[Senate Hearing 109-314]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 109-314
DESALINATION WATER SUPPLY SHORTAGE PREVENTION ACT AND WATER SUPPLY
TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM ACT
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
ON
S. 1016
A BILL TO DIRECT THE SECRETARY OF ENERGY TO MAKE INCENTIVE PAYMENTS TO
THE OWNERS OR OPERATORS OF QUALIFIED DESALINATION FACILITIES TO
PARTIALLY OFFSET THE COST OF ELECTRICAL ENERGY REQUIRED TO OPERATE THE
FACILITIES, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
S. 1860
A BILL TO AMEND THE ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 2005 TO IMPROVE ENERGY
PRODUCTION AND REDUCE ENERGY DEMAND THROUGH IMPROVED USE OF RECLAIMED
WATERS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
__________
OCTOBER 20, 2005
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
26-509 PDF WASHINGTON : 2006
______________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512-1800
Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico, Chairman
LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico
CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii
LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska RON WYDEN, Oregon
RICHARD M. BURR, North Carolina, TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota
MEL MARTINEZ, Florida MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana
JAMES M. TALENT, Missouri DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
CONRAD BURNS, Montana MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia JON S. CORZINE, New Jersey
GORDON SMITH, Oregon KEN SALAZAR, Colorado
JIM BUNNING, Kentucky
Alex Flint, Staff Director
Judith K. Pensabene, Chief Counsel
Bob Simon, Democratic Staff Director
Sam Fowler, Democratic Chief Counsel
Nate Gentry, Counsel
Mike Connor, Democratic Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS
Page
Alexander, Hon. Lamar, U.S. Senator from Tennessee............... 2
Archuleta, Edmund, General Manager, El Paso Water Utilities, on
behalf of WateReuse, El Paso, TX............................... 42
Bingaman, Hon. Jeff, U.S. Senator from New Mexico................ 3
Craig, Hon. Larry E., U.S. Senator from Idaho.................... 32
Domenici, Hon. Pete V., U.S. Senator from New Mexico............. 1
Faulkner, Douglas L., Acting Assistant Secretary for Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.......... 3
Long, Dr. Jane C.S., Associate Director, Energy and Environment
Directorate, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore,
CA............................................................. 13
Martinez, Hon. Mel, U.S. Senator from Florida.................... 33
Parekh, Pankaj, Ph.D., Director of Drinking Water Quality
Compliance, Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, Los
Angeles, CA.................................................... 46
Reynolds, Jim, Executive Director, Florida Keys Aqueduct
Authority, Key West, FL........................................ 39
Roberto, Dr. James B., Deputy Director for Science and
Technology, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN....... 21
Sabol, Colin, Chief Marketing Officer, GE Infrastructure Water &
Process Technologies, Trevose, PA.............................. 51
Shephard, Dr. Les, Vice President for Energy, Resources and
Nonproliferation, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM 7
APPENDIX
Responses to additional questions................................ 61
DESALINATION WATER SUPPLY SHORTAGE PREVENTION ACT AND WATER SUPPLY
TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM ACT
----------
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 20, 2005
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Energy & Natural Resources,
Washington D.C.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:25 p.m. in room
SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Pete V. Domenici,
chairman, presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PETE V. DOMENICI,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO
The Chairman. Senator Bingaman is en route and we've kind
of got a little confusion going, because they've been telling
us we're going to have a vote, and we're trying to figure out
how we'll get the most time in here. So as soon as he arrives,
he will give his opening statement, wherever we are.
But I'm going to open the meeting, I don't think he will
mind. First let's start with panel No. 1. Mr. Faulkner, Acting
Assistant Secretary, Principal Deputy Assistant, Office of
Energy Efficiency, Renewable Energy, U.S. Department of Energy;
Dr. Jane Long, Associate Director, Environment and Energy,
Lawrence Livermore; Dr. Les Shephard, Vice President of Energy
and Infrastructure Assurance at Sandia National Laboratory,
Albuquerque; and Dr. James Roberto, Deputy Lab Director,
Science and Technology, National Laboratory of Oak Ridge. Thank
you all for being here.
I have some brief opening remarks, and like I said,
wherever we are when the Senator arrives, we'll interrupt and
let him make his opening statement. Once again, as usual on
these matters relating to water issues, it's a pleasure to
welcome experts that help us in this regard, and help us think
through this process. We're going to be talking about S. 1016,
the Desalination Water Supply Shortage Prevention Act,
introduced by Senator Martinez, and S. 1860, the Energy and
Water Technology Research, Development and Transfer Program Act
of 2005, a bill I introduced and co-sponsored by Senator
Bingaman, Majority Leader Frist, Senator Alexander, and Senator
Feinstein.
Water scarcity and declining water quality are obviously
critical in our country and throughout the world. As the
world's population grows and stores of fresh water are
depleted, finding additional sources of fresh water is critical
not only to meeting our national needs and ensuring that for
our people, but also to move in the direction of peace and
domestic tranquility abroad.
