to do in my written statement, which I would like to

submit for the record. And in that context, I would also like to

make a short opening statement.

I am pleased to appear before you today, and in the context of

the FutureGen initiative and carbon sequestration, with much of

the Nation’s attention again focused on the security of global energy supplies, it is important to remember that we remain an energy-rich country. Today, coal is an indispensable part of our nation’s energy mix. Because of its domestic abundance and low cost,

coal now accounts for more than half of the electricity generated in

this country, and in the future, it can also be a source of clean hydrogen to fuel our future transportation fleet.

The challenge to keeping low coal—low cost coal available to fuel

our economic growth is related to environmental concerns. Environmental issues can adversely impact coal use, especially in the longterm, if mandatory CO2 controls are required. A solution to this

problem is the development of technology options that would eliminate environmental concerns associated with its continued use.

Over the last 30 years or so, the investment that we, the U.S.

Government and industry, have made in the development of coal

and clean coal technologies, has resulted in advancing of the state

of the art in this area to the point that it is now possible to develop

the technological capability to generate electricity from coal, coproduce hydrogen and virtually eliminate emissions, including the

CO2 emissions from the process, and do so, potentially, in a costcompetitive manner.

This is what the FutureGen project is all about. FutureGen is

one of the boldest steps toward a pollution-free energy future ever

taken by our nation, and has the potential to be one of the most

important advances in energy production in the first half of this

century. FutureGen will pioneer carbon capture and sequestration

technologies on a sufficient scale and an integrated fashion with

power generation and hydrogen co-production that it will establish,

if successful, the viability and affordability of this approach.

The ultimate goal for FutureGen is to show how new technology

can eliminate environment concerns over future use of coal. KnowlVerDate 11-MAY-2000 23:13 Apr 08, 2004 Jkt 090165 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\WORKD\ENER03\110603\90165 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
18

edge from FutureGen will help turn coal from a challenging energy

resource into an environmentally sustainable energy solution.

In conclusion, coal is the workhorse of our domestic electric

power sector, but it is also critical to the economic growth of key

nations around the world. The International Energy Agency

projects a 50 percent increase in worldwide coal use for the generation of electricity over the next quarter century. As a result, it

would be prudent to include into any comprehensive climate strategy a technology option capable of reducing or eliminating CO2

from the use of fossil fuels, such as carbon sequestration.

The fact that coal will be a significant world energy resource during the 21st Century cannot be ignored. Coal is abundant, it is

comparatively inexpensive, and will be used widely, especially in

the developing world. The global acceptance of the concept of coalbased systems, integrated with sequestration technology, is one of

the key goals of FutureGen. In addition, FutureGen in its ultimate

configuration could also push electric power generating efficiencies

into the 60 percent range, nearly double the efficiency of today’s

conventional coal-burning plants.

Thus, the FutureGen prototype plant would be a stepping stone

to commercial coal-fired power plants that not only would be emission-free, but also would operate at unprecedented fuel efficiencies

and co-produce low-cost, clean hydrogen from coal.

With that brief statement, I would be pleased to answer any

questions you may have. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Rudins follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF GEORGE RUDINS

Madam Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:

I am pleased to appear before the Subcommittee today to discuss the great potential that new technology, especially carbon sequestration technology, will play in

helping the Nation meet ever increasing demands for energy in the most efficient

and environmentally responsible manner possible.

With much of the Nation’s attention again focused on the security of global energy

supplies, it is important to remember that we remain an energy-rich country.

Today, coal is an indispensable part of our nation’s energy mix. Because of its

abundance and low cost, coal now accounts for more than half of the electricity generated in this country.

Coal is our nation’s most abundant domestic energy resource. One quarter of the

entire world’s known coal supplies are found within the United States. In terms of

energy value (Btus), coal constitutes approximately 95 percent of U.S. fossil energy

reserves. Our nation’s recoverable coal has the energy equivalent of about one trillion barrels of crude oil—comparable in energy content to all the world’s known oil

reserves.

At present consumption rates, U.S. coal reserves are expected to last at least 275

years.

Coal has also been an energy bargain for the United States. Historically it has

been the least expensive fossil fuel available to the country, and in contrast to other

primary fuels, its costs are likely to decline as mine productivity continues to increase. The low cost of coal is a major reason why the United States enjoys some

of the lowest electricity rates of any free market economy.

America produces over one billion tons of coal per year. Nearly all of it (965 million tons) goes to U.S. power plants for the generation of electricity.

According to the Energy Information Administration, annual domestic coal demand is projected to increase by 394 million tons from the 2001 level of 1.050 billion

tons to 1.444 billion tons in 2025, because of projected growth in coal use for electricity generation.

Largely because of improving pollution control technologies, the Nation has been

able to use more coal while improving air quality. While annual coal use for electric

19

generation has increased from 320 million tons in 1970 to more than 900 million

tons, sulfur dioxide emissions from coal-fired power plants have dropped from 15.8

million tons annually to 10.1 million tons in 2001, the most current year available.

In addition, particulates from coal-fired plants declined some 60 percent over the

same period, according to the Environmental Protection Agency.

Because coal is America’s most plentiful and readily available energy resource, the

Department of Energy (DOE) has directed significant R&D resources at finding

ways to use coal in a more efficient, cost-effective, and environmentally benign manner.

New government-industry collaborative efforts are getting underway pursuant to

the President’s Coal Research Initiative. These programs will continue to find ways

to limit emissions from power generation, at lower costs. The goal for FutureGen,

discussed later in my testimony, is to remove environmental issues, including greenhouse gas emissions, from the fuel choice equation by developing a coal-based zero

emission power plant.

The Next Generation of Power Plants

In the 1970’s, the technology for coal-fired power plants was generally limited to

the pulverized coal boiler—a large furnace-like unit that burns finely ground coal.

As part of DOE’s Clean Coal Technology Program, DOE and industry have demonstrated higher fuel efficiencies and superior environmental performance. For example, coal could be gasified—turned into a combustible gas. In gaseous form, pollutant-forming impurities can be more easily removed. Like natural gas, gasified

coal could be burned in a gas turbine-generator, and the turbine exhaust used to

power a steam turbine-generator. This ‘‘combined cycle’’ approach raised the prospects of unprecedented increases in fuel efficiency. Gasification combined cycle

(IGCC) plants built near Tampa, Florida (TECO Project), and West Terre Haute, Indiana (Wabash River Project), are among the cleanest, most efficient coal plants in

the world. The Wabash River Project, which is a repowering of an existing coal-fired

unit, resulted in a 30-fold decrease in SO2 and a five-fold decrease in NOΧ emissions. These projects have recently completed their demonstration phases and are

entering commercial operations.

The progress to date in developing these two IGCC demonstration projects—now

in commercial service—has laid the foundation for broader application of IGCC.

FutureGen—Zero Emissions From Cutting Edge Technology

Earlier this year, President Bush and Secretary of Energy Abraham announced

plans for the United States to build—with international and private sector partners—a cost-shared fossil fuel power plant of the future called FutureGen. It is one

of the boldest steps toward a pollution-free energy future ever taken by our nation

and has the potential to be one of the most important advances in energy production

in the first half of this century.

This demonstration power plant will accommodate some cutting-edge technologies

to the core demonstration facility. FutureGen will be a cost-shared $1 billion venture. While there has been no final decision on the appropriate cost-sharing, and

80/20 cost-share may be appropriate for those FutureGen activities that are prototype or basic research in nature and do not involve commercial demonstration. Demonstration activities would be cost-shared at 50/50. FutureGen will combine electricity and hydrogen production with the virtual elimination of emissions of such air

pollutants as sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and mercury, as well as carbon dioxide,

a greenhouse gas.

The Department envisions that FutureGen would be sized to generate the equivalent of approximately 275 megawatts of electricity, roughly equal to an average midsize coal-fired power plant. It will turn coal into a hydrogen-rich gas, rather than

burning it directly. The hydrogen could then be combusted in a turbine or used in

a fuel cell to produce clean electricity, fed to a refinery to help upgrade petroleum

products, or used as a fuel for a future hydrogen economy.

It will provide other benefits as well. FutureGen could provide a zero emissions

technology option for the transportation sector—a sector that accounts for one-third

of our nation’s carbon dioxide emissions.

In the future, the plant could become a model for the production of coal-based hydrogen with zero emissions to power the new fleet of hydrogen-powered cars and

trucks envisioned as part of President Bush’s Hydrogen Fuel Initiative. Using our

abundant, readily available, low-cost coal to produce hydrogen—an environmentally

superior transportation fuel—would help ensure America’s energy security.

Carbon sequestration will be one of the primary features that will set the

FutureGen plant apart from other electric power projects. Engineers will design into

20

the plant advanced capabilities to capture the carbon dioxide. No other electricity

power plant in the world has been built with this capability.

Once captured, carbon dioxide will be injected deep underground, into brackish

reservoirs that lay thousands of feet below the surface of much of the United States,

or into oil or gas reservoirs, or into unmineable coal seams or volcanic basalt formations. Once entrapped in these formations, the greenhouse gas would be permanently isolated from the atmosphere.

The project will seek to sequester carbon dioxide emissions at an operating rate

of one million metric tons or more of carbon dioxide sequestered per year. We will

work with the appropriate domestic and international communities to establish

standardized technologies and protocols for carbon dioxide measuring, monitoring,

and verification.

The FutureGen plant will pioneer carbon sequestration technologies tied to power

plants on a scale that will help determine whether this approach to 21st century

carbon management is viable and affordable.

What are the Most Important Outstanding Technical Issues Associated With Geological Sequestration?

Integrated operation of energy production and sequestration in the FutureGen facility is required to establish that technical issues associated with sequestration are

of no concern or can be readily managed during operation. Potential issues include

downtime of CO2 separation processes, and corrosion or plugging of the sequestration pipeline, wellbore, and formation, and leakage of sequestered CO2.

Geologic Sequestration can be divided into four overarching categories: Transport;

Storage; Measurement/ Monitoring/Verification (MM&V); and Infrastructure. For

each of these areas, a brief description of R&D approaches being taken to overcome

outstanding technical issues is provided. For Transport, R&D is developing an increased understanding and best practice strategies to minimize corrosion. For Storage, R&D is developing best practice strategies to identify optimal locations for candidate geologic reservoirs and reservoir management practices to maximize CO2

storage. This R&D will provide FutureGen with site selection guidelines and reservoir management practices throughout the lifespan of FutureGen. MM&V is critical to ensure permanence and safety of CO2 sequestration. R&D is developing technologies to minimize leakage and ensure permanent storage to below 0.01 percent

leakage per year. Developments in sub-surface tracking relative to seismic, gravitational and logging technologies are evolving to where movement of very small

amounts of CO2 in reservoir can be tracked. Methods to track surface leakage are

being developed to identify small surface leaks at nearly any point above the surface

of a geologic formation. Lastly, for Infrastructure, the Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum and Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnerships are developing the infrastructure, regulatory framework, and other sequestration protocols that are critical to both FutureGen deployment and, more importantly, subsequent widespread

deployment of the integrated FutureGen power plant.

What Technical Questions Will the FutureGen Project Be Designed To Address?

FutureGen will focus on integrating and demonstrating the technology needed to

economically remove the environmental constraints associated with producing energy from coal, especially those associated with the CO2 emissions. The FutureGen

project will demonstrate the technical and economic feasibility of zero-emission

power plants by integrating the production of electricity and hydrogen from coal

with the capture and permanent sequestration of CO2 generated in the process.

FutureGen will employ coal gasification technology, integrated with combined-cycle

electricity generation, hydrogen production, and capture and sequestration of CO2.

The goal of FutureGen is to conclusively show that using coal to produce electricity and hydrogen with zero or near-zero carbon emissions is a viable approach

for carbon management. To prove viability, the sequestration technology needs to

be demonstrated at a meaningful scale under real-world conditions. This requires

the operation of a large scale, integrated system. FutureGen may also accommodate

some cutting-edge technologies to produce electricity and hydrogen, which would

need to be integrated with CO2 sequestration technologies. Monitoring and verifying

the permanence of CO2 sequestration is a key part of the project. The geologic formations into which the CO2 will be sequestered will be heavily instrumented to

monitor and verify the permanence of CO2 storage. Monitoring and verification of

the amount of CO2 sequestered are critical issues in public acceptance of sequestration. Other elements are to: maximize storage potential; track CO2 movement in the

geologic formation; monitor for and mitigate surface leakage, if it occurs; and integration of CO2 capture and storage with the co-production of hydrogen and electricity.

21

Is Our Current State of Knowledge Sufficient To Proceed With A Large Scale Demonstration Project?

Our state of knowledge is sufficient to proceed with a large scale demonstration

project. The use of sequestration to reduce CO2 emissions is a relatively new idea.

DOE’s sequestration program is only six years old—a short time for a major technology development program. However, for more than 40 years the petroleum industry has injected CO2 into depleted oil and gas fields for enhanced oil recovery and

the disposal of acid gases that are produced from some gas and oil wells. The primary components of acid gas are CO2 (typically up to 90 percent), hydrogen sulfide,

and other trace contaminants. Hydrogen sulfide is lighter than CO2 and has a

strong smell even at concentrations of a few parts per million, making it easy to

detect. No significant leaks of hydrogen sulfide have been reported over the years.

Over 70 CO2 enhanced oil recovery projects inject more than eight million tons of

CO2 per year into oil reservoirs throughout the United States and Canada. Many

of these projects have been injecting at these levels for more than 20 years. The risk

of catastrophic release of CO2 is almost non-existent. No known hazardous CO2

leaks have ever been associated with leakage from a geologic formation.

Two large-scale carbon sequestration projects exist today. The first project is the

offshore Sleipner facility, owned and operated by Statoil, Norway’s state oil company. Located beneath the North Sea, the Sleipner field is one of the world’s largest

natural-gas fields, and is characterized by a high concentration of CO2, typically

around nine percent. To produce pipeline-quality natural gas, Statoil strips the excess CO2 from the recovered gas on its offshore production platform. The CO2 is

then injected into a saline reservoir 1,000 meters below the seabed. Since 1996,

Statoil has injected one million metric tons of CO2 per year. The project is partially

driven by a Norwegian tax credit of up to $35 per metric ton of CO2 sequestered.

The recently initiated Weyburn Project is the only other large-scale CO2 sequestration effort in existence. This project, organized by the Department of Natural Resources of Canada, has the dual purpose of enhanced oil recovery and carbon sequestration. Carbon dioxide from the Great Plains Synfuels plant in Beulah, North

Dakota is pumped 200 miles to the Weyburn oil field in southeastern Saskatchewan.

Over the project’s 20-year lifetime, 20 million metric tons of CO2 will be injected

into the Weyburn field. DOE’s sequestration program is supporting extensive measurement, monitoring, and verification efforts for both the Sleipner and Weyburn

large-scale projects.

How Did the Department Choose The Scale and Scope of FutureGen?

