Advanced Energy Technologies: Budget Trends and Challenges for DOE's Energy R&amp;D Program
Published: 2008-03-05T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: For decades, the nation has benefited from relatively inexpensive energy, in the process growing heavily reliant on conventional fossil fuels--oil, natural gas, and coal. However, in the current wake of higher energy costs and environmental concerns about fossil fuel emissions, renewed attention is turning to the development of advanced energy technologies as alternatives. In the United States, the Department of Energy (DOE) has long conducted research, development, and demonstration (R&D) on advanced renewable, fossil, and nuclear energy technologies. DOE's Office of Science has also funded basic energy-related research. This testimony addresses (1) funding trends for DOE's renewable, fossil, and nuclear energy R&D programs and its Office of Science and (2) key challenges in developing and deploying advanced energy technologies. It is based on GAO's December 2006 report entitled Department of Energy: Key Challenges Remain for Developing and Deploying Advanced Energy Technologies to Meet Future Needs (GAO-07-106). In doing that work, GAO reviewed DOE's R&D budget data and strategic plans and obtained the views of experts in DOE, industry, and academia, as well as state and foreign government officials.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: Between fiscal years 1978 and 1998, DOE's budget authority for renewable, fossil, and nuclear energy R&D fell 92 percent when adjusted for inflation (from its $6 billion peak in fiscal year 1978 to $505 million in fiscal year 1998). It has since rebounded to $1.4 billion in fiscal year 2008. Energy R&D funding in the late 1970s was robust in response to the 1973 energy crisis caused by constricted oil supplies. However, R&D funding plunged in the 1980s as oil prices returned to their historic levels. DOE's fiscal year 2009 budget, as compared with 2008, requests slightly less budget authority for renewable energy R&D, while seeking increases of 34 percent for fossil energy R&D and 44 percent for nuclear energy R&D. In addition, DOE is requesting $4.7 billion for basic research under its Office of Science. The development and deployment of advanced energy technologies present key technical, cost, and environmental challenges. DOE's energy R&D program has focused on reducing high up-front capital costs; improving the operating efficiency of advanced energy technologies to enable them to better compete with conventional energy technologies; and reducing emissions of carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas linked to global warming, and pollutants that adversely affect public health and the environment. However, while DOE has spent $57.5 billion over the past 30 years for R&D on these technologies, the nation's energy portfolio has not dramatically changed--fossil energy today provides 85 percent of the nation's energy compared to 93 percent in 1973. Because DOE's energy R&D funding alone will not be sufficient to deploy advanced energy technologies, coordinating energy R&D with other federal energy-related programs and policies will be important. In addition, other governments and the private sector will play a key role in developing and deploying advanced energy technologies that can change the nation's energy portfolio.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: I am pleased to be here today to discuss the challenges that our nation  faces in meeting its future energy needs. The United States has primarily  relied on market forces to determine its energy portfolio. The market has  generally succeeded in providing us with plentiful, reliable, and  inexpensive conventional fossil fuels—oil, natural gas, and coal—to power  our vehicles and run our homes and businesses. However, as shown in  figure 1, the nation’s energy portfolio today has not dramatically changed  since 1973. In 2006, fossil fuels accounted for 85 percent of the nation’s  energy supply as compared with 93 percent in 1973—the primary  difference in the portfolio was the growth of nuclear power in the 1970s  and 1980s. Oil continues to account for 97 percent of the energy consumed  for transportation and fossil fuels continue to generate 71 percent of the  nation’s electricity; renewable energy grew slightly during this period to 7  percent of U.S. energy consumption.
While conventional fossil fuels have provided us with relatively  inexpensive and plentiful energy, they present economic and national  security risks and have adverse health and environmental impacts. For  example, about two-thirds of the oil we consume is imported, and supply  constrictions have contributed to major energy price shocks several times  since 1973. More recently, decreased domestic production and increased  world consumption of oil have pushed prices upward, nearly doubling the  amount American consumers have paid for oil in just the past 3 years. In  addition, DOE projects that U.S. transportation demand will increase by 31  percent and U.S. electricity demand will increase by 35 percent by 2030.  Furthermore, emissions from the conventional burning of fossil fuels have  contributed to health problems––about 50 percent of Americans live in  areas where levels of one or more air pollutants are high enough to affect  public health. Also, the combustion of fossil fuels account for most of the  greenhouse gas emissions––particularly carbon dioxide––that have been  linked to global warming.