Widespread water shortages are expected here at home. A GAO
report, which we had recently, states that thirty-six States
anticipate some kind of shortage in the next 10 years. While
we've had long periods of time where we've dealt with these
issues of shortages, that is, at least in our Western States,
the available supplies on the east coast have also been
stretched thin, and many don't even know in many parts of the
country that there is a pending water problem.
That's probably why we don't do more about it, because it's
not quite to the surface yet. In any event, without significant
technological advancement that allows us to better utilize,
conserve, and produce additional water in a cost-efficient
manner, it is unclear how we're going to meet the needs.
Ensuring that the supply is also available to the United
States, which we know is critical, we have this bill before us,
which we believe that if we could pass it and implement it, it
would do a lot of positive things toward America's future
energy problems.
I have some additional remarks explaining the bill itself,
but we'll get those throughout the afternoon with the debate,
discussions and questions. So I'd like to welcome our witnesses
again, I've introduced you, and now Senator Bingaman has
arrived, and we'll leave it up to him, if he wants to open now,
or let them start, or whatever. Would you like to make your
remarks?
[The prepared statement of Senator Alexander follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Lamar Alexander, U.S. Senator From Tennessee
First, I want to thank Chairman Domenici for identifying and
addressing this important issue. I'm honored to join him in co-
sponsoring the Energy-Water Efficiency Technology Research, Development
and Transfer Program Act of 2005 along with Majority Leader Frist and
others.
I also want to thank the witnesses for coming today and in
particular, Dr. Jim Roberto, the Deputy Director for Science and
Technology at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in my home state of
Tennessee. Dr. Roberto has been instrumental in bringing to fruition a
number of multi-lab initiatives not unlike the one being discussed here
today. The DOE National Laboratory system has demonstrated its ability
to address national challenges like this, but is underutilized to this
point on water-related R&D. The most recent successes at ORNL are
successful construction of the Spallation Neutron Source (SNS) and the
Center for Nanophase Materials Science, where ORNL has demonstrated its
ability to use federal investments effectively to accomplish national
priorities, and it has done this by teamwork with other Labs,
universities, and other federal agencies. It is time to put these same
skills to work on energy and water problems.
Providing reliable energy and clean water are absolutely critical
to the economic stability and health of our country. And they are
increasingly linked to one another. There will be important positive
interactions between the Energy-Water advancements discussed here and
progress on other important fronts such as clean air. The low-emission
power sources of the future, including nuclear and Clean Coal, do have
high water demands for cooling and emission control. Technologies that
reduce water demand in the energy sector will therefore make
development of clean energy easier.
New technologies to improve water-use in the energy sector, reduce
energy demand in the water sector, and provide new, cost-effective
sources of clean water will benefit both U.S. and other countries. The
needs are clear and the stakes are high; the only question is whether
we will step up to fill them. This legislation will provide the
investment and commitment to ensure success. Thank you again, Mr.
Chairman for shining a light on this topic today. I look forward to
working with you to bring this program to fruition.
STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF BINGAMAN, U.S. SENATOR
FROM NEW MEXICO
Senator Bingaman. I'll make about 30 seconds worth of
remarks, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much for having the
hearing. Dr. Les Shephard is here, I believe from New Mexico.
Thank you very much. From Sandia, Ed Archuleta is here from El
Paso, I understand. He's in the back, he's in the second panel,
I gather.
I do think this issue that you've identified for the
hearing is extremely important. Just as in the case of oil and
gas, and the other issues we deal with in this committee, water
is a commodity where demand exceeds the renewable supplies, at
least in our part of the country. And water quality is also a
very major issue that we have very major challenges on in a lot
of our communities.
I think trying to figure out what can be done to meet those
challenges to help local communities meet those challenges is
very valuable. I'm cosponsoring the legislation that you've
introduced, Mr. Chairman, and I hope this hearing gives us a
good record with which to move ahead with that legislation.
Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator. I might indicate for the
Senator and for the record that the chairman of the counterpart
committee in the House has introduced a similar bill, so that
gives us a little bit of an opportunity to see a little bit of
sunlight that might otherwise be overshadowed and take a much
longer time to get itself up and get some visibility. With
that, we're going to start with Mr. Faulkner and go to Dr.
Shephard, and go right along. So would you proceed please, Mr.
Faulkner.
STATEMENT OF DOUGLAS L. FAULKNER, ACTING ASSISTANT SECRETARY
FOR ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE
ENERGY, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Mr. Faulkner. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I
appreciate the opportunity to testify today on S. 1016.
Although supplying and distributing water is largely a local
responsibility, we believe there is a Federal role in providing
appropriate scientific and technological support for these
efforts.