FutureGen will be designed to operate at a nominal 275 MW (net equivalent output), and may accommodate some cutting-edge technologies into the demonstration

plant to produce electricity and hydrogen integrated with CO2 sequestration technologies. This size is driven by the requirement for producing relevant data and by

the requirement for producing one million metric tons per year of CO2 to adequately

validate the integrated operation of the gasification plant and the receiving geologic

formation. Full scale demonstration is necessary to adequately address the integration issues including sequestration.

Since FutureGen is a first-of-a-kind project, the key cost risks include integration

of advanced technologies for power and hydrogen generation with sequestration, and

technologies at full-scale to capture and sequester large quantities of CO2.

How Did the Department Determine the Cost of This Project?

Estimated project cost is based on cost experiences with other projects including

ongoing large-scale sequestration projects as described earlier, and past coal gasification projects of similar size. DOE also accounted for the cost associated with using

advanced technology, built-in flexibility features to accommodate possible testing of

cutting edge subsystems and components, required instrumentation, the integration

aspects between the power facility and the sequestration facility, and finally the

operational costs for the demonstration period. On the basis of prior experience with

first-of-a-kind power projects, DOE projects a total project cost of $1 billion.

22

What Levels of Funding Will Be Provided by Industry and International Partners?

The funding required to accomplish FutureGen is expected to be $1 billion. A private-sector share of 20 percent will be required for those activities that are prototype or basic research in nature and do not include commercial demonstration while

those activities that are commercial demonstration will be cost-shared at 50/50.

DOE is also pursuing funding participation from domestic (e.g., states) and foreign

government entities.

What Factors Will the Department Consider Regarding Site Selection For Geological

Sequestration Projects and Experiments?

Site selection must consider many factors. Three considerations are the feedstock,

use of the products (electric power, hydrogen, and other by-products), and sequestration options. The ideal location requires geologic formations that may be the best

suited candidates for large-scale facilities. However, final site selection will be based

on comprehensive criteria derived from detailed geologic assessment.

The reservoir(s) selected for sequestration will be representative of geologic sites

commonly available throughout the United States. The candidate geologic formations include unmineable coal seams, depleted oil and natural gas reservoirs, deep

saline reservoirs, or other formations. Geologic sequestration may be coupled with

resource recovery in projects such as enhanced oil recovery or coalbed methane recovery.

What Work Should Be Done Prior to FutureGen Site Selection?

DOE plans to perform due diligence activities prior to site selection. The Sequestration R&D program, Regional Partnerships and Carbon Sequestration Leadership

Forum will work to identify the most appropriate areas of the country for candidate

sequestration formations. A Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS)

will be initiated in fiscal year 2004 which will identify environmental issues related

to geologic site selection and provide guidelines for geologic site selection activities

to support FutureGen.

Conclusion

The ultimate goal for the FutureGen project is to show how advanced coal-based

generation using carbon sequestration technology can eliminate environmental concerns over the future use of coal and allow the Nation to realize the full potential

of its abundant coal resources to meet our energy needs. FutureGen will show that

coal, an environmentally challenging energy resource, can be an environmentally

sustainable energy solution.

The fact that coal will be a significant world energy resource during the 21st century cannot be ignored. Coal is abundant, it is comparatively inexpensive, and it will

be used widely, especially in the developing world. Global acceptance of the concept

of coal-based systems integrated with sequestration technology is one of the key

goals of FutureGen.

Thus, FutureGen will demonstrate the commercial viability of a coal-fired power

plant that not only will be emission-free but also will operate at unprecedented fuel

efficiencies and co-produce low/cost, clean hydrogen from coal.

This completes my prepared statement. I would be happy to answer any questions

you may have.

BIOGRAPHY FOR GEORGE RUDINS

Mr. George Rudins has been with the Department of Energy (or ERDA - its predecessor agency) since 1975. Currently the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Coal and

23

Power Systems, within the agency’s Office of Fossil Energy, Rudins has served in

this position since 1998. Previous to that time, Rudins’ assignments within the Office of Fossil Energy included: Assistant Deputy Assistant Secretary for Coal R&D;

Director of the Office of Advanced Power Systems; Director of the Office of Advanced

Energy Conversion Systems; and, Director of the Office of Magneto-Hydrodynamic

(MHD) Systems. In conjunction with these assignments, Rudins’ management responsibilities included oversight of the Clean Coal Technology Demonstration Program, the Coal Research and Development Program, the Power Plant Emissions

Control Research Program, the Fuel Cell Research Program, the Gas Turbine Research Program, the MHD Research Program, the Coal Fuel/Diesel Engine Research

Program, and others. Rudins’ performance in his various assignments has been recognized through a number of awards, including a Presidential Rank Award. Before

joining the Department of Energy, Rudins was with the Rand Corporation (1970–

1975); prior to this he was with the National Academy of Sciences. Rudins received

a B.A. from Rutgers University in 1966.

Chairwoman BIGGERT. Thank you very much, Mr. Rudins. Dr.

Benson.

STATEMENT OF DR. SALLY M. BENSON, DEPUTY DIRECTOR

FOR OPERATIONS, LAWRENCE BERKELEY NATIONAL LABORATORY

Dr. BENSON. Chairman Biggert and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony on

this important and timely topic.

I am Dr. Sally Benson, a hydrogeologist at Lawrence Berkeley

National Laboratory, and I have been working on this since 1999,

with a team of geologists at my laboratory.

Today, nearly two million tons of CO2 are sequestered annually

in geologic formations at the Sleipner Project in the North Sea, and

at the Weyburn oil field in Canada. More commercial projects are

planned in Algeria, Australia and offshore Norway. In addition to

these successful commercial projects, the existence of naturally-occurring CO2 reservoirs proves that CO2 can be sequestered for hundreds of thousands of years or more.

Depleted oil and gas reservoirs are especially promising for longterm sequestration, because they have seals that have stood the

test of time. They are also attractive because CO2 sequestration

can be combined with enhanced oil recover, a mature technology

that is applicable to 80 percent of oil reservoirs.

The availability of a low-cost and abundant supply of CO2 could

be a boon to the domestic oil industry. A similar idea can be applied to enhance the recovery of natural gas from deep coal beds.

Now, to answer your question about the most important outstanding technical issues, sandstone reservoirs filled with salt

water, such as the Mount Simon Formation in the Midwest, the

Frio Formation along the Texas Gulf Coast and the Central Valley

of California are estimated to have the capacity to store hundreds

of years of CO2 emissions at today’s rates. That natural gas has

been stored at over 50 aquifer storage sites in the U.S. alone demonstrates that appropriately-sited projects can safely and effectively

sequester CO2 underground.

The best sequestration sites will be at depths between three

quarters and two miles deep, have a thick sequence of permeable

and porous sands, and be overlain by at least one thick and continuous seal. However, site selection criteria have yet to be developed,

and capacity estimates have not yet been validated by regional or

site-specific experiments.

24

Monitoring to verify that CO2 is safely and effectively sequestered, or to provide early warning in the event that a project is failing, is also needed. Methods developed by the oil and gas industry,

such as 3–D seismic surveys, or injection well pressure monitoring,

can be used, but more studies are needed to develop standard protocols for monitoring.

Computer models that predict the performance of sequestration

projects are also needed. While reservoir simulation is a mature

technology, the capability of today’s models need to be extended to

include accurate representation of the geochemical and

geomechanical processes that are important for geologic sequestration. These need—models need to be validated by a number of sitespecific studies that cover the range of geologic settings that could

be used for CO2 sequestration.

The potential environmental consequences of geologic sequestration are also well understood, based on analogous experience from

the oil and gas industry, natural gas storage, EPA’s Underground

Injection Control Program and places such as Perrier in France,

where CO2 naturally seeps to the ground surface. The highest probability risks are associated with improper injection well completions, abandoned wells and inadequate characterization of the sequestration site. Over time, technologies and monitoring protocols

have, however, been developed to manage and mitigate these concerns.

To summarize, geologic sequestration of CO2 is in practice today

and more is planned. However, to fully evaluate the potential for

large-scale application, a research program that combines site-specific field studies with a directed research program must be pursued.

Now, to answer your question about what portion of these uncertainties could be reduced by additional research, well, all of them

can be. However, because of the site-specific nature of the factors

that provide secure storage, pilot tests should be located in each of

the regions where there are large concentrations of stationary CO2

sources. While many of these issues can be addressed by smallscale pilot tests, eventually, full-scale demonstration projects will

be needed. So are we ready for full-scale demonstration projects?

Well, clearly, the experience at Sleipner and Weyburn in Canada

demonstrate that we are ready today. However, before we can embark on this, potential sites need to be screened, pilot tests need

to be carried out, including demonstrating that our models and

monitoring methods are adequate and risk assessment is needed.

So, in summary, geologic sequestration is an important component of a climate change technology portfolio. It offers the potential

for deep reductions in CO2 emissions, while allowing the continued

use of fossil fuels. Efforts are underway to address these issues and

success can be assured by a sustained commitment to an adequate

program of directed research, pilot tests and full-scale demonstration.

Thank you for your attention.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Benson follows:]

25

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SALLY M. BENSON

Questions

1. What are the most important outstanding technical issues associated with

geologic sequestration of carbon dioxide (CO2)? Please describe the geologic,

environmental, economic, and technical uncertainties. What portion of these

uncertainties could be reduced through additional research?

2. Is our state of knowledge sufficient to proceed with a full-scale carbon sequestration demonstration project? By concentrating funding in one large

project, do we run the risk of moving to large-scale sequestration before the

technical uncertainties have been adequately addressed?

3. What factors should the Department consider in selecting geological sites for

carbon sequestration projects and research? What work should be done prior

to selection of the FutureGen site?

4. What are the costs of CO2 injection? How directly do the injection technologies developed for secondary recovery of oil apply to the injection of CO2

for sequestration?

Testimony

Chairman Biggert and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony on this important and timely topic. I am Dr. Sally Benson, a hydrogeologist. I work at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and

since 1999 I have led a team of earth scientists working on geologic sequestration

of carbon dioxide (CO2).

Carbon dioxide capture and sequestration in deep geologic formations can provide

greater than 90 percent reduction in CO2 emissions from stationary sources such

as power plants. The idea was first developed in the late 1970’s but did not get

much attention until the late 1980’s when scientists began to look in earnest for solutions to the climate change problem. Since that time it has emerged as one of the

most promising options for deeply reducing CO2 emissions while continuing to use

fossil fuels.

Before answering your specific questions, let me first provide some background information.

Today nearly two million tons of CO2 are sequestered annually in geologic formations at the Sleipner Project in the North Sea and in the Weyburn oil field in Canada. More commercial projects are planned in Algeria, Australia and off-shore Norway. CO2 can be sequestered in sedimentary basins made up of alternating layers

of sandstones, carbonates, evaporites and shales. The sandstone layers typically provide the reservoir and the shale or evaporites provide seals to trap fluids or gases

deep below the land surface. The existence of naturally occurring CO2 reservoirs

proves that CO2 can be sequestered for hundreds of thousands of years or more. In

addition many oil and gas reservoirs also contain large quantities of CO2 confirming

that oil and gas reservoirs can also contain CO2.

Depleted oil and gas reservoirs are especially promising for long-term sequestration because they have seals that have stood the test of time. They are also attractive because CO2 sequestration can be combined with enhanced oil and gas recovery.

During the early stages of a sequestration project the remaining oil can be swept

from the reservoir. Eventually, oil production will stop and the reservoir can be

filled to capacity for long-term sequestration of CO2. This is a mature technology

and an estimated 80 percent of oil reservoirs are suitable for CO2 enhanced oil recovery. The availability of an abundant low-cost supply of CO2 could be a boon to

the domestic oil industry. A similar idea can be applied to enhance the recovery of

natural gas from deep coal beds. Tests of this concept are underway in the San Juan

Basin in New Mexico.

Now, returning to your first question about the most important outstanding technical issues, most of them are about sequestering CO2 in deep salt-water filled sandstones. Sandstone formations filled with salt-water, such as the Mount Simon Formation in the Midwest, the Frio Formation along the Texas Gulf Coast, and the

Central Valley in California, are estimated to have the capacity to accommodate

hundreds of years of CO2 emissions at today’s rates. That natural gas has been

stored at over 50 aquifer storage sites in the U.S. alone, demonstrates that appropriately sited projects can safely and effectively sequester CO2 underground. The

best sequestration sites will be at depths between three-quarters and two miles

deep, have several hundred feet of porous and permeable sands, and be overlain by

at least one thick and continuous seal. However, site selection criteria have not been

developed and capacity estimates have not yet been validated by regional or sitespecific field experiments.

26

So far, I have only discussed the potential for physically trapping CO2 in deep

geologic formations. Sequestration can be even more secure if the CO2 dissolves in

water or is converted to minerals such as calcium carbonate. While we know that

these geochemical reactions will occur slowly, we don’t know exactly how slow or

how much to expect. This is another important area for research.

Monitoring to verify that CO2 is safely and effectively sequestered, or to provide

early warning in the event that a project is failing, is also needed. Methods developed by the oil and gas industry such as injection well pressure monitoring and 3–

D seismic surveys can be used. But more site-specific studies are needed to demonstrate their sensitivity and to develop standard protocols for monitoring. New remote-sensing techniques for directly verifying sequestration would also be valuable.

Computer models that predict the performance of a sequestration project also

need to be verified. While reservoir simulation is a mature technology, the capability

of today’s models need to be extended to include accurate representation of geochemical and geomechanical processes that are important for geologic sequestration.

These models need to be validated by a number of site specific studies that cover

the range of geologic settings that could be used for CO2 sequestration.

The potential environmental consequences of geologic sequestration are well understood based on analogous experience from the oil and gas industry, natural gas

storage, EPA’s Underground Injection Control Program and places such as Perrier

in France where CO2 naturally seeps out at the ground surface. The highest probability risks are associated with improper injection well completions, abandoned

wells and inadequate characterization of the sequestration site. Over time, technologies and monitoring protocols have been developed to manage and mitigate

these concerns. Implemented on a small scale, in a well characterized geologic setting, geologic sequestration poses no unique or poorly understood risks. However,

after the best characterized and most secure sites are filled, a significant characterization and risk assessment effort will be needed to accommodate additional CO2

sequestration.

To summarize about the most important outstanding technical issues, geologic sequestration of CO2 is in practice today and more is planned. It builds upon a technology base developed over more than one-half a century by the oil and gas industry. However, to fully evaluate and realize the potential for large-scale application,

site-specific field studies and a core directed-research program are needed. Specifically, the combined program must:

• Provide regionally validated estimates of sequestration capacity;

• Enhance our understanding of the geochemical reactions and geomechanical

processes that enhance or compromise sequestration security;

• Provide validated approaches to modeling and monitoring; and

• Perform regional and site-specific risk assessments.

To answer your question about what portion of these uncertainties can be reduced

by additional research, all of them can be with a research program that combines

regionally-relevant pilot-tests with a core directed-research program. Because the

regional and site-specific nature of the factors that provide secure geologic sequestration, pilot-tests should be located in each of the regions with a large concentration of stationary CO2 sources. While many of these issues can be addressed by

small scale pilot-tests, eventually, full scale demonstration projects will be needed.