Since its inception in 1977, the Department of Energy (DOE) has had  leadership responsibility for energy research, development, and  demonstration (R&D) to deploy advanced renewable, fossil, and nuclear  technologies. DOE’s energy R&D goal is to develop technologies for  meeting future energy demands, addressing health and environmental  issues, and diversifying the nation’s energy portfolio. During the past 30  years, DOE has spent about $57.5 billion for R&D in renewable, fossil, and  nuclear technologies. In addition, DOE’s Office of Science has spent about  $34.3 billion from fiscal year 2000 through fiscal year 2008 on related basic  energy research in such areas as high energy and nuclear physics, basic  energy sciences, and fusion energy.
DOE’s fiscal year 2009 budget requests $1.8 billion for renewable, fossil,  and nuclear energy R&D and $4.7 billion for the Office of Science. In  addition, several other federal agencies perform R&D to develop advanced  energy technologies. For example, the Department of Agriculture funds  R&D on ethanol and biodiesel production and energy crops that maximize  ethanol production. The Department of Defense is the nation’s largest  consumer of transportation fuels, spending $13.6 billion on energy in fiscal  year 2006. The Department of Defense is conducting R&D—some of it in  collaboration with DOE—to develop alternative fuels to displace oil. One  Air Force program has already certified a new fuel for the B-52 bomber, a  50/50 blend of the standard oil-based JP-8 jet fuel and a new synthetic fuel  currently derived from natural gas that may be derived from biomass in  the future.
In addition to R&D funding, the federal government can attempt to tap the  vast resources of the private sector through tax incentives, such as tax  credits to companies that make certain types of energy investments. These  tax preferences—which are legally known as tax expenditures—result in  forgone revenue for the federal government. The revenue losses can be  viewed as spending channeled through the tax system. The federal  government provides the energy industry and consumers with 20 tax  expenditures affecting energy supply, totaling $6.3 billion in fiscal year  2007 and $4.9 billion in fiscal year 2008. While the tax subsidies were  historically directed toward the conventional energy sector, they have also  been directed toward stimulating the deployment of advanced energy  technologies. For example, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 provided a   (1) 2-year extension of the production tax credit for renewable  technologies, (2) new investment tax credit of up to $1.3 billion for  constructing new clean-coal power plants, and (3) new production tax  credit of 1.8 cents per kilowatt-hour for up to 6,000 megawatts of new  nuclear power capacity lasting 8 years after each qualifying nuclear  reactor begins service. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 also authorized DOE  to implement a new loan guarantee program for energy projects that  decrease air pollutants or greenhouse gases, employ new or significantly  improved technologies, and have a reasonable prospect of repayment. In  February 2007, the Congress authorized DOE to guarantee loans of up to  $4 billion. In December 2007, the Congress directed DOE to make loan  guarantees of up to $38.5 billion in fiscal years 2008 and 2009.
Moreover, the federal government can enact standards and mandates that  could impact the nation’s energy portfolio. For example, the federal  government has recently revised the renewable fuels standards to require  the use of 36 billion gallons of biofuels by 2022. For electricity, the  Congress has considered renewable portfolio standards that require a  percentage of electricity be generated from renewable sources.  Consideration has also been given to either a carbon tax or a carbon cap  and trade program to reduce the environmental impact of carbon  emissions and to better enable the market to compare total costs of  conventional fossil energy sources with advanced energy technologies.  Many states and foreign governments have enacted energy portfolio  standards, mandates, and financial incentives to stimulate the deployment  of renewable energy technologies that address their growing energy needs  and environmental concerns. In particular, 29 states have established  renewable portfolio standards requiring or encouraging that a fixed  percentage of the state’s electricity be generated from renewable sources.  For example, in response to the Texas renewable portfolio standard’s  requirement that 5,880 megawatts of renewable capacity be installed by  2015, electric power companies had installed over 1,900 megawatts of new  renewable capacity by September 2006—about 3 percent of Texas’ total  electricity consumption. Similarly, to develop a sustainable energy supply  and protect the environment, Germany established a goal to increase the  share of renewable energy consumption to at least 4.2 percent of its total  energy requirements by 2010 and 10 percent by 2020.