S. 1016, however, poses a narrower question: Should the
Department of Energy subsidize electricity costs at
desalination facilities? We believe the answer is no. While
well intended, S. 1016 is not a comprehensive approach to the
challenge we face. It would subsidize a narrow group of
electricity users engaged in water desalination efforts, and
could divert limited Federal funding from efforts to engage in
a more comprehensive approach.
It is our view that incentive payments are not the best
means to remove the energy cost barriers to desalinating water.
Instead, we feel continued targeted Federal support for
desalination research and development, as well as the
implementation of comprehensive energy legislation, will have a
longer impact in the long-run on reducing desalination costs.
The Department of Energy finds S. 1860 to be well intentioned,
as it shares our view that we must develop innovative new
approaches to dealing with the regional, national, and global
challenges related to water availability and quality.
However, we have several concerns regarding the specific
language of this bill. First, the bill appears to shift
substantial statutory authority from the Secretary of Energy to
the designated national laboratories and places the lead labs
in inappropriate roles for assessing Federal funding and
activities across agencies.
We are also concerned that the bill appears to leave out
the private sector and its key role in research and
commercialization. The bill places as much as two-thirds of the
funding at the lead labs, largely outside of any merit-based
competitive process and it does so with little flexibility, not
recognizing that the allocation of funding will vary with the
status of technology and commercialization, and private sector
roles. We believe that the funding levels, roles and
responsibilities of our labs, universities, and private sector
should be determined by the Secretary of Energy.
The many and complex challenges related to water
availability and quality are commanding significant attention
at the highest levels of the administration. For example, a
year ago, the White House Office of Science and Technology
Policy and Office of Management and Budget identified water as
a top administration R&D priority. This led to the formation of
a new interagency group, which is now developing a
comprehensive research plan.
The Water Desalination Act of 1996 gave lead responsibility
to the Department of the Interior to conduct, encourage, and
assist in the financing of research to develop cost-effective
and efficient means for converting saline water into potable
water. We are looking at ways to better coordinate our efforts
with Interior through the interagency process.
The Department has been in serious discussions with some of
our labs about the energy-water nexus. The relationship between
energy and water is not well understood by the public,
surprising many, for example, that the amount of fresh water
withdrawn nationally for electricity production is more than
twice as much as the water used for residential, commercial,
and industrial purposes combined.
Price and regulatory signals can create market incentives
to reduce water use and remove some of the demand pressure from
regional water supplies. Innovative technologies and processes
can help to accomplish that, too.
One area of consideration is the water-intensive process of
thermoelectric generation from fossil fuels such as coal. My
own Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy is
supporting R&D for innovative wind and solar electricity supply
technologies, that may prove beneficial to the desalination
industry and place no further demand on water supplies for
their operation.
These and other technological advances can also help hone
the competitive edge for U.S. exporters in overseas markets
thirsty for fresh water.
Mr. Chairman, this completes my prepared statement, and I
am happy to answer any questions the Committee may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Faulkner follows:]
Prepared Statement of Douglas L. Faulkner, Acting Assistant Secretary
for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I appreciate the
opportunity to testify today on S. 1016, requiring the Secretary of
Energy to make incentive payments to the owners of qualified
desalination facilities to partially offset the cost of electrical
energy required to operate facilities, and S. 1860, which would amend
the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to improve energy production and reduce
energy demand through improved use of reclaimed waters and other
purposes.
Although supplying and distributing water is largely a local
responsibility, we believe there is a Federal role in providing
appropriate scientific and technological support for these efforts. S.
1016, however, poses a narrower question: Should the Department of
Energy subsidize electricity costs at desalination facilities? We
believe the answer is no.
While well intended, S. 1016 is not a comprehensive approach to the
challenge we face. It would subsidize a narrow group of electricity
users engaged in water desalination efforts, and could divert limited
Federal funding from efforts to engage in a more comprehensive
approach.
It is our view that incentive payments are not the best means to
remove the energy cost barriers to desalinating water. Instead, we feel
continued targeted Federal support for desalination research and
development consistent with the Administration's Research and
Development Investment Criteria, as well as our ongoing efforts to
reduce energy demand and increase supply through the adoption of
comprehensive energy legislation, will have a larger impact in the
long-run on reducing desalination costs than will making incentive
payments to the owners or operators of individual facilities.
The Department of Energy finds S. 1860 to be well intentioned as it
shares our view that we must develop innovative new approaches to
dealing with the regional, national, and global challenges related to
water availability and quality. However, we have several concerns
regarding the specific language of this bill.
First, the bill appears to shift substantial statutory authority
from the Secretary to the designated National Labs and places the lead
National Labs in inappropriate roles for assessing Federal funding and
activities across agencies. We are also concerned that the bill appears
to leave out the private sector and its key role in RD&D and
commercialization.
The bill places as much as two-thirds of the funding at the lead
National Labs, largely outside of any merit-based competitive process
and it does so with little flexibility, not recognizing that the
allocation of funding will vary with the status of technology RD&D and
commercialization, and private sector roles. We believe that the
funding levels, roles and responsibilities for the Labs, Universities,
and private sector should be determined by the Secretary in order to
meet the national needs identified by the legislation.