With regard to the committee’s second and third questions, are we ready for a

full-scale demonstration and what work is needed before a site is selected? The fullscale geologic sequestration projects at Sleipner and Weyburn attest to this fact that

a full-scale demonstration can be carried out today. However, first, potential sites

need to be screened, pilot-tests must be carried out, including demonstrating that

our models and monitoring methods are adequate, a risk assessment is needed and

permits must be obtained.

To answer your fourth question, estimated costs for geologic sequestration of CO2

range from about $3 to $10 per ton, depending on site specific considerations such

as how many injection wells are needed, surface facilities, economy of scale and

monitoring requirements. As the technology matures, uncertainties in costs will be

reduced. These costs are small fraction of the cost of CO2 capture and consequently

have not been the focus of much attention.

In summary, geologic sequestration is an important component of a climate

change technology portfolio. It offers the potential for deep reductions in CO2 emissions while allowing continued use of fossil fuels. Efforts are underway to address

the important technical issues and success can be assured by a sustained commitment to an adequate program of directed-research, pilot-tests at regionally relevant

sites and full-scale demonstration.

27

BIOGRAPHY FOR SALLY M. BENSON

Dr. Sally M. Benson is the Deputy Director for Operations at Ernest Orlando

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. In addition to this administrative position,

she is a staff scientist in the Earth Sciences Division of the Laboratory. A lead researcher in her field, Dr. Benson has addressed a range of issues related to energy

and the environment, including environmental remediation, gas storage, and geothermal energy production. In many recent years she has focused her research on

carbon sequestration, particularly on sequestration in deep geologic formations.

Dr. Benson is the Director of the GEO–SEQ Project, a National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) sponsored project. She continues to work on providing

safe and cost-effective methods for geologic sequestration of CO2. She has authored

or co-authored an abundance of scientific publications on the subject. Currently, she

is a coordinating lead author for the ‘‘Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

(IPCC) Special Report on CO2 Capture and Storage.’’ Dr. Benson often travels, both

throughout the United States and abroad, to lecture about her scientific research.

A graduate of Barnard College, Columbia University with a B.A. in Geology, she

completed her education in 1988 at the University of California, Berkeley, receiving

her M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in Materials Science and Mineral Engineering. Dr. Benson serves on numerous committees, such as the Carbon Mitigation Initiative (CMI)

Advisory Board and the CO2 Capture Project/British Petroleum (CCP/BP) Technology Advisory Board. In 1996, Dr. Benson was awarded the Department of Energy

Certificate of Appreciation for her lead in the development of the Natural and Accelerated Bioremediation Research Program Plan.

28

29

Chairwoman BIGGERT. Thank you, Doctor. And Dr. Brown.

STATEMENT OF DR. MARILYN A. BROWN, ENERGY EFFICIENCY

AND RENEWABLE ENERGY PROGRAM, OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY

Dr. BROWN. Good morning, Chairman Biggert and Members of

the House Subcommittee. Thank you for inviting me to comment

on the subject of climate change technologies.

Let us start with the issue of portfolio balance. One needs to consider all of the standard dimensions, such as the benefits, that is,

the greenhouse gas emission reductions, the other benefits that

might result, the ancillary, productivity and safety and security

and health and pollution reductions that could occur. You have got

to consider the costs, the R&D and other costs, equity concerns,

who pays, who wins, as well as looking at the full spectrum of ways

that carbon atmospheric concentrations can be reduced.

And in doing that, I like to divide those methods into three categories. One is ways of reducing the energy intensity of the Nation’s economy, using less energy per GDP, and to do that, you can

employ various energy efficiency technologies, or you can use system enhancements, such as locating power generation near to facilities that can take advantage of the heat, waste heat, that is produced at those facilities.

A second way is to reduce the carbon intensity of the energy system. Here, you turn to ways of producing energy using less carbon

intensity, so renewable energy, nuclear energy, those are some of

the approaches that would work there. And third is carbon sequestration, where you, as Dr. Benson and Mr. Rudins have focused on

some of those technologies.

There was a study completed in the late 1990’s by 11 national

laboratories that used the typology I just mentioned, energy intensity, carbon intensity and carbon sequestration, and enumerated

hundreds of specific approaches in each of those three categories,

and concluded that there is a relationship between those categories, and the time horizon required to produce cost-effective solutions, and the most cost-effective solutions that exist today are in

the energy intensity reduction category, that is, in the energy efficiency arena. It is going to take another decade or two, possibly

three, for the other approaches to become cost-effective.

So, let us talk about the no regret strategy you asked me to address. Many studies have documented that the Nation has a significant reservoir of cost-effective energy efficiency opportunities.

Focusing on these technologies has been called a no regrets approach, because it promotes the investments—it promotes investments that would be good for the consumer and good for the environment. It is also sometimes called the double dividends approach

for that reason.

As an example, let us look at the experience of the Department

of Energy’s Best Practices Program, which has developed industrial

plant assessment tools to try to reduce the consumption of energy

at industrial plants in the areas of steam, air—compressed air, motors and drive systems. I like to use that as an example, because

they have documented so carefully the powerful amount of opportunity that exists in these manufacturing facilities to save energy.

30

In the first five plant assessments that were done by this program,

they documented $17 million worth of savings that, in fact, not

only could be achieved, but were achieved following the completion

of these assessments. And subsequently, they have done a total of

28 assessments, and have shown that there is an aggregate savings

potential of $163 million in just 28 plants.

A study by five national laboratories that was completed in the

year 2000 tried to itemize the opportunities one by one available

to the Nation to reduce CO2, and they concluded that over the next

20 years, we could reduce our energy consumption by 20 percent,

and our carbon dioxide emissions by 31 percent, if we put in place

an aggressive set of policies to try to deal with the market imperfections that are hindering these technologies from advancing into

the marketplace.

The 31 percent of carbon reductions were driven by—two thirds

of those reductions were the result of energy efficiency improvement, one third by low carbon technologies and it is assumed that

following those technology advances, we would soon see carbon sequestration delivering that next decade of opportunities, allowing

the Nation to consider—continue to use fossil fuels, and meet the

need for even greater carbon reductions.

Well, what kind of evidence do we have that if you were to put

in place an aggressive set of policies and programs, including much

more R&D, that we would in fact deliver viable technology options

that consumers would buy? Take a look at the National Academy’s

report that was published earlier this year that looked at several

dozen energy efficiency projects completed by the Department of

Energy. They concluded that these several dozen projects generated

economic benefits of $30 billion, far exceeding the $7 billion which

constituted the entire Department of Energy’s efficiency budget

over that time period.

Just to bring that home, consider one particular project, which

dealt with the household refrigerator. In the year 1970, your household refrigerator consumed nearly 2,000 kilowatt-hours a year of

electricity. Well, as a result of a very aggressive public/private research partnership, today, the average new refrigerator requires

only one third of that electricity.

Well, what about the future? Where are we going to find these

similar savings? What should we invest in, in terms of promising

research? Earlier this year, the Department of Energy’s Basic Energy Sciences Advisory Committee, called BSAC, published a report

that documents the physical science, basic energy sciences, that

could deliver the fundamental breakthroughs that we will need in

order to continue to keep the pipeline of cost-effective technologies

full. That is, they documented that energy efficiency and the no regrets approach is not a short-lived phenomenon, that through continued science and technology investments, we can provide even

better technology solutions well into the next several decades.

Consider some of the materials breakthroughs that have occurred

recently, nickel aluminide alloys, for instance, are being used in

plants——

Chairwoman BIGGERT. Draw your——

Dr. BENSON. Oh, great.

31

1The report can be found at http://www.ornl.gov/ORNL/Energy¥Eff/CEF.html 2The report can be found at http://www.ornl.gov/climate¥change 3The report can be found at http://www.sc.doe.gov/production/bes/BESAC/reports.html

Chairwoman BIGGERT [continuing]. Testimony to a conclusion. I

know we will have questions for you, though.

Dr. BENSON. Okay. Some of the most exciting scientific advancements have been in the materials area.

In conclusion, energy conservation does not have the rugged, romantic appeal of oil drilling or coal mining. It doesn’t wow us with

massive dams or dramatic cooling towers, or a large power—solar

power towers. It is somewhat invisible, and yet, it does make a tremendous amount of energy available, prevents pollution and avoids

emissions of greenhouse gas reductions.

To secure such double dividends in the future, we need to move

forward on three major fronts: on policies to address market barriers, market imperfections, R&D to accelerate technology advancements and programs to facilitate technology deployment.

Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Brown follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MARILYN A. BROWN

Chairman Biggert and Members of the Energy Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to comment on the subject of climate change technologies. You have asked

me to address three issues:

• the attributes of a balanced climate change technology portfolio,

• the ‘‘no regrets’’ strategy of targeting cost-effective, energy-efficient measures,

and

• the non-climate benefits of federal climate change R&D investments.

Many of my comments on these issues are drawn from a study completed in November 2000, called the Scenarios for a Clean Energy Future. This study, which I

co-led, examined the ability of energy-efficient and clean energy technologies to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. It was commissioned by the U.S. Department

of Energy (DOE), was co-funded by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and

was completed by researchers from five DOE national laboratories.1 My comments

draw on other research, as well, including Technology Opportunities to Reduce U.S.

Greenhouse Gas Emission (a.k.a. the ‘‘11-Lab Study’’)2 and a recent workshop on

Basic Research Needs to Assure a Secure Energy Future.3

Attributes of a Balanced Climate Change Technology Portfolio

The balance of a climate change technology portfolio can be evaluated along many

dimensions. These include market and technical risk; time-to-market introduction

(near-, medium-, and long-term); size of potential greenhouse gas emissions reductions; magnitude and nature of other benefits; R&D investment requirements and

other costs; and distributional impacts (by region, income group, etc.). For carbon

dioxide, the most important of the greenhouse gases, the RD&D portfolio for climate

change should also consider the full spectrum of ways that carbon concentrations

in the atmosphere can be reduced. These include:

• reducing the ‘‘energy intensity’’ of the economy (that is, total energy use divided by the gross domestic product),

• reducing the ‘‘carbon intensity’’ of the energy system (that is, carbon emissions per unit of energy consumed), and

• removing atmospheric carbon through ‘‘sequestration.’’

These three approaches embody distinct technology pathways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Energy intensity can be decreased through the more efficient

use of fossil fuels in transportation, buildings and industry and through system designs such as co-locating facilities that produce both electrical power and heat with

facilities that need them. Carbon intensity can be decreased by increasing the efficiency of energy production, or by using either fuels that emit less carbon or technologies that use lower carbon-emitting fuels such as nuclear power plants and reVerDate 11-MAY-2000 23:13 Apr 08, 2004 Jkt 090165 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\ENER03\110603\90165 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
32

newable energy sources such as hydroelectric, wind, and solar power plants. Ways

to increase carbon sequestration include capturing and storing CO2 after combustion

but before it enters the atmosphere, and increasing the rate at which oceans, forests, and soils absorb CO2 from the atmosphere.

To reduce carbon emissions significantly while sustaining economic growth, all

three of these technology avenues may be needed. The 11-Lab Study concluded that

these three approaches have different time dimensions. The report concluded that:

• In the first decade of this century significant advances in energy efficiency

technologies could deliver substantial near-term carbon-reducing impacts by

decreasing the energy intensity of the U.S. economy.

• Along with continued improvements in energy efficiency, research-based advances in clean energy technologies could reduce significantly the carbon intensity of the U.S. energy economy during the second decade. A wide range

of improved renewable, fossil, and nuclear technologies could be introduced

and widely deployed in this period.

• Complementing ongoing advances in efficiency and clean energy technologies

well into the third decade, carbon sequestration technologies could add a third

important dimension to the package of solutions. Success in this technology

area could enable the Nation to continue its extensive use of fossil fuels without harming the global climate.

The ‘‘No Regrets’’ Strategy of Targeting Cost-Effective, Energy-Efficient

Measures

Like many other analyses, the Scenarios for a Clean Energy Future study described a large reservoir of highly cost-effective energy-efficient technologies that are

available for deployment. Climate change strategies that focus on these technologies

have been called ‘‘no regrets’’ approaches because they promote technologies that

would be good for consumers and the economy irrespective of their climate change

benefits. The fact that such technologies remain under exploited leads to two key

questions. If energy-efficient technology is cost-effective, why isn’t more of it being

used? If individuals and businesses can make money from energy efficiency, why

don’t they just do it?

Although some like to assert that markets are perfect, practical experience tells

us otherwise. Energy markets, like all markets, are plagued by imperfections that

can impede the adoption of new products, even those that are beneficial and economical. These market failures include:

• Misplaced incentives (for instance, these often occur in apartment buildings

where landlords pay the utility bills, giving tenants no incentive to conserve)

• Distorting fiscal and regulatory policies (for example, electricity rates that do

not reflect the real-time cost of electricity production)

• Unpriced costs (such as the health problems associated with burning hydrocarbons)

• Unpriced benefits (such as the public benefits associated with energy R&D:

because the benefits of private-sector investments in R&D extend beyond any

individual firm, investments are insufficient from a public perspective).

The existence of market failures that inhibit investment in improved energy technologies is a primary driver for public policy intervention. In many cases, feasible,

low-cost policies and programs can be put in place to eliminate or compensate for

market imperfections, enabling markets to operate more efficiently for the benefit

of society.

As one example, consider DOE’s Best Practices Program, which has developed

plant assessment and analysis tools and has conducted plant-wide assessments of

energy-saving opportunities. The goal is to address key information barriers to the

adoption of energy-efficient measures. Improvements to industrial utility systems

(steam, compressed air, motors, and pumps, etc.) offer tremendous energy-saving opportunities. Industrial motor systems, for example, use 25 percent of all the electricity consumed in the United States. In just five of the program’s initial industrial

assessment projects, annual energy savings of $17 million were realized, with an average payback on investment of 1.2 years. Altogether, the 28 assessments conducted

to date have identified aggregate savings of $163 million (390,000 MWh/yr of electricity and 10 trillion Btu/yr of natural gas). Full implementation of such energyefficient technologies could save 10 to 20 percent of the power used in motor-driven

industrial systems, saving billions of dollars annually.

The Scenarios for a Clean Energy Future study concludes that accelerating the development and deployment of energy-efficient technologies could significantly reduce

air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, oil dependence, and economic inefficienVerDate 11-MAY-2000 23:13 Apr 08, 2004 Jkt 090165 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\ENER03\110603\90165 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
33

cies, at no net cost to the economy. The overall economic benefits of the technologies

and policies that are modeled result in energy savings that equal or exceed the cost

of implementing the policies and of investing in the technologies.

The results of two scenarios modeled in the Scenarios for a Clean Energy Future

illustrate the magnitude of benefits that could arise from a ‘‘no regrets’’ approach:

• The business-as-usual (BAU) scenario assumes that current energy policies

and programs continue, resulting in a steady but modest pace of technological

progress and improved efficiencies.