Within this broader context, I will discuss today (1) funding trends for  DOE’s renewable, fossil, and nuclear energy R&D programs and its Office  of Science and (2) key challenges in developing and deploying advanced  energy technologies. My remarks are primarily based on our December  2006 report on key challenges to developing and deploying advanced  technologies for using renewable, fossil, and nuclear energy. I will also  highlight findings from our recent reports on DOE’s R&D for oil and  natural gas and the Hydrogen Fuel Initiative. We conducted our work for  these reports from October 2005 through December 2007 in accordance  with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards  require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate  evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions  based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained  provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our  audit objectives.
In summary, DOE’s budget authority for renewable, fossil, and nuclear  energy R&D dropped by 92 percent (in inflation-adjusted terms) between  fiscal years 1978 and 1998 before bouncing back in part during the past 10  years. Specifically, DOE’s budget authority for renewable, fossil, and  nuclear energy R&D of about $6 billion was near its high point in fiscal  year 1978, when the nation faced severe energy crises. DOE’s budget  authority subsequently declined in the 1980s and 1990s as energy prices  returned to historical levels reaching its lowest level in fiscal year 1998 at  $505 million (in inflation-adjusted terms). Since then, DOE’s budget  authority for renewable, fossil, and nuclear energy R&D has increased to  $1.4 billion in fiscal year 2008. The Office of Science’s budget authority  also grew by 16 percent from fiscal year 2000 through fiscal year 2008.
Further development and deployment of advanced renewable, fossil and  nuclear energy technologies faces three key challenges. First, there are  technology-specific challenges. For example, high-wind sites have  generally been developed using current wind turbine technology. To  further expand the use of wind energy, DOE is working with industry to  develop new wind turbine designs and materials that exploit low-wind and  offshore sites. Second, there are cost challenges. These advanced energy  technologies often face high up-front capital costs and the need to improve  operating efficiency so they can better compete with conventional energy  technologies. The nuclear industry, for example, projects that new nuclear  power plants will likely cost between $4 billion and $6 billion each, about  twice the cost of comparable conventional coal power plants. Finally,  these technologies face challenges in addressing emerging concerns  related to public health and the environment. For example, DOE is  working with electric power companies to demonstrate coal gasification  and carbon sequestration technologies designed to enable coal plants to  reduce carbon dioxide and mercury emissions.
subsections: section_title: DOE’s Budget Authority for Renewable, Fossil, and Nuclear Energy R&D Has Substantially Declined in Real Terms Since 1978
paragraphs: DOE’s budget authority for renewable, fossil, and nuclear energy R&D  dropped by 92 percent from $6 billion  in fiscal year 1978 to $505 million in  fiscal year 1998 (in inflation-adjusted terms) before bouncing back to $1.4  billion in fiscal year 2008. As shown in figure 2, R&D budget authority in  renewable, fossil, and nuclear energy peaked in the late 1970s and fell  sharply in the 1980s. Since fiscal year 1998, R&D budget authority for  renewable and nuclear energy R&D have grown, while fossil energy R&D  funding has fluctuated in response to coal program initiatives.
Nuclear energy R&D, which received no funding in fiscal year 1998,  experienced the largest increase, rising to $438 million in fiscal year 2008.
During this period, budget authority for renewable energy increased by 89  percent and fossil energy increased by 116 percent. A comparison of  DOE’s fiscal year 2009 budget request with the fiscal year 2008  appropriation shows that renewable energy R&D would decline slightly,  while fossil energy R&D and nuclear energy R&D would increase by 34  percent and 44 percent, respectively (see app. I).