We share the view that we must develop innovative new approaches to
dealing with the regional, national, and global challenges related to
water availability and quality, and this is an issue that is commanding
significant attention at the highest levels of the Administration.
For example, in August 2004 the White House Office of Science and
Technology Policy (OSTP) and Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
identified water as a top Administration research and development
priority and called upon the National Science and Technology Council
(NSTC) to ``develop a coordinated, multi-year plan to improve research
to understand the processes that control water availability and
quality, and to collect and make available the data needed to ensure an
adequate water supply for the Nation's future.'' The NSTC Committee on
Environment and Natural Resources has formed a Subcommittee on Water
Availability and Quality (SWAM) comprised of more than 15 Federal
Departments and Agencies who are now in the process of developing a
comprehensive research plan. Their first report, ``Science and
Technology to Support Fresh Water Availability in the United States,''
was released in November, 2004. Among the points highlighted by this
report are the following:
We do not have an adequate understanding of water
availability at national, regional, or local levels.
Water, once considered a ubiquitous resource, is now scarce
in some parts of the country--and not just in the West as one
might assume.
The amounts of water needed to maintain our natural
environmental resources are not well known.
We need to evaluate alternatives to use water more
efficiently, including technologies for conservation and supply
enhancement such as water reuse and recycling as a way to make
more water available.
We need improved tools to predict the future of our water
resources to enable us to better plan for the more efficient
operation of our water infrastructure.
The Water Desalination Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-298) gave lead
responsibility to the Department of the Interior to conduct, encourage,
and assist in the financing of research to develop cost-effective and
efficient means for converting saline water into potable water suitable
for beneficial uses. We are looking at ways to better coordinate our
efforts with those of the Department of the Interior and other agencies
through the process underway in the NTSC's Subcommittee on Water
Availability and Quality.
At the Department of Energy, we have been in serious discussions
with some of our labs on what we call the ``energy-water nexus.'' The
relationship between energy and water is not well understood by the
public, and it is surprising to many, for instance, that the amount of
fresh water withdrawn nationally for electricity production is more
than twice as much as the water used for residential, commercial, and
industrial purposes, and is comparable to the amount of water used for
agricultural irrigation. Meanwhile, pumping, storing, and treating
water consumes huge amounts of electricity--an estimated 7 percent of
California's electricity consumption is used just to pump water.
We understand that our energy and water supplies are
interconnected. In fact, as much energy is used for water and
wastewater purposes as for other major industrial sectors of the U.S.
economy such as paper and pulp and petroleum refining.
Price and regulatory signals can create market incentives to reduce
water use. One area for consideration is the water intensive process of
thermoelectric generation from fossil fuels such as coal. For these
systems, an average of 25 gallons of water is withdrawn to produce a
kilowatt hour (kWh) of electricity of which nearly one-half gallon is
consumed by evaporation. Overall, fossil-fuel-fired power plants
require withdrawals of more than 97 billion gallons of fresh water each
day.
The Department's Office of Fossil Energy is supporting several
research projects aimed at reducing the amount of fresh water needed by
power plants and to minimize potential impacts of plant operations on
water quality. One project at West Virginia University is assessing the
feasibility of using underground coal mine water as a source of cooling
water for power plants. A North Dakota project is attempting to reduce
the water consumption of power plants by recovering a large fraction of
the water present in the plant flue gas. A project in New Mexico is
exploring whether produced waters, the by-product of natural gas and
oil extraction which often present a disposal issue, can be used to
meet up to 25 percent of the cooling water needed at the San Juan
Generating Station, as well as investigating an advanced wet-dry hybrid
cooling system. In addition, the Department currently has a competitive
solicitation on the street seeking additional innovative technologies
and concepts for reducing the amount of fresh water needed to operate
fossil-based thermoelectric power stations, including advanced cooling
and water recovery technologies. The Department is also investigating
whether a suite of specially selected, salt-tolerant agricultural crops
or other plants can be used to remove sodium and other salts from
coalbed methane produced water so that it can be safely discharged or
used in agriculture.
One promising new approach to electricity generation, Integrated
Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) technology that converts coal and
other hydrocarbons into synthetic gas, offers significant environmental
and water benefits compared to traditional pulverized coal power
plants. Because the steam cycle of IGCC plants typically produces less
than 50 percent of the power output, IGCC plants require 30 to 60
percent less water than conventional coal-fired power plants. The
Department is supporting research, development, and demonstration on a
number of advancements that will significantly drive down the costs of
IGCC plants.
The Fossil Energy office is also supporting work at the University
of Florida investigating an innovative diffusion-driven desalination
process that would allow a power plant that uses saline water for
cooling to become a net producer of fresh water. Hot water from the
condenser provides the thermal energy to drive the desalination
process. Using a diffusion tower, saline water cools and condenses the
low pressure steam and fresh water is then stripped from the humidified
air exiting the tower. This process is more advantageous than
conventional desalination technology in that it may be driven by waste
heat with very low thermodynamic availability. In addition, cool air, a
by-product of this process, can be used to cool nearby buildings.