• The advanced scenario is defined by an array of policies including a 50 percent increase in cost-shared federal energy R&D; expanded voluntary programs; tax credits for efficient appliances, vehicles, and non-hydro renewable

electricity; voluntary agreements to promote energy efficiency in vehicles and

industrial processes; appliance efficiency standards; renewable portfolio

standards; and a domestic carbon cap and trading system.

The BAU scenario forecasts that U.S. energy consumption will increase from nearly 100 quadrillion Btu (quads) in 2000 to 119 quads in 2020. Carbon dioxide emissions are forecast to increase at a comparable rate, from 1,346 MtC in 1990 to 1,920

MtC in 2020 (see Figure 1).

Under the advanced scenario, the United States consumes 23 quads (20 percent)

less energy in 2020 than is predicted under the BAU forecast. Under the advanced

scenario, U.S. CO2 emissions drop in 2020 to 1,330 MtC (31 percent), avoiding nearly 600 MtC compared with the BAU forecast. Two-thirds of these reductions are due

to ‘‘no regrets’’ energy efficiency improvements—improvements that shave $120 billion off the U.S. energy bill in 2020. Consistent with the 11-Lab Study, energy intensity reductions occur quickly through energy efficiency investments. Carbon intensity reductions are also significant by 2020, and carbon sequestration technologies are assumed to take hold in subsequent decades.

Evidence that Climate Change R&D Investments Can Deliver Viable Technology Options

What evidence do we have that climate change technology R&D can deliver products that consumers, industry, and businesses will choose to use? Consider the results of a recent study completed in 2001 by the National Academies as reported

in Energy Research at DOE, Was It Worth It? This study concluded that energy efficiency and fossil energy research at DOE has produced economic net benefits:

• Total net realized economic benefits associated with selected energy efficiency

programs were approximately $30 billion, substantially exceeding the roughly

$7 billion in total energy efficiency RD&D investment.

• The realized economic benefits of $7.4 billion resulting from fossil energy programs instituted from 1986 to 2000, exceeded the estimated $4.5 billion cost

of the programs during that period.

34

The National Academies also noted that additional environmental and security

benefits resulted, and there were significant options and knowledge benefits.

As one example of the many successes enumerated by the National Academies,

consider the outcome of a major R&D effort that began in the late 1970s to improve

the efficiency of household refrigerators.

Between 1977 and 1982, DOE invested approximately $1.6 million in R&D to

make home refrigerators more energy efficient. Working in a public/private partnership with compressor and appliance manufacturers, DOE and two federal laboratories identified ways of improving the performance of refrigerator compressors, motors, insulation, and controls, and they provided test data for use in the setting of

national standards. These technology investments, in conjunction with the issuance

of appliance standards, cut the energy use of the average new refrigerator in half

by the year 1990 and saved U.S. consumers $7 billion in energy costs from 1981

to 1990 (1999 dollars) (see Figure 2).

In 1997, a DOE-industry cooperative R&D effort developed a prototype ‘‘fridge of

the future’’ that, again, used nearly 50 percent less energy than refrigerators then

on the market and surpassed the 2001 efficiency standard for refrigerators. These

developments, in combination with the 2001 U.S. standard, will save consumers billions of dollars in the future.

The Non-Climate Benefits of Federal Climate Change R&D Investments

The National Academies also note in their 2001 study (Energy Research at DOE,

Was it Worth It?) that environmental and security benefits have resulted from

DOE’s energy efficiency and fossil energy research. These include cleaner air and

water, which can produce significant public health benefits, and the potential for

greater fuel flexibility, which is important to national security. In addition, the National Academies cite the importance of options and knowledge benefits. Options

benefits are derived from technologies that are fully developed but for which economic and policy conditions are not currently favorable for commercialization.

Knowledge benefits refer to the contribution of R&D to the stock of engineering and

scientific information and wisdom.

35

Productivity improvements, product quality gains, and job creation have been important additional collateral benefits of many energy efficiency investments. These

have been particularly significant in the industrial sector, where energy efficiency

investments have led to greater labor productivity, better products through improved process control, greater equipment longevity, and waste minimization. Such

productivity benefits often exceed the value of the energy saved from the introduction of advanced efficiency technologies in industry. Consideration of non-climate

costs and benefits is important in the design of a climate change technology portfolio, because they have a significant impact on the likelihood of market success and

the ultimate delivery of climate benefits.

Promising Energy Efficiency Technology Opportunities

The Nation has at its disposal an underutilized reservoir of currently cost-effective, energy-efficient technologies that can deliver significant greenhouse gas reductions, if targeted, market-based policies are implemented. Other energy efficiency

technologies are on the brink of cost-effectiveness, but need performance enhancements and cost reductions to become viable.. Still other technologies require significant science-based improvements to achieve major technical breakthroughs necessary for technical and market viability.

The Scenarios for a Clean Energy Future Study describes a range of policy options

for accelerating the deployment of market-ready technologies. It also describes many

of the near-term technology opportunities that could have a significant impact by

2020, if their performance and cost profiles can be improved. The 2003 report by

DOE’s Basic Energy Sciences Advisory Committee (BESAC), Basic Research Needs

to Assure a Secure Energy Future, describes a set of research directions that could

deliver the more fundamental and necessary breakthroughs. These directions underscore the importance of a strong physical sciences investment to enable the technologies that provide long-term solutions. A sampling of these research directions

are listed below:

• Residential, Commercial, and Industrial Energy Consumption

Æ Sensors

Æ Solid state lighting

Æ Innovative materials for new energy technologies

Æ Multi-layer thin film materials and deposition processes

• Transportation Energy Consumption

Æ Integrated quantitative knowledge base for joining of lightweight structural materials

Æ Vehicular energy storage

Æ Fundamental challenges in fuel cell stack materials

Æ Integrated heterogeneous catalysis

Æ Thermoelectric materials and energy conversion cycles for mobile applications

Æ Complex systems science for sustainable transportation

• Distributed Energy, Fuel Cells, and Hydrogen

Æ Advanced hydrogen synthesis

Æ High-capacity hydrogen storage for distribute energy of the future

Æ Novel membrane assemblies

Æ Designed interfaces

Based on the BESAC report, it is clear that the technology ‘‘pipeline’’ for reducing

the energy intensity of the economy can be kept full for several decades. The energyefficiency ‘‘no regrets’’ approach is not a short-lived phenomenon. Rather, it can take

the Nation well into the current century with climate-friendly solutions that will

allow the economy to continue to grow.

Consider some of the materials breakthroughs that are already advancing the performance of energy technologies. Nickel aluminide alloys, developed through a DOEindustry R&D partnership, are extraordinarily strong, hard, and heat-resistant. Delphi Automotive Systems in Saginaw, Michigan, recently celebrated the installation

of trays made from this new bimetallic alloy, in its steel carburizing heat-treating

furnaces. These trays are cutting energy use by five to ten percent by making it feasible to operate furnaces at higher temperatures and with fewer shutdowns. New

steels promise similar advantages in a wide range of other applications. Researchers

at Oak Ridge National Laboratory and Caterpillar have developed a new stainless

36

steel (CF8C–Plus) that is stronger and tougher at both high and low temperatures

than standard steels without costing more. Not only the steel itself but also the

method of producing it, termed ‘‘engineered microstructures,’’ are being hailed as

revolutionary. Immediate applications planned for CF8C–Plus include turbocharger

housings for heavy-duty diesel engines and industrial gas turbines, which will allow

higher temperature operations, producing significant energy savings. Nanoscience

materials research promises to produce a stream of future breakthroughs that will

offer continuing improvements to energy technologies.

The BESAC report also enumerates promising research directions that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions through advances in nuclear energy and renewable

energy resources, by reducing the carbon intensity of the energy system. To meet

the long-term goal of stabilizing atmospheric concentration of carbon, breakthroughs

in sequestration technologies are also required. Finally, improved technologies are

needed for measuring and monitoring the quantities and fluxes of greenhouse gases

in the Earth’s atmosphere.

Conclusion

Energy conservation does not have the rugged, romantic appeal of oil drilling or

coal mining. It does not wow us with massive dams, dramatic cooling towers, or tall

smokestacks. But energy conservation does make a tremendous amount of energy

available, prevents pollution, and avoids the emission of greenhouse gases. In fact,

over the past 25 years, energy efficiency has become the number one domestic

source of energy available for use by U.S. consumers. Nearly a quarter of the energy

we use today is energy that would have been lost to waste without the energy-efficiency technologies that have been developed and implemented since the Arab oil

embargo of 1973–74. In the absence of these energy efficiency improvements, the

Nation’s greenhouse gas emissions would be significantly greater.

An expanded climate change technology portfolio could significantly accelerate the

development and deployment of cost-effective, efficient, clean energy technologies—

technologies that are good for business, good for consumers, good for the economy,

and good for the environment. To secure these benefits, the Nation needs to move

forward on three major fronts—on policies to address market imperfections, R&D

to accelerate technology advancements, and programs to facilitate technology deployment.

Thank you for this opportunity to talk with you today. I would be happy to answer any questions.

BIOGRAPHY FOR MARILY A. BROWN

Marilyn Brown is the Director of Oak Ridge National Laboratory’s Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Program, a $125 million/year program of research on

advanced energy efficiency, electric reliability, and renewable energy technologies.

During her 20 years at ORNL, she has researched the impacts of policies and programs aimed at accelerating the development and deployment of sustainable energy

technologies. Prior to coming to Oak Ridge, she was a tenured Associate Professor

in the Department of Geography at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.

While on the faculty, she received two NSF grants and funding from other sources

to support her research on the diffusion of energy innovations. She has a Ph.D. in

geography from the Ohio State University, where she was a University Fellow; a

Master’s Degree in resource planning from the University of Massachusetts; and a

BA in political science (with a minor in mathematics) from Rutgers University. She

has authored more than 140 publications and has received awards for her research

from the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, the Association of

American Geographers, the Technology Transfer Society, and the Association of

Women in Science. A recent study that she co-led (Scenarios for a Clean Energy Future) is the most comprehensive assessment to date of the policy and technology opportunities available to the United States to meet its energy-related challenges. This

study was the subject of a dedicated issue of Energy Policy and has played a significant role in international climate change debates. Dr. Brown serves on the boards

of several energy, engineering, and environmental organizations and journals. She

is also a member of the National Commission on Energy Policy.

DISCUSSION

Chairwoman BIGGERT. Thank you. All written testimony will be

submitted for the record. We welcome here today the gentleman for

Maryland, Mr. Gilchrest, who is not an official Member of this subVerDate 11-MAY-2000 23:13 Apr 08, 2004 Jkt 090165 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\WORKD\ENER03\110603\90165 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
37

committee, but serves on the Science Committee, and I would ask

unanimous consent to have him participate in this hearing. Without objection, so ordered.

Welcome, Mr. Gilchrest, and now, at this point, we will open our

first round of questions, and the Chair recognizes herself for five

minutes.

My first question is to Mr. Conover. The programs that the Administration cites as key to its climate change technology strategy

appear to be all long-term efforts. If we wait for the results from

FutureGen, it will be at least 10 years before results can reassure

private investors that this technology is viable, significant penetration of hydrogen will take at least 15 years or more, and the international fusion experiment, ITER, is unlikely to lead to changes in

the energy market for at least 50 years, and how can we wait so

long?

Mr. CONOVER. Thank you, Madam Chairman. We need to be

clear that while the Administration has announced those priorities

as part of the NCCTI process of focusing on long-term large payoff

areas, where there is a key role for federal R&D, we are not giving

up on the rest of the portfolio, which does have significant nearerterm impacts, particularly in the area of energy efficiency, deployment of best practices, advances in renewables, solar, wind and

geothermal, which are much further along the commercialization

path than hydrogen and FutureGen, so we are, in fact, pursuing a

diverse portfolio that has both near and long-term impacts, and

look forward to reaping the benefits of those as we move forward.

Chairwoman BIGGERT. Thank you. Not having seen the first installment of the letter from Mr. Card, is there a priority of some

of these—of the energy efficiencies and the other short-term solutions?

Mr. CONOVER. When you look at the programs that we have in

place now, the Climate VISION and Climate Leaders, in particular,

where the Administration is working with trade associations and

individual companies to achieve voluntary reductions in greenhouse

gas emissions in the near-term, the best practices and the diffusion

of commercially available technology is really the key to achieving

those nearer-term goals.

Chairwoman BIGGERT. Okay. Thank you. Dr. Brown, you note

that with an aggressive set of policy and technology initiatives, it

is plausible for the country to have the same or greater level of economic output in 2020, i.e., no net cost, as would occur under business usual, and yet, use about the same amount of energy as we

use today. They apparently would also produce fewer greenhouse

gas emissions than we produce today. That is a pretty remarkable

statement. How much of this improvement comes from your assumption of increased funding for energy efficiency and renewable

energy?

Dr. BROWN. If the modeling assumed a doubling of the R&D

budget for all energy research that deals with climate reduction,

carbon reduction technologies, and also a variety of market-based

policies, as well as a carbon cap and trade system, we assume

would be put in place by the year 2005. The study was done in

2000, so now, we are behind on that timeline, and we, today,

couldn’t achieve that all by 2020. It is a 20-year timeframe, though.

38

I think within 20 years of starting an aggressive set of programs

and policies such as that, those estimates would still hold.

Chairwoman BIGGERT. Are there particular areas of energy efficiency or renewable energy research that you would recommend receive greater emphasis?

Dr. BROWN. The opportunities to reduce energy consumption in

buildings and industrial facilities, I think, are very promising, and

deserve greater focus in terms of improving those technologies

through science-based research. I think they are just more difficult

to, without strong policies, translate the research benefits in the

transportation sector into real fuel economy savings in the marketplace. The policies are really needed there, in combination with the

research.

Chairwoman BIGGERT. And two thirds of the improvement comes

from what you call the no regrets.

Dr. BROWN. Yes.

Chairwoman BIGGERT. Are there any particularly low-hanging

fruit that the Government could target for harvest? Where do we

go first?

Dr. BROWN. Well, you know, that is why it is so difficult to sell

energy efficiency, because there is no silver bullet. It is everywhere.

It is your lighting, it is the building envelope, it is the equipment

that is—the space conditioning and throughout an industrial plant,

likewise, it is all of the ways that energy is used. I do think that

material science is a fundamental research foundation to deliver

many of the advances, because if we can operate equipment at

higher temperatures, for instance, we can gain greater efficiencies,

as in microturbines, or in diesel engines, and that is an area, I

think, with great promise.

Chairwoman BIGGERT. Thank you, and my time has expired. I

recognize the gentleman from Texas for five minutes.

Mr. LAMPSON. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Mr. Rudins, in

the absence of compelling air quality regulations, what makes you

think that the famously risk and innovation-averse electric utility

industry will adopt such revolutionary and expensive technology,

and why are they interested in participated in FutureGen when

coal plants are still being plant and CO2 is still not considered to

be a criterion pollutant?