As shown in figure 3, budget authority for the Office of Science increased  by 16 percent from $3.4 billion in fiscal year 2000 to $4 billion in fiscal year  2008. The budget request for the Office of Science for fiscal year 2009 is  $4.7 billion, a 19-percent increase over the fiscal year 2008 appropriation.  Because the Office of Science funds basic research in materials sciences,  for example, many of its R&D programs may have useful applications for  energy R&D. In fiscal year 2009, the Office of Science has requested $69.1  million for research related to the solar energy R&D program, $42.9 million  related to biomass R&D, and $60.4 million for the Hydrogen Fuel Initiative.  The Office of Science also funds fundamental research in such areas as  high energy physics, nuclear physics, and fusion energy.
section_title: DOE Faces Key Challenges in Developing Advanced Energy Technologies for Deployment
paragraphs: There are key technical, cost, and environmental challenges in developing  advanced renewable, fossil, and nuclear energy technologies to address  future energy challenges.
subsections: section_title: DOE’s R&D Challenges for Advanced Renewable Energy Technologies
paragraphs: DOE’s recent R&D focus in renewable energy has been in (1) biomass- derived ethanol, (2) hydrogen-powered fuel cells, (3) wind technologies,  and (4) solar technologies. The primary focus of ethanol and hydrogen  R&D is to displace oil in the transportation sector. The primary focus of  wind and solar technologies is to generate electricity. DOE also conducts  R&D on geothermal and hydropower to generate electricity, but they have  reflected a small proportion of the R&D budget in prior years and are not  discussed here.
Biomass-derived ethanol. DOE’s short-term R&D goal is to help meet the  administration’s “20 in 10” goal of substituting 20 percent of gasoline  consumption in 10 years with alternative fuels, primarily biomass-derived  ethanol. DOE’s longer-term R&D goal is to develop new technologies to  allow the ethanol industry to expand enough to displace 30 percent of  gasoline requirements—about 60 billion gallons—by 2030. In 2007,  industry produced over 7 billion gallons of ethanol, displacing about 3  percent of the nation’s oil consumption. Ethanol, however, faces high  production and infrastructure costs, creating challenges in competing with  gasoline nationally. Ethanol refiners in the United States rely mostly on  corn as a feedstock, the use of which has contributed to price increases  for some food products, and ethanol’s corrosive properties create  challenges in developing an infrastructure for delivering and dispensing it.  DOE’s R&D focuses on (1) developing a more sustainable and competitive  feedstock than corn, primarily by exploring technologies to use cellulosic  biomass from, for example, agricultural residues or fast-growing grasses  and trees; (2) reducing the cost of producing cellulosic ethanol to $1.33  per gallon by 2012 and $1.20 per gallon by 2017; (3) converting biomass to  biofuels through both biochemical and thermochemical processes to help  the industry expand; (4) contributing to a strategy to develop a national  biofuels infrastructure, including demonstration projects for integrated  biorefineries to develop multiple biomass-related products; and (5)  promoting market-oriented activities to accelerate the deployment of  biomass technologies. Although DOE has made progress in reducing  ethanol production costs, cellulosic ethanol in 2007—based on current  corn prices—still cost about 50 percent more to produce than corn  ethanol.