The Department's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
(EERE) is supporting R&D for innovative wind and solar electricity
supply technologies that have attributes that may prove to be very
beneficial to the desalination industry.
For example, wind power is now becoming a competitive, clean, bulk
electric power supply option in many areas of the Nation, and places no
further demand on water supplies for its operation. In addition,
excellent offshore wind resources are available near many coastal areas
facing water supply challenges. The role that wind could play in
powering desalination could take a range of forms, from stand-alone
systems exclusively powered by wind, to desalination plants that
receive the majority of their energy requirements from wind power
delivered via electricity grid systems. In either case, the relative
ease and low cost of storing desalinated water, in comparison with
storing electricity, will allow operating flexibilities that will
facilitate using inherently variable wind power as a primary energy
source for desalination.
We are currently funding a concept design study which will set up
engineering and economic models to examine viability of wind-powered
reverse osmosis systems, looking at applications for coastal seawater,
inland brackish water, and water produced during oil or gas recovery. A
second project will model solar and wind resources for a desalination
unit to determine the effects of variable loads on desalination, and
perform pilot-scale testing to determine how renewable energy could
reduce desalination costs.
We are also undertaking a mapping project to overlay data such as
fresh and brackish water resources, wind resources, water consumption,
estimated growth, and electricity supply. Two maps will be developed,
one of the United States, and one for the four-state region of
Colorado, Utah, Arizona, and New Mexico, identifying locations that
have the best economic and technical potential for using wind to power
desalination.
Even as we proceed with these activities, we are mindful that the
energy intensive technique of reverse osmosis we use for desalination
today may not be the membrane technology of tomorrow. But whether that
breakthrough comes from a lab working specifically on desalination, or
through an area of broader scientific research remains to be seen. The
Department's Office of Science, for example, is studying microbes and
smart membranes that may ultimately have relevance to desalination in
the future.
Having said that, it seems certain that desalination will play an
important role in maintaining and expanding our Nation's and indeed,
the world's water supply. Where fresh water aquifers are under pressure
in many regions, over-drafted and subject to salt-water intrusion,
brackish aquifers can be found throughout the country and the world, a
ready source of new water. More than 120 countries are now using
desalination technologies to provide potable water, most commonly in
the Persian Gulf where energy costs are low. The desalination plants of
the future must come in a range of sizes so that they can be installed
where demand exists--smaller footprint facilities which can make use of
smaller deposits of impaired water, at a price the community can
afford. For American companies, the growing need for desalination will
open new global markets.
Mr. Chairman, this completes my prepared statement, and I am happy
to answer any questions the Committee may have.
STATEMENT OF DR. LES SHEPHARD, VICE PRESIDENT FOR ENERGY,
RESOURCES AND NONPROLIFERATION, SANDIA NATIONAL LABORATORIES,
ALBUQUERQUE, NM
Dr. Shephard. Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the
committee, thank you for the opportunity to comment on the
Energy-Water Technology Act of 2005. I am Les Shephard, Vice
President for Energy, Resources and Nonproliferation at Sandia
National Laboratories, a multi-program national security
laboratory, with locations in New Mexico and California.
Today, approximately 40 percent of the fresh water
withdrawn from our country's lakes, rivers and aquifers goes to
electric power generation. In return, a significant portion of
this electric power is then used to move and treat dwindling
water supplies. On a national scale, water supply and
reclamation consumes 4 percent of all electric power
generation, roughly equivalent to all the electricity used in
the State of New Jersey last year.
On a typical day in the United States, coal, gas, and
nuclear plants across our country use about 136 billion gallons
of fresh water to generate electricity. This water is essential
for power generation: No water, no electricity.
Fortunately, only 3 percent of this water is actually
consumed. The remainder can be reused after cooling.
Unfortunately, this demand competes with other major water
needs: agriculture, industry, municipalities and the
environment. In short, energy depends on water, and water
depends on energy.
And the impact of interdependency will grow as we increase
our electric power production by nearly 30 percent over the
next 20 years. The significant impact of increased energy costs
for creating new water is recognized in the Desalination Water
Supply Shortage Act of 2005, which proposes incentives to
partially offset the cost of electricity required to operate
desalination facilities.
While these subsidy incentives may be appropriate in the
short term, a longer term strategy must invoke development and
implementation of cost-effective, innovative technology to
significantly reduce the energy cost of creating new water
supplies. The Energy Water Technology Act enables this longer
term strategy. This act will forge the energy/water link needed
to accelerate development of revolutionary technologies of
tomorrow, new power plant designs that use less water. New
membranes and separation processes that require less energy to
produce drinking water. New ways to harvest heat, to purify
water, and new ways to cheaply treat non-traditional waters for
consumption and power generation.