Mr. RUDINS. In fact, that is a very good question. I would answer

that question by saying that one of the concerns utilities also have

is regulatory certainty, and both for traditional pollutants, but especially for carbon, there is considerable regulatory uncertainty in

terms of what they will face in the future.

Over the last 30 years or so, the investment that we have made

in coal technology, clean coal technology, has led to ever cleaner

systems, but ever cleaner systems still are not sufficient to deal

with what might be on the horizon in terms of regulatory requirements and others.

FutureGen, if it is successful in achieving its goals, is the ultimate manifestation of clean coal technology. Technology, from an

environmental perspective, cannot go much further than zero or

near zero emission technology. If one could successfully develop

that class of technology, that, in essence, would convey regulatory

certainty and you could deal with future environmental requireVerDate 11-MAY-2000 23:13 Apr 08, 2004 Jkt 090165 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\WORKD\ENER03\110603\90165 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
39

ments, regulated and non-regulated. If you can do it in a cost-competitive manner, you in a sense have your cake and you can eat

it as well.

Now, a few years ago, the utility and the coal industry may not

have embraced FutureGen as aggressively as they actually have.

You may be aware that a FutureGen alliance has formed with the

over nine member companies representing over 20 percent of the

U.S.-based coal-based power generation. Over 45 percent of the

U.S.-based coal production, saying we need this. We are committed

to it, and we will work with you to try and make it happen. The

National Mining Association has stepped forward with a similar

statement. So, in essence, the electricity generation industry is

stepping forward offering to do missionary work to establish the

technology base for a future fleet of power plants and technologies

that could meet whatever environmental future we foresee.

Mr. LAMPSON. Well, through that process, you will capture CO2. The intention is to reinject it and store it some place, put it into

unminable coal seams, so a question for you, Dr. Benson. How

much of that is available in this country, but more importantly

that that, let me ask this question, and I would like for you to comment on it, but let me ask this one. In the case of sequestration

in deep saline aquifers, will there be significant amounts of displaced or produced water, and if so, how will be handle such large

quantities of water?

Dr. BENSON. You really need to look site by site, whether or not

there will be significant quantities of displaced water. The best

sites, those that are very large, such as the Frio Formation in the

Houston area, can accommodate such a tremendous quantity of

CO2 that it is unlikely there would be produced brines, and if they

did, you would be pushing them out into the ocean, not onto the

land, so it really wouldn’t be an issue there. But it is an issue, and

again, you know, geologic sequestration is not a panacea. It needs

to be done carefully with all the appropriate site characterization

and monitoring and so forth.

Mr. LAMPSON. These unminable coal seams, make—just one

quick comment on it. How much of that is available, and where do

you find them? Where are they?

Dr. BENSON. Well, I am not an expert on the quantity of

unminable coal seams. There are, in the Rocky Mountain region,

there are a number of significant deposits. There is also some new

work by the U.S. Geological Survey showing significant deposits in

the Southeast that may be amenable to this kind of technology as

well. That is some of the work that needs to be done to characterize

just how much and where this could be accomplished.

Mr. LAMPSON. Dr. Brown, in H.R. 238, this Committee authorized the construction of a network of regional advanced energy

technology transfer centers to bridge the gap between development

of energy-efficient technologies and full-scale commercialization,

and this provision has been included in the draft Research and Development Title of the Energy Bill, H.R. 6. Are you aware of this

provision, and if so, how do you think initiatives such as this would

fit into a national climate change initiative?

Dr. BROWN. I have to confess I am not familiar with that initiative, but I want to learn more, because it sounds like it is very

40

promising and would help to bridge that gap between science and

marketplace improvement, so it sounds like an excellent way to

proceed.

Mr. LAMPSON. Thank you very much. My time is up.

Chairwoman BIGGERT. Thank you. The gentleman from Georgia,

Mr. Gingrey, is recognized for five minutes.

Mr. GINGREY. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Mr. Rudins, in her testimony, Dr. Benson indicated a cost range of $3 to $10 per ton

for carbon disposal, not including the cost of carbon capture. This

is certainly in the range of the Department of Energy goals. What

are the costs of CO2 capture, and how soon do you see DOE’s goals

being reached?

Mr. RUDINS. The greater cost component, in fact, is the capture

component. Today’s technology, if you were to employ it such as a

means coverage with existing power plants, would be very costly

indeed, much more so than just the disposal costs. But already,

technologies that are coming out of the laboratory, like the clathrate process, to name one, offers the potential, when integrated

with advanced systems, such as IGCC, to reduce that cost by perhaps an order of magnitude, as well as the energy costs associated

with it.

The goal that we have for the Department sequestration program is to get the costs to $10 a ton carbon, and that is capture and disposal. The current price point in terms of laboratory technology,

like the clathrate process, is still at the laboratory stage is in the

$30 or so range.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Conover, this question is for you. Given the

long time horizons of carbon sequestration and hydrogen technologies, what does the Administration plan to do to meet its nearterm goal of reducing the carbon intensity of the economy by 18

percent by the year 2012?

Mr. CONOVER. Thank you, Congressman. Again, this goes back to

the voluntary partnerships that the Administration is forging

through Climate VISION and Climate Leaders, particularly focused

in on areas of energy efficiency, the buildings and industrial technologies that Dr. Brown mentioned, further advances in solar, wind

and geothermal, all of which are still robustly funded in the Administration’s budget.

Mr. GINGREY. And the Administration has stated that it supports

stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere.

By what date will your technology efforts be able to achieve this

goal at current rates of funding?

Mr. CONOVER. Well, the issue of timing on the stabilization goal

is an important one. Our philosophy is moving forward aggressively

on investments in technology with both long and near-term impacts, and as the scientific certainty advances with respect to both

what the levels need to be and how quickly we need to achieve

them, our mission is to provide a diverse portfolio of technology

that allows policymakers to respond to that information as it becomes clearer.

Mr. GINGREY. And I would like to ask Mr. Rudins on this one.

Several experts have told us that a full-scale single site sequestration experiment without a power plant would cost about $50 million over 10 years, including the purchase of CO2. Your testimony

41

includes a cost estimate sequestration that is over four times this

number at $224 million. Can you explain how that your number

was reached?

Mr. RUDINS. I can’t comment comparatively, because I haven’t seen the $50, $50 million estimate, but the cost that you see incorporated in FutureGen involves extensive instrumentation of the

site, development of the site and extensive monitoring for at least

10 years and beyond, so I don’t know if it’s an apples to apples

comparison. It also allows for innovation, new technology development. It allows, within that cost, enhanced modeling and research

support activities, so it is not just go to the site, dig a hole, or drill

a hole and pump CO2 in there. It is essentially a full-scope research project in addition to that. But I couldn’t comment specifically without seeing the estimates you are talking about.

Mr. GINGREY. I yield back my time at this point, Madam Chairman.

Chairwoman BIGGERT. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes the

gentlewoman from California, Ms. Woolsey.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Thank you, Madam Chairman—Chairwoman. I

would like to each of you, from your vantage point in what you

know so much about—you are great input for all of us, you are just

a great resource. But you come from different places, each one of

you. What do you, from your vantage point, consider to be the one

most serious threat to our climate, and will voluntary compliance

meet the needs and come up with the right solutions soon enough?

So why don’t we start with you, Mr. Conover.

Mr. CONOVER. Thank you, Congresswoman.

Ms. WOOLSEY. And I know there is no one, but you tell me your

one that you think is the most important.

Mr. CONOVER. Well, the issue is that—the real issue is achieving

the goal of long-term stabilization at levels below which dangerous

interference with the climate will not occur. That is the goal. The

question is how does that translate into atmospheric concentrations

and over what timeframe? So the most important thing we can be

doing here is ensuring that we have a sufficient array of technologies, both in the near and the longer-term, that as our investment portfolio moves forward, technologies succeed and fail based

on a variety of conditions, we are able to be flexible and respond

appropriately as time moves forward. It is not just a voluntary approach. It is a voluntary approach coupled with significant federal

R&D investment, and we believe that is the best way to address

this challenge.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Rudins.

Mr. RUDINS. Let me respond to you in the context of the

FutureGen technology and the project, and your thought on voluntary compliance. The logic behind the FutureGen project is if one

can develop the technology that not only deals with carbon emissions and traditional emissions and boosts the performance of that

technology, but does so in a cost-competitive fashion, meaning the

costs of electricity we are projecting is no more than a 10 percent

growth in the cost of electricity, and if we are successful, perhaps

at no growth in the cost of electricity.

If that kind of technology is developed, it would be rational that

the industry would opt for deploying a cleaner technology that is

42

at or close to the same price point than a less clean technology. So

FutureGen does have the potential for being a highly desirable

technology with—and without any mandatory controls as a requirement.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Dr. Benson.

Dr. BENSON. So, first to address your questions bout the biggest

concerns regarding climate change. A number of studies have been

done recently which suggest that sea level rise would be amongst

the first things to be concerned about, and second, a broad issue

than climate change alone, but some recent studies suggest that

acidification of the surface ocean is already taking place today, and

that can potentially impact the ocean food chain, starting with the

most productive area of the region, so those are the kinds of concerns.

With regard to voluntary compliance, I am no expert on this, but

in the circles that I spent my time, largely with the oil and gas industry, there is certainly the feeling that voluntary compliance, at

least in the short-term, will not be enough to motivate them in

most cases.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Dr. Brown.

Dr. BROWN. Yes, I guess that in terms of the impacts of climate

change, in addition to the global warming impact, sea rise level, et

cetera, I would be concerned about the increase in extreme weather

events, more droughts and more floods, not the net impact, but the

extremity of the impacts. And I guess I think you asked what

might be a high priority for action. I would like to offer that I believe the Federal Government needs to lead by example in a

stronger way. We do do some of that, of course, but—and not just

the Federal Government, but State and local government as well,

so show the steps that can be taken to address, reduce greenhouse

gas emissions cost-effectively.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Thank you. Mr. Conover, when you talk about the

goal of the Federal Government, long-term stabilization, I never

hear anything about when and at what levels, so what stabilization

levels for CO2 parts per million would be the aim for the Federal

Government and when?

Mr. CONOVER. Well, thank you for that. That is the issue of a

flexible portfolio that employs a diverse set of technologies, because

we don’t have a specific target. We don’t know exactly when we

need to hit that target, but we need to be taking action now. As

the scientific uncertainty decreases and we get better information

moving forward, making these investments today positions us better for the future to address those problems as they become more

clear.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Well, thank you very much. I have to say I think

the future is here, and that doesn’t make me feel very confident.

I think we are behind the gun on all of this, and we had better be

boogying, or we are going to be in big trouble. So, thank you, my

time is up.

Chairwoman BIGGERT. The gentlelady’s time has expired. The

gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Ehlers, is recognized for five minutes.

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you, Madam Chair. I have a host of questions, far more than I can do in five minutes, so I hope there is

43

a second round while I am still here. The first question, to Conover

or Rudins, I am not sure which one would be best. What sort of

energy penalty are you looking at for separating, compressing and

injecting the CO2, and Mr. Rudins, you just mentioned 10 percent

increase. Where do you get that figure? It seems to me that it is

going to be a lot more than that, unless you are going to locate

your power plants right on top of the coal field and inject right

back in.

Mr. RUDINS. My 10 percent figure was in terms of cost of electricity. You asked about the energy penalty.

Mr. EHLERS. Right.

Mr. RUDINS. If you were to take an amine scrubber and add it

to an existing coal plant, the energy penalty is probably on the

order of 30 percent of the gross power output of the plant. If you

were to take a technology like the clathrate technology that I described, that works effectively, most effectively with a high CO2

concentration stream of the type that you would get, say, from oxygen blown gasification, which would have about a 90 percent CO2

component, there the energy penalty by the developer is estimated

to be in the five to eight percentage point range, as opposed to the

30 or more percent point for a traditional amine scrubber, and the

developers are continuing to try to bring that energy penalty further down. But in terms of the costs of electricity differential, when

we are talking about FutureGen, it is the power plant plus sequestration costs, so there are opportunities for driving down the cost

of the power plant, the cost of the electricity generation.

Recognize that we are also talking about co-producing hydrogen,

so there are a number of revenue streams that are part of that

equation when I make that estimate of a 10 percent at most cost

of electricity penalty.

Mr. EHLERS. And how do you propose to produce hydrogen?

Mr. RUDINS. In this particular concept, we would gasify gas

through an oxygen blown-gasifier, or gasify coal, I should say, then

go through a shift reactor to maximize the hydrogen content, then

take the hydrogen plus CO2 gas stream and separate it out, separate out the CO2 through processes like the clathrate process or

membrane technology, and then use the hydrogen to power a fuel

cell or hydrogen turbine, and then sequester the CO2 stream.

Mr. EHLERS. So would this be a combined generation plant, then?

Mr. RUDINS. It would be.

Mr. EHLERS. So you can electrical energy from the combustion of

the carbon, and you subtract—and you generate electrical energy

through the fuel cell, using the hydrogen.

Mr. RUDINS. There are two possible configurations, one using the

carbon, the other is just going all the way to hydrogen and using

the hydrogen in the turbine, rather than combusting the carbon, so

there are several possible configurations there.

Mr. EHLERS. But the expense of operating a plant like that is

much greater than the normal coal-fired plant, isn’t it?

Mr. RUDINS. That is mainly because of the—new technology always costs more than mature, established technology. Today, gasification based systems have an initial capital cost about 20 percent

higher than a traditional coal plant, but that price point differential is coming up, and future plants will be more efficient, so while

44

there may be—while higher capital costs may remain, the cost of

electricity, through efficiency improvements, would come down.

Mr. EHLERS. Let me just say I am skeptical about the processes

you have described. I find difficult to believe that you would be able

to get the price down that much. I would guess it is probably a 30

percent penalty in either one. But let me pose the next question,

then. If that is true, what happens to the competitiveness between

nuclear power and coal power?

Mr. RUDINS. I am not sure how to answer that question, because

you essentially have to postulate a future scenario, and——

Mr. EHLERS. That is what you have just been doing.

Mr. RUDINS. Well, but a future scenario, in terms of is there

valuation for the carbon or not. If you were to look at today’s coalbased prices and add 10 percent to it, I am not sure where the

price point is for nuclear. You may have that knowledge. I don’t off

the top of my head.

Mr. EHLERS. I don’t. Does anyone here have that knowledge?

Most of you are from the Department of Energy. Well, I am just

curious. Obviously, France and India have decided it is cheaper to

produce electricity using nuclear power instead of fossil fuel, so the

price differential can’t be that much at this point.

Mr. CONOVER. Right, and that is the thrust of several of the Administration’s programs on the nuclear power side. Our belief is

that you are going to need, looking out over the next century, in

order to provide clean energy, you are going to need all of these options, nuclear and sequestered fossil fuel.

Mr. EHLERS. And in terms of transportation-produced CO2, are

you assuming that is all going to be hydrogen fuel cell driven?