Hydrogen-powered fuel cells. The long-term R&D goal of DOE’s Hydrogen  Fuel Initiative is to provide hydrogen fuel cell technologies to industry by  2015 to enable industry to commercialize them by 2020. To be  commercialized, hydrogen fuel cell technologies must be competitive with  gasoline vehicles in terms of price, convenience, safety, and durability.  Hydrogen is the preferred fuel for vehicle fuel cells because of the ease  with which it can be converted to electricity and its ability to combine  with oxygen to emit only water and heat as byproducts. Let me clarify,  however, that hydrogen is not an energy source, but, like electricity, is an  energy carrier. Furthermore, because hydrogen is lighter than air, it does  not exist on earth and must be extracted from common compounds.  Producing hydrogen through the extraction process requires energy from  renewable, fossil, or nuclear sources, adding to the challenge of  developing hydrogen technologies. Our January 2008 report concluded  that DOE has made important progress in developing hydrogen fuel cells,  but the program has set very ambitious targets and some of the most  difficult technical challenges––those that require significant scientific  advances––lie ahead. Specifically, R&D for vehicles includes reducing the  cost of commercial-scale manufacturing of fuel cells by nearly fourfold,  storing enough hydrogen on board a fuel-cell vehicle to enable a 300-mile  driving range, and increasing the durability of fuel cells by more than  threefold to match the 150,000 mile life-span of gasoline vehicles. DOE  also conducts R&D on stationary and portable fuel cells which could be  used, for example, to replace batteries on fork lifts and diesel generators  used for back-up power. We recommended that DOE update its  overarching R&D plan to reflect the technologies it reasonably expects to  provide to industry by 2015 to accurately reflect progress made by the  Hydrogen Fuel Initiative, the challenges it faces, and its anticipated R&D  funding needs. I would also note that developing the supporting  infrastructure to deploy the technologies nationally will likely take  decades, tens of billions of dollars in investments, and continued R&D well  beyond the 2015 target date.
DOE’s fiscal year 2009 budget request would reduce funding for the  Hydrogen Fuel Initiative by 17 percent from $283.5 million in fiscal year  2008 to $236 million in fiscal year 2009. The budget also proposes to  increase the proportion of longer-term R&D by increasing the funding for  basic research. Although the Hydrogen Program Manager told us that  funding is sufficient to meet target dates for critical technologies, other  target dates for supporting technologies—such as hydrogen production  from renewable sources—would be pushed back.
Wind technologies. DOE is assessing its long-term vision of generating 20  percent of the nation’s electricity using wind energy by 2030. Its current  R&D efforts, however, are focused on more immediate expansion of the  wind industry, particularly on utility-scale wind turbines. More  specifically, DOE has focused its R&D efforts on improving the cost,  performance, and reliability of large scale, land-based wind turbines,  including both high- and low-wind technologies; developing small and mid- size turbines for distributed energy applications, such as for residential or  remote agricultural uses; and gathering information on more efficient uses  of the electricity grid and on barriers to deploying wind technology and  providing that information to key national, state, and local decision- makers to assist with market expansion of wind technologies. For  example, one of DOE’s targets is to increase the number of distributed  wind turbines deployed in the United States from 2,400 in 2007 to 12,000 in  2015. Although wind energy has grown in recent years, from about 1,800  megawatts in 1996 to over 16,800 megawatts in 2007, the wind industry still  faces investors’ concerns about high up-front capital costs, including  connecting the wind farms to the power transmission grid.
Solar technologies. DOE’s R&D goal is for solar power to be unsubsidized  and cost competitive with conventional technologies by 2015 by, for  example, developing new thin-film photovoltaic technologies using less  expensive semiconductor material than crystalline-silicon to reduce the  manufacturing cost of solar cells. Specifically, DOE is working to reduce  the costs of photovoltaic systems from about 18-23 cents per kilowatt hour  in 2005 to about 5-10 cents per kilowatt hour in 2015. DOE is also  conducting R&D to reduce the cost and improve the reliability of  concentrating solar power technologies, which use various mirror  configurations to convert the sun’s energy to heat to generate electricity.  In addition, DOE has expanded R&D to address low-cost thermal storage  to allow solar thermal systems to be more valuable to utility grid power  markets. Along these lines, both the photovoltaic and concentrated solar  power activities have ramped up efforts in the areas of grid integration and  reliability to facilitate the transition to larger scale, centralized solar  electric power plants. Investors’ concerns about high up-front capital costs  are among the most significant challenges in deploying photovoltaic or  concentrating solar energy technologies. This requires both technologies  to have lower costs for installation and operations and maintenance,  better efficiency of converting solar power to electricity, and longer-term  (20 to 30 years) durability.
section_title: DOE’s R&D Challenges for Advanced Fossil Energy Technologies
paragraphs: Since fiscal year 2006, DOE has proposed eliminating its R&D in oil and  natural gas and, in January 2008, announced a restructuring of its coal  R&D program.