The act includes many of the critical elements we believe
are required for success. Long-range vision and technical
direction will be developed through technology road mapping.
Systems solutions, continuity of technical focus and technology
transfer will be provided by lead laboratories and their
university partners in conjunction with the Department of
Energy. Cutting-edge research and development on specific
problems will be implemented through the competitive grants
program.
Throughout this process, a strong connection with industry
and end users must be maintained. As the agency responsible for
this program, the Department of Energy must have flexibility in
developing the overall approach for strategic implementation.
Scientific research and technical innovation are critical
elements in addressing water and energy. This act provides the
basis to enable a national effort to focus and integrate
research that leads to the development of energy/water
efficiency and supply technologies which are critical for
meeting our future energy and water security needs.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, for
your sustained leadership in this important area, for your
sustained leadership on the Energy Policy Act of 2005. And I
also will be delighted to answer any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Shephard follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dr. Les Shephard, Vice President for Energy,
Resources and Nonproliferation, Sandia National Laboratories
SUMMARY POINTS
Today approximately 40 percent of the freshwater withdrawn
from our country's lakes, rivers and aquifers goes to electric
power generation. In return, a substantial portion of this
electric power is then used to move and treat dwindling
supplies of water. In short, energy depends on water and water
depends on energy--and the cost of both are rising as our
population grows and as competing demands for water outstrip
supplies.
Our country must aggressively develop the technological
advances required to solve these important emerging issues or
face spiraling costs for energy and water, which are both
fundamental to economic security.
The Energy-Water Efficiency Technology Research,
Development, and Transfer Program Act of 2005 establishes a
program in the U.S. Department of Energy that directly
addresses these important issues.
The Act contains multiple elements that are important to a
successful program. Long-range vision and technical direction
will be developed through technology road mapping. Cutting
edge-research and development on high priority scientific and
technology challenges will be implemented through competitive
grants. Systems solutions, integration of research into
technology, and technology transfer will be coordinated by lead
laboratories and their university partners.
Strong engagement of industry and end users is very
important to the success of the proposed program. This
engagement must include active participation in the technical
advisory panel, extensive participation in technology road
mapping, and direct partnering in pilot testing and technology
transfer.
As the agency responsible for this program, the Department
of Energy must have flexibility in developing the ultimate
strategic implementation of this program.
Sandia National Laboratories strongly supports establishment
of the Energy-Water Efficiency Technology Research,
Development, and Transfer Program.
INTRODUCTION
Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the committee, thank you
for the opportunity to comment on the Energy-Water Efficiency
Technology Research, Development, and Transfer Program Act of 2005. I
am Les Shephard, Vice President for Energy, Resources and
Nonproliferation at Sandia National Laboratories.
Sandia National Laboratories is managed and operated for the U.S.
Department of Energy (DOE) by Sandia Corporation, a subsidiary of the
Lockheed Martin Corporation. Sandia is a multi-program laboratory with
mission responsibilities in national security, homeland security,
energy, and science.
I will make three principal points in this statement.
The first one is crucial: The ``water cost'' of energy and the
``energy cost'' of water are inextricably linked. In the absence of
technological advance, the cost of both will rise rapidly in the
future.
Second, accomplishing the needed technological advance will require
integration across the full spectrum of research, development, and
commercialization, drawing on the best science and engineering
capabilities in our national laboratories, universities, and innovative
industry.
Third, the Act contains the critical elements for a successful
program: technical direction of the program driven by technology road
mapping and an independent technical advisory board with strong
industry and end user focus for the program; research and development
drawing on the full spectrum of the universities, national
laboratories, and other research institutions through a competitive
grants program; and integration from research and development to
commercialization through lead laboratories and industry partnerships.
energy-water interdependency leads to rapidly rising cost
Today, approximately 40 percent of the freshwater withdrawn from
our country's lakes, rivers and aquifers goes to electric power
generation. In return, a substantial portion of this electric power is
then used to move and treat dwindling supplies of water. In short,
energy depends on water and water depends on energy--and the costs of
both are rising as our population grows and as competing demands for
water outstrip supplies.
The ``Water-Cost'' for Energy
On a typical day in the United States, coal, gas, and nuclear
plants across our country use about 136 billion gallons of fresh water
to generate electricity. This water is essential for power generation:
no water, no electricity. Underlying these statistics, there is good
news and there are two major challenges.
The good news is that only three percent of the water withdrawn for
electric power generation is actually consumed. The first challenge is
that once used for power generation, water contains waste heat that
must be dissipated before it can be used again. The second, more
important, challenge is that the water required for power generation
competes with other major water needs: agriculture, industry, people
and the environment. In a growing number of regions of our country,
freshwater supplies are fully allocated. There simply is not enough
water to meet all of these competing needs.