Mr. RUDINS. I am—did you say transportation-produced CO2? In

that particular scenario, with FutureGen, the first line of attack is

to deal with the CO2 emissions with power plants. The co-production of hydrogen would in fact allow hydrogen to also be available

for the transportation fleet, yes, in that particular scenario.

Mr. EHLERS. Yeah. The question again is, at what cost compared

to alternative methods of production?

Mr. RUDINS. Well, currently, the projection for FutureGen, or I

should say, the goal, is to produce hydrogen at approximately $4

a million BTU or less. The present commercial price point for hydrogen is the price of natural gas plus about $2, give or take.

Mr. EHLERS. I believe my time has expired. Thank you.

Chairwoman BIGGERT. The gentleman is correct. The gentleman

from Illinois, Mr. Costello, is recognized for five minutes.

Mr. COSTELLO. Madam Chair, thank you very much, and I thank

you and Mr. Lampson for calling this hearing today. Mr. Rudins,

as you know, we have a very deep interest in the state of Illinois

in FutureGen. We met earlier this year with the Assistant Secretary, Mr. Smith, talked about it and Dr. Miller traveled to Southern Illinois University in Carbondale back in July, where myself

and my colleague, Congressman Shimkus, as well as our Senators

and the Governor, sponsored a forum where we brought industry

and government together to talk about FutureGen, and as you

know, we believe that we have all of the natural resources to make

FutureGen a success in the state of Illinois. Since I have limited

45

time and I have several questions, let me get directly into questions.

One is I wonder if you might lay out for the Subcommittee where

we are as far as the process is concerned. As far as criteria, site

selection, naming the consortium, preliminary environmental studies and all of those types of things.

Mr. RUDINS. We are presently at very early stages. We are now

going through an internal departmental process called the CD0

process, to in fact enable us to then formally move forward. You

may recall there was an RFI, request for information, that was

issued that laid out an approach the Department proposed, including negotiating with a qualifying industry consortium to move forward.

Before we can get to that point, we have to go through our internal process, which I anticipate probably will take us through this

calendar year, maybe into the next calendar year, at which point,

then, we need to make a decision as to whether we are going to

go forward in an—initially, a noncompetitive approach in terms of

negotiating with the industry consortium, as the RFI laid out, or

whether we would do that competitively.

In all cases, ultimately, the procurement of the components for

FutureGen and the site will all be done competitively, and will be

part of a formal, transparent, competitive process. But once we

complete that step, then we would enter into either negotiations

with a qualifying consortium or we would initiate a competitive

procurement that would lead to selection of a qualifying consortium. That is about a one-year differential there, whether we do it

noncompetitively or competitively.

After we initiate negotiations with a qualifying consortium, that

would likely be a very complex cooperative agreement to negotiate

in dealing with the various facets of such a project. It could take

four to six months to negotiate such a cooperative agreement, after

which the first priority would be to develop the key criteria, technical criteria for site selection that would then be the basis of a

competitive procurement, but as I laid out that approximate

timeline, you can see it is—we have got quite a bit of work to do

before we are to the point of initiating site selection. I don’t know

if that fully answers your question.

Mr. COSTELLO. Well, if you—do you have a timeline chart, in

other words, do you have a goal in mind as to when the negotiations will take place, and hopefully, a consortium will be named?

Mr. RUDINS. We basically have two timelines, one is if we go the

noncompetitive route, and the other adds a year if one goes competitively.

Mr. COSTELLO. And when will you make that decision, when will

the Department make the decision if it is going to be competitive

or if it is going to be noncompetitive?

Mr. RUDINS. Hopefully before the end of this calendar year.

Mr. COSTELLO. But at the end of this year, we will know if you

are going competitive or noncompetitive.

Mr. RUDINS. That is correct.

Mr. COSTELLO. How long do you expect that it will take to—assuming that you go noncompetitive, how long will it take to negotiate? What would you anticipate?

46

Mr. RUDINS. Well, recognize that at this point in time, it is simply my best estimate, but I would say four to six months.

Mr. COSTELLO. So sometime in the summer or fall, let us say the

summer of 2004, you will have a consortium in place and you will

then be able to proceed to evaluating sites?

Mr. RUDINS. Well, the first step will be—and we are doing all of

this in parallel, developing the key technical criteria that would be

needed for doing that. We expect to have it as a very open and

transparent process and—much like we have done in former competitive stations, we could very well have one or more public meetings to talk about the criteria that have been developed and the

process that we are proposing to pursue for that competitive selection.

Mr. COSTELLO. And the last question, and I know that the Administration and the Department of Energy has estimated that it

will cost about $1.1 billion, this FutureGen prototype plant, and I

understand that the goal is about 50 percent private investment,

50 percent federal. I don’t know if that has been determined yet,

but let me just ask you where are we in the funding process? Has

the Department of Energy, the Administration, requested funds? I

know that there is $9 million provided in the Interior Appropriations Bill for FutureGen, but are there other appropriations that

you have requested?

Mr. RUDINS. Yes, a couple of questions. First, we have not yet

made a final determination on funding. You are aware we just received some funding guidance in the ’04 Appropriation Bill that we

are now reviewing. That guidance indicated the appropriateness of

less than 50 percent cost-sharing, 80/20 for research, prototype

kind of components, and 50 percent cost-sharing for demonstration

components, so we are still working through that in terms of making a final determination with regard to that.

With, and I forgot the other part of your question, sir.

Mr. COSTELLO. Have you requested additional funds other than

the $9 million in the Interior Appropriations Bill?

Mr. RUDINS. No, just the $9 million. We did request authorization to use prior year Clean Coal funds, prior—Clean Coal funds

appropriated in prior years, and in the ’04 Appropriation Bill, we

received authorization, or in effect, appropriation of $9 billion in response to that request, which is the sum of money that we need

for the first year.

Mr. COSTELLO. And how much is that the first year?

Mr. RUDINS. $9 million, the DOE share, for the first year.

Mr. COSTELLO. Madam Chair, thank you. I thank you, Mr.

Rudins.

Chairwoman BIGGERT. Thank you, Mr. Costello. The gentleman

from Maryland is recognized for five minutes.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I have a few

questions, so I apologize for asking you for a quick response, so you

can answer yes, no, or maybe to most of these questions. I just

want to get a sense of how you feel. Based on the evidence that

our climate is changing, I guess people have some evidence that the

climate is changing. There is not too many people who still think

that we are okay.

47

Do you feel that our policies are sufficient to mitigate the full

range of the potential consequences of climate change, if we look

at weather patterns, more rain, less rain, the potential significant

biological consequences, the disease consequences, sea level rise,

acidification of sea level surface, et cetera, et cetera. Do you think

our policies right now, and you probably already looked at this, and

I was just showing it to Vern, but this week’s Science Times and

New York Times is mostly about climate change, and they have

some really—and I know you can’t learn everything you need to

know in one article, but there has been articles like this and books

written over the past decades about the potential consequences.

One of the things I read in this article was that the Amazon jungle might be an exporter of CO2, not a sink, as a result of a number of different variables that are going on down there, so have we

taken the full range of consequences into consideration? Do we

have, the Administration in particular, a sense of urgency about

what is going on with the fragile biosphere as a result of human

activity? Do we need, you might want to answer more than just

yes, no, maybe on this, because I am going to—do we need a Manhattan Project? We are going to unload, this afternoon, $87 billion

on Iraq. I voted for it. I am in support of what we are trying to

do there, that is $87 billion. Are our policies right now sufficient

enough to meet the consequences of the climate change? Do we

need a Manhattan Project? Is there a sense of urgency about this,

and is there a need for a sense of urgency?

Mr. CONOVER. Well, I am not sure, Congressman, what the—

what a Manhattan Project in today’s dollars would equate to, but

this Administration is very proud of $1.6 billion investment in climate change related technologies. The really groundbreaking and

leapfrog technologies, initiatives like the Hydrogen Fuel Initiative,

ITER, FutureGen, we are putting the pieces on the table and making the investments to——

Mr. GILCHREST. Right. I apologize because I may not be around

for the next round of questions, and I know everything that you are

doing, and I have heard Vern discuss the hydrogen, coal sequestration, those kinds of things, and I have had meetings with the Department of Energy about this issues, and the particulars and the

details of them. I think the overall riding sense that I would like

to leave here with is we are okay, we are on the right track.

Mr. CONOVER. We believe we are on the right track and making

the investments we need to make today to be prepared to respond

to the science as it answers these questions about the consequences. I think it is important to note that one area where there

is great scientific uncertainty are the consequences of climate

change in the long-term, but our focus is on mitigation technologies, not adapting to those consequences, but mitigating greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you.

Mr. RUDINS. I have to respond to you in the context of my responsibility in the FutureGen. I can’t imagine a more aggressive

goal than the development of coal-based power generation technology with zero emissions. To me, it is the ultimate manifestation

of clean coal technology, and if we are successful in achieving that,

it will be a remarkable achievement in that you can continue to use

48

fossil fuels with zero emission, and more so if we are successful

with our economic targets, to do so at competitive electricity prices.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you. Can you sequester CO2 without it

leaking? That would be for Dr. Benson.

Dr. BENSON. Yes, you can.

Mr. GILCHREST. Okay. Can we sequester more CO2 than we are

producing so we have a net reduction in CO2?

Dr. BENSON. Yes, we can.

Mr. GILCHREST. Okay. Good. But for how long, Vern says. Probably for our lifetime, anyway. Now, we want it for thousands of

years.

Dr. BENSON. Yes.

Mr. GILCHREST. Good.

Dr. BENSON. Thousands of years.

Mr. GILCHREST. Okay. Dr. Brown.

Dr. BROWN. Yes, I guess I would like to draw to your attention

that I do not believe we have an adequate program in the area of

climate adaptation. In some instances, it may be more cost-effective

for us to figure out how we can protect ourselves against the consequences of climate change, in combination with, of course, trying

to invest in carbon mitigation efforts. So I would just offer——

Mr. GILCHREST. Do we need a two-track policy?

Dr. BROWN. We do.

Mr. GILCHREST. Mitigation and adaptation.

Dr. BROWN. Adaptation.

Mr. GILCHREST. Because we may have crossed the line as far

as——

Dr. BROWN. We may need both.

Mr. GILCHREST. Yeah.

Dr. BROWN. In the end. Both offer solutions. And also, I believe

we need to invest more in assisting the developing world, help

them to develop along a pathway which is less carbon intensive,

and we could use more resources to do that, and the benefits to the

Nation would include export opportunities for our clean technologies.

Mr. GILCHREST. Maybe we should eliminate the space program

for a decade. What do you think about that?

Dr. BROWN. No, I wouldn’t. No.

Mr. GILCHREST. Just kidding. Thank you, Madam Chairman.

Chairwoman BIGGERT. Thank you. The gentleman from Oregon,

Mr. Wu.

Mr. WU. Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to take a step

back. I realize that you all are implementing policy, developing policy, but I would like to ask you the same question that I have been

asking meteorologists and atmospheric scientists for 10 or 15 years,

and that is just first of all to go down the row, one way or the

other, just take a step back and—what’s—what probability, 0.30,

0.50, 0.80, higher or lower, would you assign, based on the evidence

that we currently have available, I guess, there are some Members

of the Full Committee who continue to have serious doubts about

whether there is a real phenomena of atmospheric or climate

change because of greenhouse gases, so I would just like to go down

the row, and I have to say that over a period of time, I have been

getting, it seems, like a steady change in probabilistic assessments

49

from meteorologists and so on, and I would like to hear from you

all, first your assignment of probabilities that there is an effect currently occurring. Either direction.

Mr. CONOVER. Well, I will start by saying the beauty of being the

Director of the Climate Change Technology Program and not the

Climate Change Science Program is I don’t have to answer that

question. I know——

Mr. WU. I would like to know what the implementer things

about—whether the implementer believes there is a real problem

or not. I think that is highly relevant.

Mr. CONOVER. We have our eye on the goal, sir, yes, and we are

charged with facilitating the development and deployment of these

technologies.

Mr. WU. But what I asked for is a number.

Mr. CONOVER. I am not qualified to give you that number, sir.

Mr. RUDINS. Unfortunately, I have to give you a similar answer.

I am not really qualified to give you that number, but to respond

to you in the fashion that again, with the development of the—of

FutureGen, that question perhaps doesn’t even need to be answered in the context of fossil fuels. If that technology is, again, developed and available for deployment, a zero emission technology,

then whatever the predicted future is, that will be one possible solution path for dealing with it.

Dr. BENSON. Unfortunately, I am not a meteorologist and an expert in that topic, so I can’t give you a probability. I will, however,

say I think that we should work as aggressively and as quickly as

possible to develop a suite of mitigation options, so that we are prepared to implement them both in the short, medium and long-term.

Mr. WU. Dr. Brown.

Dr. BROWN. Yes, I would refer to the conclusion of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which said something like the

body of the evidence is overwhelming, my probability would be very

high.

Mr. WU. So, Dr. Brown, you have a very high probability, and

as for Dr. Benson and Mr. Rudin’s and Mr. Conover, would it be

fair to say that whatever probability you all might assign to it, that

you view this as—you are completely motivated to work on mitigation or solutions?

Mr. CONOVER. Absolutely, sir.

Mr. WU. And perhaps, Dr. Brown, since you are the only person

who was willing to take a stab at the number, I read an article a

long time ago, I can’t remember whether it was in Nature or

Science, but it said that climate change may be paradoxical, that

is, we get these greenhouse gases, we get some temperature rise,

but instead of steady creep in temperature, we may flip right into

an Ice Age instead. I haven’t been able to track that. If you know

anything about that, I am dying to know whether it is going to get

warmer or colder.

Dr. BROWN. I will get back with you. That is the best answer.

Mr. WU. Thank you.

Mr. GILCHREST. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. WU. Yes, I would.

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Wu, there is some fascinating evidence

about the global warming causing the slowdown or the stop of the

50

ocean currents, the conveyor belt which drives that, and if that

happens, that could trigger an Ice Age, because you don’t have the

dispersal of warm air from the equator getting up to the more

northern regions around the Arctic Circle, and it is a little bit complicated, but there is a potential to trigger an Ice Age within less

than 20 years, so——

Mr. WU. I thank the gentleman from Maryland, and I have also

read about how precipitation could cause reflectivity to change, and

that could be another effect, but the gentleman has me at a disadvantage. He has the Tuesday Science section from the New York

Times, and I am afraid that that is probably as technical as I can

get these days, so if the gentleman wouldn’t mind loaning it to me

at some point, I surely will appreciate it, and with that, Madam

Chair, I am pleased to yield back the balance of my time.

Chairwoman BIGGERT. The gentleman from——

Mr. LAMPSON. I want to butt in——

Chairwoman BIGGERT [continuing]. Texas.

Mr. LAMPSON [continuing]. For a second, and ask Mr. Gilchrest

also. Remember when we were in—at the South Pole, we were told

something about those huge icebergs——

Mr. GILCHREST. Yes.

Mr. LAMPSON [continuing]. That were blocking, I forgot what it

was.

Mr. GILCHREST. The Ross Sea.