Increased oil production. Since fiscal year 2006, DOE has proposed to  terminate its oil R&D. In November 2007, we reported that DOE has  focused its R&D on increasing domestic production primarily by  improving exploration technologies, extending the life of current oil  reservoirs, developing drilling technology to tap into deep oil deposits, and  addressing environmental protection. DOE officials stated that if the oil  R&D program continues, it would focus on such areas as enhanced oil  recovery technologies and expanding production from independent  producers. Independent producers account for about 68 percent of  domestic oil production.
Natural gas technologies. Since fiscal year 2006, DOE has proposed to  terminate its natural gas R&D. Our November 2007 report noted that  DOE’s R&D focuses on improving exploration technologies, reducing the  environmental impact of natural gas operations, developing drilling  technology to tap into deep gas reservoirs, and developing the technology  for tapping into natural gas in naturally occurring methane hydrate found  in permafrost regions on land and beneath the ocean floor.
Clean coal technologies. DOE’s R&D goal is to reduce harmful power plant  emissions to “near-zero” levels by 2020. For new power plant applications,  DOE is developing and demonstrating advanced integrated gasification  combined cycle (IGCC) technologies. In 2003, DOE announced plans to  construct a near-zero emissions commercial scale R&D facility called  FutureGen with an alliance of coal mining and coal-based electric  generating companies. DOE had originally pledged about three-quarters of  the estimated $1 billion cost of the FutureGen project (in constant fiscal  year 2004 dollars). With escalation costs and rising price of materials and  labor, the estimated project costs rose to nearly $1.8 billion. As a result,  DOE announced in January 2008 that it is restructuring FutureGen to  focus on multiple, competitively selected projects that demonstrate  carbon capture and sequestration at commercially viable power plant  project sites. The impact of DOE’s restructuring on FutureGen at this time  is not known, but an industry official from the FutureGen Alliance noted  that the project cannot go forward without federal government assistance.  Separate from the FutureGen project, DOE also conducts R&D on near- zero emission power plants—including carbon capture and  sequestration—through its fuels and power systems programs and its  Clean Coal Power Initiative.
section_title: DOE’s R&D Challenges for Advanced Nuclear Energy Technologies
paragraphs: DOE has focused nuclear energy R&D in the following three areas:    The Nuclear Power 2010 program focuses on reducing regulatory and  technical barriers to deploying advanced “Generation III” nuclear power  reactors, which are designed to be more efficient than currently operating  reactors. Because over the past 30 years, no electric power company had  applied to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for a license to construct a  new nuclear reactor, Nuclear Power 2010 shares the costs with industry of  preparing early site permits and or construction and operating license  applications for submission to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.  Nuclear Power 2010 also regulates the risk insurance authorized by the  Energy Policy Act of 2005 that protects industry from certain regulatory  delays during licensing and construction.
The Global Nuclear Energy Partnership program––an extension of the  Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative––develops proliferation-resistant nuclear  fuel cycles that maximizes energy output and minimizes waste.  Specifically, the program is designed to reduce the threat of global nuclear  proliferation by developing advanced technologies for reprocessing spent  nuclear fuel in the 2030 time frame. One of the critical elements of this  effort is to develop a sodium-cooled fast reactor designed to burn a wide  variety of nuclear fuels to reduce the total amount, temperature, and  radiotoxicity of the spent fuel that might otherwise have to be stored for  thousands of years in a repository.