This critical energy-water interdependency is not theoretical. In
the summer of 2004, after several years of drought, coal-fired power
generation in the Four Corners region of New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado
and Utah came very close to being severely curtailed due to lack of
water. In the southwest, power generation will need to nearly double
over the next twenty years, exacerbating competition over already
limited water supplies.
This critical energy-water interdependency is not unique to the
arid southwest. Over the past three years, power plant applications
have been turned down in Idaho, Wisconsin, Michigan, North Carolina and
New Jersey because there is not enough water. In the Southeast, surface
waters are completely allocated and new power plants are increasingly
forced to consider using non-traditional waters--mine waters,
subsurface brines, and wastewater--which often must be treated before
the plants use them for cooling. There is a clear need for more
``water-efficient'' power plant designs and designs that reduce water
quality impacts, particularly as new power plants are constructed to
meet growing demands.
The spiraling cost impact of this critical energy-water
interdependency will grow in the future. Our country must increase
electric power production by nearly 30 percent in the next twenty
years--or approximately 1000 new power plants. While moving to dry
cooling is an option, the capital cost is typically three times the
cost of water-based cooling, and efficiencies are typically 5 to 15
percent lower. Therefore, to keep energy costs from rising because of
water-scarcity alone we need to lower the ``water cost'' of energy and
the ``energy cost'' of water.
``Energy-Cost `` for Water
Pumping, distribution and treating water requires large amounts of
energy. Approximately 20 percent of electricity consumed in the state
of California is used for the state's water infrastructure. On a
national scale, water supply and reclamation consumes 4 percent of U.S.
electric power generation, and 75 percent of the cost of municipal
water processing and distribution is for electric power. These numbers
will grow significantly as our country moves to greater utilization of
saline and other impaired waters to meet growing demand.
Because freshwater supplies are fully allocated across many regions
of our country, competition for water for people, energy, industry,
agriculture, and the environment is increasingly intense. To meet the
needs of projected 20 percent population growth, we must create ``new
water'' through desalination, treatment of waste-water for reuse, and
treatment of other impaired waters. Creating new water is expensive and
will consume significantly more energy than is used today. Almost half
(44 percent) of the cost of desalinating sea water using today's
technology is for energy.
The utilization of advanced technologies for creating new water is
growing across the country. In Tampa Bay, Florida, a seawater
desalination plant producing 25 million gallons of freshwater per day
recently began operations. In El Paso, Texas, ground was recently
broken for an inland brackish-water desalination plant that will
produce 25 million gallons per day. California, Texas, Florida, North
and South Carolina, and Massachusetts are in the planning stages for
additional major seawater desalination plants, and new inland
desalination plants are planned in New Mexico, Arizona, California and
Texas.
The significant impact of increased energy cost for water is not
theoretical. The purpose of Senate Bill 1016, the Desalination Water
Supply Shortage Act of 2005 is to partially offset the major cost of
electrical energy required to operate desalination facilities. This Act
calls for incentive payments of $200 million dollars to offset the
``energy-cost'' of creating potable water. While these subsidy
incentives may be required in the short term, a longer term strategy
must be invoked that will drive development of cost-effective,
innovative technology that will significantly reduce the energy cost of
creating new water.
COST AND ENERGY REDUCTION REQUIRE TECHNOLOGICAL ADVANCE THROUGH
INNOVATIVE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, AND AGGRESSIVE INTEGRATION FROM
ADVANCED R&D THROUGH COMMERCIALIZATION
There are major opportunities of technological advance resulting in
major reductions in the water-cost for energy, and the energy-cost for
water. Opportunities for reducing the water cost for energy includes
improving the water efficiency of power-generating technologies,
utilization of brackish or other impaired waters for cooling, and
reducing severe competition among water-use sectors by increasing water
efficiency and developing new sources of water for other water sectors
that compete with energy. Major reductions in the energy-cost of water
will come from breakthroughs in membranes and separation processes,
development of new technologies for reuse of impaired water, as well as
enabling management optimization through system-level modeling and
real-time monitoring of chemical and biological parameters.
Innovation requires competitive access to R&D capabilities
Accomplishing these needed technological advances for specific high
priority needs will require drawing on the best science and engineering
capabilities in our national laboratories and universities. Research at
universities across the country is a major source of innovative
concepts with significant potential to address energy and water issues.
University research adds the substantial benefit of educating the
undergraduate and graduate students who will work to solve these
challenges well into the future.
Solutions for many of these technological challenges will build on
the foundation work in multiple DOE Office of Science programs,
including such areas as science at the nanoscale, molecular-level
material design, engineering the convergence of chemical and biological
processes. Through the national laboratories, the Energy-Water Nexus
team has been at the forefront of defining technical challenges related
to energy-water interdependency. These laboratories have extensive
water and energy expertise.
Success in bringing innovation to application requires continuity
across R&D, through pilot testing to commercialization
While focusing R&D on specific problem components is important to
achieving research breakthroughs, these breakthroughs must be
incorporated into technologies and products. Research solutions will
require technology integration, systems assessment, and continuity in
moving research through technology development, systems engineering,
pilot-scale testing, and product commercialization. Technology testing,
transfer, and commercialization must be an integral component of the
program.