Mr. LAMPSON. The Ross Sea, that actually could potentially

change the climate of the Earth, or the temperature of those flows

of water through the oceans.

Mr. GILCHREST. We saw a regional climate change right down

there in the Antarctic, in that region around McMurdo Sound,

when this—two huge icebergs closed off the outlet of the Ross

Sea——

Mr. LAMPSON. Right.

Mr. GILCHREST [continuing]. To that southern part of the Pacific

Ocean. When it did that, the frozen Ross Sea could not get out any

more, so even though global warming caused those icebergs to

break off, the region around McMurdo Sound became much colder,

because the ice couldn’t be pushed out by the wind, and therefore,

that precipitated another mini regional climate change, but made

it colder. There is a great trend——

Chairwoman BIGGERT. Maybe at our next hearing, we will have

to include icebergs. I have a couple of more questions, so maybe all

of our Members don’t, but I would like to proceed. Mr. Conover, in

the report that was delivered this morning, the Department notes

that there—well, less than 10 technologies, 10 or less, I don’t know

what that means, submitted that were rated high in technical

merit, responsive to the criteria. These were reports that were in

response to the request for information, so they came from various

places, and yet, were either novel or created but kind of fell

through the current DOE programs, so were ineligible for funding.

Do you know what some of these technologies are, and how DOE

might help to ensure that these ideas perhaps will become commercialized.

Mr. CONOVER. Thank you, Chairwoman Biggert, and let me put

that in context. The RFI that you are discussing and the report

51

that we are providing today, was sent out in November of 2002,

and closed in January of this year. It was asking for innovative approaches to climate change technology, and the intent was to try

to determine whether there were concepts out there that were not

being addressed by the existing procurement programs or would be

unable to be addressed by the existing procurement programs, that

RFI garnered about 180 different concepts proposed by 79 different

entities.

All of those entities, in proposing those concepts, have an expectation of privacy with respect to their specific ideas, but I can say

that because we are—we were able to move forward on one of the

areas that is an extremely important, novel, sort of applied strategic research idea, and that is microbes that could potentially both

produce hydrogen and sequester carbon dioxide. The outcome of the

analysis that is discussed in that report was that the DOE Office

of Science is able to modify its procurement programs and begin to

incorporate that kind of program into its efforts, so while we were

looking for gaps, what we were able to do as well was help the programs fine-tune their procurements so that they can gather in concepts such as that in the future.

Chairwoman BIGGERT. So, the Department will continue to monitor those programs and perhaps at some point, more of them will

fit into something that can be used.

Mr. CONOVER. Yes, we have requested funding for a competitive

solicitation program that would have followed on to the request for

information. Haven’t received funding from Congress on that yet.

If we remain unsuccessful in getting funding for an actual procurement program along those lines, we may continue the request for

information process to continue to survey the community and ensure that these concepts are brought forward and incorporated into

the existing programs.

Chairwoman BIGGERT. Well, it makes it easier for Congress to

fund something that they know what it is, I suppose. Dr. Benson,

are candidate sites for geologic sequestration located throughout

North America? Are there areas of North America that don’t have

any candidate sites?

Dr. BENSON. The majority of areas with large concentrations of

CO2 sources are located within close proximity to potential storage

sites. If you look at the Northwest, the rocks that underlay that

area may or may not be suitable. There are some studies that are

being done by Batel to look at whether those kind of formations

would be acceptable, too, but at this point, we don’t know. But by

and large, yes, there are reasonably close storage sites.

Chairwoman BIGGERT. Okay. What is the minimum number of

sites that need to be tested to convince the scientific community

that carbon sequestration is a viable technology?

Dr. BENSON. I think that demonstration projects, or you know,

large scale pilots in about five different regions, I think something

in the Gulf Coast area, something in the Southeast, something in

the Midwest with the Mount Simon Formation and something in

the West with the Central Valley of California would go a long,

long way toward persuading scientists that this was a good strategy to pursue.

Chairwoman BIGGERT. And how long do you think this will take?

52

Dr. BENSON. I think a program, aggressively implemented now,

I think that within 10 years or so, we could have a very good idea

of whether there would be good sites and what the capacity would

be in those regions.

Chairwoman BIGGERT. Would you agree with that, Mr. Rudins?

Mr. RUDINS. Yes, I would.

Chairwoman BIGGERT. Mr. Lampson, would you?

Mr. LAMPSON. No more questions, but just a wrap-up comment,

it is hard to consider all of these things and fit it into context with

what we are living. Mr. Gilchrest made the comment that we are

providing $87 billion in Iraq right now, and I, too, voted for that.

Yet we put that in the context of spending a billion dollars on research on something that has in its hands, the future of this whole

Earth, and it gets a little frightening, where we are placing our priorities, where we puts tens or hundreds of billions of dollars into

defense-related matters, yet we are more or less turning our backs

on something that could consume each human being on this planet.

We, perhaps, need to give that consideration, and perhaps coin the

phrase that Ms. Woolsey used a while ago, maybe it is time for us

to boogey.

Chairwoman BIGGERT. Thank you for your comments. The gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Gingrey.

Mr. GINGREY. Well, first of all, in response, maybe to follow up

to what Mr. Lampson said, in comparing the cost and the priorities, I think those terrorists could kill us dead a whole lot quicker

than some of these greenhouse gas effects, so maybe that is a part

of it.

Mr. LAMPSON. But not the whole Earth.

Mr. GINGREY. My question, is guess, is to Dr. Benson. In regard

to the CO2 sequestration, I guess that seems to be the main focus

of the hearing, and, you know, I realize that, you know, CO2, you

put it down deep, and it is soluble in water, and a lot of the CO2

would dissolve, but I wanted to ask you in regard to sites of sequestration where you are putting literally tons and tons of CO2, however deep it might be, under the Earth’s surface, there is a certain

amount of pressure that would develop even with the solubility of

CO2 in water, and would you have to worry a long-term about a

site where there is a fault, a significant fault, as an example, in

California, is there some potential at some point in time that we

will push, we will make an island out of California if we were sequestering CO2 in an area like that?

Dr. BENSON. Well, it turns out that faults often provide seals to

oil and gas reservoirs, so just by virtue of existence of the presence

of a fault does not mean that a site would not be a good storage

site. In fact, you know, many of the best traps are located where

you have a fracture and the sand get butted up against shale on

the other side. So, you know, certainly, if you have a site that there

is a fault there, you would want to characterize that that fault

seals, rather than is open and leaks, and there are tests available

today that are very applicable and useful for testing, those kind of

things. So, you know, certainly, if there were an open fault, you

know, that would need to be considered very carefully before you

would store CO2 there, but just because there is a fault doesn’t

mean you shouldn’t do it.

53

Mr. GINGREY. Anybody else wish to comment on that? Dr.

Brown? No? Thank you, Madam Chairman.

Chairwoman BIGGERT. The gentleman from Oregon, Mr. Wu. All

right. Thank you. Just one last question, which is always tricky,

because it usually is the one that is the hardest. Dr. Brown, how

can the Federal Government act to eliminate the market failures

that impede deployment of energy efficiency technologies?

Dr. BROWN. Well, first, I guess, the—we have got to get the

prices. There are a number of externalities that are not incorporated into the price that we currently pay for energy, and that

includes, of course, the criteria pollutants, but also, if you wanted

a price for CO2, a price for national security, all of those, if included, would result in a price of energy which would far exceed

what we currently pay. That is a market failure. There are other

market failures. One that I use as an example often is the principal

agent failure. That is the case where decisions are being made by

one individual that affect the energy technologies that are going to

be used by another individual. An example is the landlord and the

tenant, or the individual who purchases the fleet of automobiles for

a state agency, for those users to utilize, so you have principal

agents, and the failures are numerous, but those are just two of

them.

Chairwoman BIGGERT. Do you have any idea which changes

would make the greatest contribution to energy saving?

Dr. BROWN. I think getting the price right. A lot of——

Chairwoman BIGGERT. The price is right, isn’t that——

Dr. BROWN. Yeah. Right. There are many ways that that can be

done, but I would put that at the top of my list.

Chairwoman BIGGERT. Thank you. All right, again for Dr. Brown.

What portion of your report’s recommendations have been implemented?

Dr. BROWN. Now, what is the status of the Energy Bill today?

Chairwoman BIGGERT. Very close, it is very close.

Dr. BROWN. Not many yet, but we are hopeful that some will

have some sticking power and maybe be implemented.

Chairwoman BIGGERT. Thank you. Before we bring this—the

hearing to a close, I want to thank our panelists for testifying before the Subcommittee today. If there is no objection, the record

will remain open for additional statements from the Members and

for answers to any followup questions the Subcommittee may ask

the panelists. Without objection, so ordered. The hearing is now adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 11:40 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

(55)

Appendix 1:

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL FOR THE RECORD

56

57

58

59

60

REPORT ON RESPONSES TO THE REQUEST FOR INFORMATION REGARDING THE

NATIONAL CLIMATE CHANGE TECHNOLOGY INITIATIVE

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

On November 19, 2002, a ‘‘Request for Information and Statement of Interest’’

(RFI) was issued by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to explore the depth and

breadth of interest in a potential future competitive solicitation for research on innovative climate change technologies. This RFI was issued in support of the President’s National Climate Change Technology Initiative (NCCTI). The RFI closed on

January 31, 2003.

In brief, the RFI analysis revealed two benefits. First, the RFI process provided

a valuable tool in evaluating and possibly expanding current agency R&D programs.

It is possible that future RFIs can provide further ideas for improvements to existing programs. Second, the analysis revealed significant interest in participating in

a NCCTI competitive solicitation program. At the same time, the RFI submittals

raised a number procedural issues that will need to be addressed and resolved if

an RFP is pursued. Better awareness of these issues can be expected to clarify and

strengthen a future NCCTI competitive solicitation program.

Request for Information

As announced in the RFI, as in reference to the NCCTI, the DOE requested information on and expressions of potential interest in a possible, future DOE competitive solicitation on research. If pursued, the research would explore concepts, technologies and technical approaches that could, if successful, contribute in significant

ways to: (a) future reductions in or avoidances of greenhouse gas emissions; (b)

greenhouse gas capture and sequestration (permanent storage); (c) capture and conversion of greenhouse gases to beneficial use; or (d) enhanced monitoring and measurement of greenhouse gas emissions, inventories and fluxes in a variety of settings.

The RFI mentioned that, if pursued, the NCCTI competitive solicitation could involve the award of tens of millions of dollars in research grants or other forms of

financial assistance for research over multiple years. The RFI said that, if pursued,

the competitive solicitation would be open to all proposers in order to encourage the

broadest possible participation.

As a first step in considering this program, the DOE invited interested parties to

submit a Statement of Interest, which would include identification of a point of contact and other information about the party. Parties were also encouraged to submit

a brief outline of an idea, concept, technology or technical approach, that would be

the subject of research and focus on the above-stated NCCTI objectives.

Summary of Responses

DOE received 180 responses containing at least one proposed idea, concept, technology or technical approach, from a total of 79 different individuals, organizations

or other entities. DOE received an additional 16 statements of interest, but with no

submitted ideas. A summary of the RFI responses with ideas is provided below.

• 180 responses (technology ideas) were received, representing the interests or

submissions of 79 different organizations or responding entities;

• 45 of the 79 entities were private sector;

• 10 of the 79 entities were non-governmental organizations (NGOs);

• 11 of the 79 entities were universities;

• A number of entities were States or municipal governments;

• Numerous additional entities (different from the 79 submitting) were mentioned in various responses as potential partners, contributors or collaborators.

• An additional 16 entities, beyond the 79 noted above, expressed interest in

a future NCCTI competitive solicitation, but did not submit a concept or technology.

Technical Review of the RFI Responses

All 180 RFI responses with ideas were assigned for review to six working groups

operating under the auspices of the multi-agency U.S. Climate Change Technology

Program (CCTP). The six working groups broadly represented six technical areas:

(1) energy production; (2) energy efficiency; (3) CO2 capture and sequestration; (4)

greenhouse gases other than CO2; (5) measuring and monitoring of greenhouse

gases; and (6) supporting basic or strategic research. If concepts or technologies

were cross-cutting in nature, or did not fit uniquely in one area or another, such

concepts were assigned to multiple working groups, as appropriate.

61

The resulting RFI reviews, in general, were limited to screening and initial assessments, intended to identify ideas that were relevant to the RFI criteria, innovative, and having overall technical merit. The evaluations were thorough, but not as

rigorous as would be expected in a more formal review of responses to a Request

for Proposals (RFP) where awards would be made under peer review.

Summary of Technical Review Findings

The overall response (79 entities submitting a total of 180 concepts) was considered reasonable, given that: (i) no funding was offered in the RFI; (ii) the announcement’s 42-day open period spanned the Thanksgiving and winter holiday periods;

and (iii) no advantage was conferred upon the respondent, vis-a ́-vis a future solicitation, from developing ideas and sending then in. Even so, the response should be

considered light, compared to what might be expected if substantial funding were

offered. Thus the findings summarized below should not be considered definitive or

exhaustive. The technical review findings may be characterized as follows:

• 25 of 180 RFI responses focused on program management or decision support

tools that might help focus R&D on climate change technologies or related

concepts.

• More than 120 of the RFI responses were integrative in nature, or otherwise

cut across two or more existing research and development program areas.

• More than 120 of the RFI responses were rated ‘‘high in overall technical

merit,’’ vis-a ́-vis the goals or criteria as stated in the RFI announcement.

• More than 90 of the RFI responses were assessed as either falling within the

scope of currently funded State or federal R&D programs, or were consistent

with such programs.

• More than 90 of the RFI responses were assessed as either falling within the

scope of currently funded private sector R&D programs, or as consistent with

such programs.

• More than 30 of the RFI responses were assessed as representing ideas or

technical areas that would not fall within the scope of currently funded federal, State, or privately funded R&D programs, if broadly considered.

• Less than 10 of the RFI responses were simultaneously assessed as high in

technical merit, responsive to the RFI criteria, and unique or novel, that is,

not easily fitting into the scope of any existing R&D funding program, if

broadly considered.

Although most of the 180 concepts submitted were assessed as both having ‘‘high

technical merit’’ and being responsive to the RFI goals, few were found to fall outside the competitive purview of one or more of the known existing federal or privately funded R&D programs. The working groups concluded that most RFI responses would be appropriate for consideration for competition within the scope of

existing R&D programs. The working groups were not able to determine from the

information provide whether the submitted concepts would be sufficiently competitive to be awarded funding, compared to the universe of other concepts that would

be competing for such funding.

RFI responses that seemed appropriate for consideration within the scope of existing R&D programs were forwarded to the appropriate R&D programs for such consideration. The existence of some RFI responses that were evaluated high in technical merit, responsive to the RFI criteria, and sufficiently innovative, novel, crosscutting or integrative in nature that they did not seem to fit easily into existing

R&D funding programs, suggested that there may be some gaps in the existing

R&D program structure, where a future NCCTI competitive solicitation might complement others in the larger scheme of a multi-agency U.S. climate change technology R&D program.