Beginning in fiscal year 2008, the Generation IV Program is focusing solely  on the Next Generation Nuclear Plant (NGNP), designed as a versatile,  efficient, high-temperature reactor capable of generating electricity and  producing hydrogen. DOE collaborates with 12 other international  partners on R&D related to fuels, materials, and design methodologies as  part of the Generation IV International Forum.
section_title: Concluding Observations
paragraphs: In the current wake of higher energy costs and the growing recognition  that fossil energy consumption is contributing to global climate change,  the nation is once again assessing how best to stimulate the deployment of  advanced energy technologies. While still considerably below its peak in  the late 1970s, DOE’s budget authority for renewable, fossil, and nuclear  energy R&D has rebounded to $1.4 billion during the past 10 years after  hitting a low point in fiscal year 1998. However, despite DOE’s energy R&D  funding of $57.5 billion over the last 30 years, the nation’s energy portfolio  remains heavily reliant on fossil fuels. Many technical, cost and  environmental challenges must be overcome in developing and  demonstrating advanced technologies before they can be deployed in the  U.S. market. Our December 2006 report suggested that the Congress  consider further stimulating the development and deployment of a  diversified energy portfolio by focusing R&D funding on advanced energy  technologies. However, because it is unlikely that DOE’s energy R&D  funding alone will be sufficient to significantly diversify the nation’s  energy portfolio, coordinating energy R&D with other federal programs,  policies, incentives, standards, and mandates that can impact the nation’s  energy portfolio will be important for targeting any desired goals to  change the nation’s energy portfolio. In addition, state and local  governments and other nations, along with a worldwide private sector,  will play a role in developing and deploying advanced energy technologies  both here and throughout the global energy market. A key factor to any  sustainable deployment of advanced energy technologies will be to make  them cost competitive, while addressing technical and environmental  challenges, so that the market can support a more diversified portfolio.  Otherwise, without sustained higher energy prices for our current  portfolio, or concerted, high-profile federal government leadership, U.S.  consumers are unlikely to change their energy-use patterns, and the U.S.  energy portfolio will not significantly change.
section_title: Appendix I: Comparison of DOE’s Fiscal Year 2008 Appropriations with Its Fiscal Year 2009 Budget Request
paragraphs: Fiscal year 2009 budget  request  (7) (70) (29) (1) (100) (100) (60) (58.0)
Fiscal year 2009 budget  request  (100) (53.2)
Exclde budget authority for Vehicle Technologie, which inclde the FreedomCAR nd Fel  Prtnerhip nd the 21t Centry Trck Prtnerhip.  The Vehicle Technologie R&D progrm  focus on improving the energy efficiency of vehicle y developing lightweight mteri, dvnced  batterie, power electronic, nd electric motor for hyrid nd plg-in hyrid vehicle, nd dvnced  combustion engine nd fel.
The Hydrogen Fel Inititive inded eptely throgh DOE’ Office of Energy Efficiency nd  Renewable Energy, Fossil Energy, Ncler Energy, nd Science nd the Deprtment of  Trporttion.  In ddition to Hydrogen Technology R&D, Energy Efficiency nd Renewable Energy  nd Fel Cell Technology R&D, which hitoriclly has een n energy efficiency progrm.  The  fil yer 2008 pproprition for Fel Cell Technology R&D i $116.6 million, nd DOE’ reqt for  fil yer 2009 i $79.3 million The Hydrogen Fel Inititive received  totl of $283.5 million in  budget authority in fil yer 2008; the dminitrtion i reqting $236 million for the inititive in  fil yer 2009.  Dring fil yer 2008, Energy Efficiency nd Renewable Energy trferred ome  of the Hydrogen Fel Inititive ctivitie to it Vehicle Technologie R&D progrm.
Exclde the Mixed Oxide Fel Fabriction Fcility, which received $278.8 million in fil yer 2008.   DOE i reqting $487 million for fil yer 2009.
Dring fil yer 2008, R&D on the odim-cooled fast rector was trferred from the Genertion  IV progrm to the Accelerted Fel Cycle Inititive/Global Ncler Energy Prtnerhip Progrm.
subsections: section_title: Contacts and Acknowledgments
paragraphs: For further information about this testimony, please contact me at (202)  512-3841 or gaffiganm@gao.gov.  Contact points for our Offices of  Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page  of this report.  Richard Cheston, Robert Sanchez, Kerry Lipsitz, MaryLynn  Sergent, and Anne Stevens made key contributions to this statement.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the  United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further  permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or  other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to  reproduce this material separately.