Procedural Issues Identified

Beyond the findings of the RFI response technical review, a number of procedural

issues, or points of potential confusion, were identified. In the event that a future

Request for Proposals (RFP) should go forward for a future NCCTI competitive solicitation, these issues would need to be clarified or resolved. The reviewers suggested

a few potential solutions to some of these issues:

• Apparently, one of the greatest sources of confusion, given the RFI’s broad

scope, was duplication with ongoing R&D programs, and the reviewer’s desire

to avoid duplicate or conflicting awards. As long as both sources of funding

exist (current programs and the NCCTI solicitation), and as long as both are

competing head-to-head with each other, extensive coordination will be reVerDate 11-MAY-2000 23:13 Apr 08, 2004 Jkt 090165 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\ENER03\110603\90165 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
62

quired among the NCCTI reviewers and the existing R&D programs in order

to avoid conflict or overlap.

• One solution might be to focus NCCTI research, instead, on selected areas

that differentiate themselves from ongoing R&D, cut across multiple federal

program mission areas, or score high on innovativeness or novelty of approach, thereby exploring new or novel areas of technology R&D not covered

by existing R&D programs.

• Another approach would be to encourage proposals with integrated approaches for a more efficient use of research dollars, for example, power production with sequestering CO2, rather than separate proposals.

• Many of the RFI submittals identified an idea or an R&D project that is already being accomplished by other efforts. Truly innovative proposals are

likely to be rare, given that current R&D programs already have many and

highly interactive mechanisms for inviting, unearthing and pursuing promising new research directions. At the same time, it is possible that enhanced

R&D along existing lines for some technologies could have some accelerating

effects, with resulting beneficial impacts on reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Thus, questions about the relationship between a future RFP and an

existing R&D program will need to be spelled out clearly. Some sample issues

follow:

• How will the RFP deal with the varying degrees of overlap of new ideas

with existing federal R&D activities?

• Should a proposer be required to document how a new proposal fits with

current federal R&D efforts?

• How should innovation be defined and/or rewarded?

• How should an idea be scored that suggests R&D that is already funded

under an existing program, or that is closely related to or an extension

of an existing program, or that is a specific project that could be funded

under an existing program like the Federal Energy Management Program or Building America?

• Many RFI responses proposed projects that would demonstrate or deploy (extend the use of) existing technology (i.e., develop green building designs, demonstrate energy efficient buildings, or demonstrate use of CNG or H2 in fleet

vehicles). So, another area of confusion arose from questions about differences

between R&D and demonstration projects, and how each should be evaluated.

A future RFP would need to address this concern and, for example, clearly

state that the funding is for ‘‘R&D’’ for climate change technology development, and not for demonstration projects, or alternatively, if demonstration

projects are desired, then criteria would need to address how they will be

treated, versus R&D.

• Many RFI responses sought funding support for commercialization of existing

technologies, which is generally regarded as a private sector responsibility,

and not consistent with the federal research mission. A future RFP would

need to state a clear position on this point stating, for example, that commercialization of existing technologies are not within its scope.

• Request information on state of development for the technology. It may be

helpful to apply the well defined research categories of ‘‘6.1—Basic Research,

6.2—Applied Research, 6.3—Advanced Technology Development,’’ as employed in DOD research and development programs.

• Clarify the kinds of activities that would be most appropriate and likely to

gain federal support. If it is likely that industry has sufficient motivation to

pursue the research for its own benefit, then additional support by the government would not seem warranted.

Other issues arose with respect to who is eligible or not eligible to respond to the

RFP and be awarded a federal grant or contract. Would there be restrictions on nonU.S. firms, or other forms of governments? Some suggestions from the review include the following:

• Encourage participation and collaboration across sectors (industry, university,

and national laboratory), and discourage individual investigations, as a

means of enhancing robustness.

• For truly novel, innovative (i.e., risky and far from commercialization) basic

or strategic research, a requirement for industry cost-sharing or co-funding

may be counterproductive, as private investment may draw research to more

63

tangible or nearer-term focus, and discourage longer-term, higher risk, but

potentially higher payoff, ventures.

• Encourage collaboration with foreign investigators (possibly patterned after

the DOE–NE NERI or I–NERI), so that the best ideas and best teaming arrangements, are available.

A number of other suggestions emerged, provided below, for consideration as a

means to clarify responder requirements or otherwise improve the structure and facilitate the review of a future RFP.

• Provide links to relevant R&D programs and published technology roadmaps

at all the agencies participating in the CCTP, in order to assist investigators

in accessing information on related programs and technologies and improving

their proposals.

• Require the responder to identify the source of all research funds being used

on the proposed initiative. This will help the reviewer with coordination

among multi-agency participants.

• Specifically require information as to whether or not the proposed technology

has been submitted elsewhere to other U.S. Government funding programs.

• Request information on whether the technology is envisioned to be available

in the near-term or longer-term. The NCCTI RFP should support a mix of innovative technologies and technology-based solutions—some of which could be

brought to market quickly and others which require more sustained R&D

over years to decades.

• Require information on project size and the required investment to achieve

its objective.

• Request information on the applicability and GHG benefits of the technology.

It would be useful to have information on the emission sources to which the

technology is to be applied, and the magnitude of the impact on greenhouse

gas stabilization that the proposed technologies are projected to enable. Impact analysis and assessment would contribute to the prioritization process

within NCCTI.

• Provide guidelines to standardize basic information provided regarding the

principal and co-investigators, and their affiliations, and the capabilities of

the research team and facilities.

Finally, other issues arose about projects that might better fall under the scope

or purview of the Climate Change Science Program (CCSP), rather than the CCTP.

This also identified a need to clarify how cross-cutting (CCSP/CCTP) research

should be addressed.

Technical Findings Identified

Several responses focused on program management or decision support tools that

might help focus R&D on climate change technologies or related concepts. While the

majority of the abstracts met the criteria associated with the RFI and rated well

with respect to the criteria, decision support tools may be needed to help prioritize

and integrate the diverse technology R&D and aid in achieving the long- and shortterm missions of CCTP.

With respect to longer-term technologies, technologies and practices that rely on

scientific advances, including geo-engineering, precision use of advanced information

technologies, and advanced bio-products development, are still at points in their development where basic research and ‘‘proof of concept’’ demonstrations are priorities.

Basic research questions also relate to the development and application of advanced

technologies. For example, there are many opportunities for research in biotechnology (genomics, genetics, proteomics) that may aid in managing carbon. In addition, basic research is needed in establishing the interactions between efforts to

improve carbon storage and nutrient cycling and potential positive and negative impacts on other environmental services.

Most current and proposed R&D explore individual technologies. However, there

are possible commonalities and synergisms among the technologies that lend themselves to cross-cutting research activities in some areas. Such possibilities need to

be identified and pursued early. For example, many materials issues are similar

across a number of technologies, particularly as we look toward advanced technologies that employ higher temperatures, and pressures. It would be highly desirable for some of the early NCCTI initiatives to focus on such cross-cutting R&D

areas.

Likewise, a number of technologies may be amenable to integrated implementation strategies. While implementation is largely not an R&D activity, there are some

64

analytical issues that need to be addressed to determine compatibility of alternative

energy production technologies, optimal configurations, and systems integration

issues. These analytical activities are also appropriate to the NCCTI.

Enabling technologies also need to be identified and analyzed. In particular,

issues like land use and long-term availability of resources or feedstocks critical to

a technology need to be examined. For example, resources and reserves of natural

gas, supplies of bismuth for potential lead-bismuth nuclear technology, catalysts for

chemical processes associated with energy production technologies, etc., are all critical to the long-term feasibility of some of the technologies. This is an area that has

had only fragmentary attention to date and is worthy of analysis under the NCCTI.

In some cases, infrastructure issues may also need to be addressed. This is particularly the case where an accelerated introduction of a technology may be desirable. Infrastructure issues which may be relevant include mining, fabrication, and

construction facilities and capabilities. Little work has been done in these areas,

particularly for advanced technologies, and NCCTI should initiate some studies,

particularly to address accelerated introduction plans.

In this increasingly global economy, energy production resource and infrastructure

issues need to be examined on both a national and international basis. In some

cases, sufficient national resources and infrastructure will be necessary to ensure

national security. However, significant elements of our energy production infrastructure are likely to be imported. In those cases, we need to assure the adequacy of

supply globally, considering also the competing global demands for the supply.

Given the important of an adequate energy supply to national security and economic

health, this is an important area for the NCCTI to consider.

The NCCTI competitive solicitation may also wish to encourage proposals to assess how much the potential benefits of using different energy technology options,

such as wind, solar, or sequestration might be affected by changes to a future climate, should they occur.

Finally, the solicitation should clearly state that the scope of the RFP includes

R&D on all greenhouse gases (GHGs), not just CO2 or methane. Other gases include

nitrous oxide, sulfur hexaflouride, and other chemicals with high global warming potential (GWP).

Complementarity Issues for a Future NCCTI Competitive Solicitation

A number of RFI responses were evaluated as sufficiently innovative, novel, crosscutting or integrative in concept to warrant further interest, yet did not seem to fit

easily into existing R&D funding programs or the established federal R&D organizational hierarchies, or if they did, they seemed to fit only on the margins, and not

likely to gain mainstream support. These responses were not necessarily the best

developed RFI responses, but were among some of the more interesting, novel or

unique concepts or applications. Although relatively small in number, these RFI responses suggest a number of gaps or potentially fruitful areas of R&D, as characterized below, where a future competitive solicitation might add value uniquely by

complementing an otherwise robust federal program of ongoing R&D in climate

change-related technology development.

The following is a generalized list of areas for further consideration, if a NCCTI

competitive solicitation program were redirected at complementing, rather than

competing with, existing R&D programs. Currently, these areas are not as well represented in the existing R&D portfolio.

• Decision-support tools. Numerous RFI responses proposed various analytical,

assessment, software, modeling or other quantitative methods for better understanding and assessing the role of technology in long-term approaches to

achieving stabilization of concentrations in the atmosphere. While individual

R&D programs sponsor the development of such tools, these are applicable

mainly to their respective areas of responsibility or technologies. There is no

place where broad-based tools may be applied or integrated across all technologies.

• Strategic research. Strategic research is basic research applied to a particular

problem or technological focus area. Many existing agency research programs

are either basic or applied in their missions, and so restricted by their appropriations. As a result, strategic research often finds no specific program able

or willing to explore novel concepts along unconventional lines.

• Applied bio-engineering. As an example of strategic research, one RFI proposed to search for or engineer unique microorganisms both to produce hydrogen and sequester carbon dioxide. Ideas such as this have not neatly fit into

the basic energy research programs of DOE’s Office of Science (SC), as they

may be too applied, nor do they fit in the energy supply, energy conservation,

65

fossil energy or sequestration R&D programs of DOE’s applied R&D programs

in FE, EE or NE, as they are too basic and exploratory. The RFI analysis

process enabled DOE’s Office of Science to examine this concept for inclusion

in its procurement strategy.

• Integrative concepts. Integrative concepts cut across R&D program lines and

attempt to combine technologies and/or disciplines, and may promise some of

the highest results, yet often experience difficulty in finding funding support

from any of the areas. Integrative concepts present unique challenges for program lines and are difficult to coordinate across agencies or across traditional

R&D program or mission areas.

• Novel concepts. Novel concepts, almost by definition, do not have logical funding homes within the boundaries of traditional R&D organizations. They may

build on scientific disciplines outside the routine or expected, may be unfamiliar, or perhaps threatening to other approaches, can suffer poor reviews

by tradition-bound peers, or simply present too high of a risk for regular, metric-monitored investments. Yet, novel concepts can promise potentially valuable ways to reduce GHG emissions, reduce GHG concentrations, or otherwise

address the effects of climate change, if pursued and explored. Somewhere

within the overall program support for climate change technology R&D there

needs to be means provided for funding and exploring novel concepts not fitting within regular appropriated R&D programs.

• Greenhouse gases other than CO2. Beyond CO2, there are anthropogenic emissions of a number of other greenhouse gases, including methane, nitrous

oxide, and several high-global warming potential (GWP) gases. In the nearterm, emissions of such gases may be more amenable to capture and control

than some of the major sources of CO2. For some of these gases, near-term

technological advances could result in rapidly attainable and cost-effective

GHG emission reduction strategies. Although other agencies, such as USDA

or EPA, have the agency-leads on inventorying or mitigating emissions of various sources or these other GHGs, technology R&D programs to address opportunities in these areas are needed.

• Measuring and monitoring systems. Accurate measurements underlie many

climate related actions and strategies for reducing GHG emissions. Improving

the ability to measure and monitor all important greenhouse gases (GHGs),

including their emissions, inventories and fluxes, across a variety of media

(soil, water, air) and spatial (local, regional) boundaries, is a top priority. RFI

responses included innovative new systems for remote and continuous monitoring of GHGs (not just CO2). These included detection and location of GHG

leaks.

• Feedstocks and materials. Often neglected in the usual emphasis of R&D on

energy are the more routine economic activities of heavy industry, mining,

manufacturing, agriculture and construction; which require resources, materials, feedstocks and other material inputs to their production processes, all

of which have associated GHG emissions in their resource cycles. One RFI

concept suggested systematic analytical methods to identify, review and select

promising areas for new technologies to be applied to reduce such emissions,

capture carbon, or otherwise substitute processes that result in little or no net

GHG emissions.

• Enabling Technologies. Enabling technologies contribute indirectly to the reduction of GHG emissions, by enabling the development, deployment and use

of other important technologies that reduce GHG emissions. A modernized

electricity grid, for example, is seen as an essential step enabling the deployment of more advanced end-use and distributed energy resources needed for

reducing GHG emissions.

• Exploratory Concepts Augmenting Existing Programs. Although DOE has well

established R&D programs in almost all areas of energy, from end-use energy

efficiency, to energy supply, a number of RFI concepts suggest that there may

be worthy areas found outside the mainstream focus of current R&D emphasis. Reasons for this may be because the field is broad and the programs need

to be more narrowly focused to be productive. The industry cost-sharing requirements may discourage risk taking and long-term ventures. The extensive

degree of collaborated processes may result in consensus building around central ideas, rather than on outliers. In DOD, extensive R&D funding is applied,

yet one of the most intriguing elements of DOD’s overall research program

is DARPA, designed to augment and explore novel, but potentially high-payoff

technology concepts.

66

Conclusion

In conclusion, the RFI responses indicated that there is broad interest in participating in a NCCTI competitive solicitation program, should one go forward. The RFI

process also provided a valuable tool in evaluating and possibly expanding current

agency R&D programs. A wealth of information was provided among the submitted

RFIs, and many of these can serve well as test cases for a future RFP or RFI process. At the same time, the RFI submittals raised a number procedural issues that

will need to be addressed and resolved if an RFP is pursued. Better awareness of

these issues can be expected to clarify and strengthen the focus and intents of a

future NCCTI competitive solicitation program undertaken in support of the President’s National Climate Change Technology Initiative.