The ultimate merit for success of this program will be widespread
commercialization and adoption of new technologies by industry and
local communities. Therefore, partnership with industry and end users
is imperative. The program must include mechanisms for industry and
end-users to engage early in the definition of research needs and
priorities.
THE ENERGY-WATER ACT OF 2005 SETS FORTH CRITICAL ELEMENTS NECESSARY FOR
A SUCCESSFUL PROGRAM
Success of the Energy-Water Efficiency Technology Research,
Development, and Transfer Program Act of 2005 will require long-range
vision, systems solutions, continuity of technical focus, cutting-edge
research and development on specific problems, and a very strong
connection to industry and end users. The Act includes many of the
critical elements required for this success. Long-range vision and
technical direction will be developed through technology road mapping.
Systems solutions, continuity of technical focus and technology
transfer will be provided by lead laboratories and their university
partners. Cutting-edge research and development on specific problems
will be implemented through the competitive grants program. Throughout
this process, a strong connection with industry and end users will be
maintained through the technical advisory panel, direct participation
in road mapping, and direct partnering in pilot testing and technology
transfer. As the agency responsible for this program, the Department of
Energy must have flexibility in developing the ultimate strategic
implementation of the program.
Department of Energy Engagement in Solution of Energy-Water Issues
The Department of Energy has broad responsibilities for ensuring
future energy production, foundational scientific research, and broad
program expertise engaged in both energy and water. Therefore, the
Department of Energy is the right federal agency for this program.
Because of the diversity of water use sectors, other federal agencies
also have significant water responsibilities. The Act appropriately
calls on DOE to coordinate with these other pertinent agencies.
The proposed Energy-Water Efficiency Technology Research,
Development, and Transfer Program Act of 2005 maps the proposed program
into the Title I Energy Efficiency program area of the recently signed
Energy Policy Act of 2005. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 also includes
Section 979 that addressed similar energy and water issues within the
Title IX Science area.
As noted previously, the Office of Science has multiple
foundational research programs with strong potential to contribute. In
addition, core Office of Science research facilities, such as the
Nanoscale Science Research Centers, provide state-of-the-art facilities
that enable breakthrough research. Solution of the critical energy-
water challenges faced in the U.S. will require both scientific
research and technology development. DOE should have the flexibility to
define an integrated program strategy, enabling integrated execution of
appropriate research in the Office of Science (through Section 979 of
the Energy Policy Act of 2005), with a complementary program in an
applied program area of DOE such as Energy Efficiency (through the
proposed Energy-Water Efficiency Technology Research, Development, and
Transfer Program Act of 2005). Energy-water issues cut across multiple
applied program areas within DOE (e.g. Fossil Energy), and DOE must
have the flexibility to address how best to meet the energy-water
challenges across program areas.
Technical Direction and Program Feedback
The proposed Act specifies that technical direction for the program
be driven by a combination of technology road mapping and a Technical
Advisory Panel. Technology road mapping is a critical element, as it
provides a rigorous framework for engaging industry and end users,
along with university and national laboratory scientists and engineers,
in defining research and technology priorities. The results of
technology road mapping should be used to define the framework for
critical technologies that will be developed through the competitive
grants and lead laboratory programs.
The Technical Advisory Panel will play an important role in
providing both guidance and feedback. This panel will provide a source
of ongoing information from which to build a broad understanding, not
only of research technology challenges, but also of industry, end user
and regulatory issues. Therefore, it is important that the Technical
Advisory Panel include not only industry and research expertise in
energy and water technologies, but also representatives of federal,
state and local agencies with management and regulatory
responsibilities, as well as water and energy focused nongovernmental
organizations.
The proposed Act also calls for National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
periodic reviews of the program. NAS reviews have the potential to
provide valuable insight to the research dimensions of the program.
However, some form of program review that directly engages industry and
end users is also important. One possibility is that the Advisory Panel
provide, or oversee, this review. Other possibilities should be
considered as well.
Program Grants
As noted in a previous section, achieving the needed technological
advances for specific high priority needs will require drawing on the
best science and engineering capabilities across the U.S. The
competitive Program Grants element of the proposed Act is an effective
mechanism for accomplishing this requirement.
As noted above, technical framework and direction for the Program
Grants should be driven by the technology road mapping. Technical
framework for the Grants Program and Lead Laboratory Program must be
coordinated, especially in activities involving technology transfer
that enables widespread commercialization of newly developed
technologies.
Finally, an important component of any competitive grants program
is a rigorous, transparent selection process. The Technical Advisory
Panel will be in a position to assure that this requirement is met.
Lead Laboratory Program
As noted previously, solution of major energy-water challenges
requires continuity and integration in technology development. The
proposed Act provides the institutional mechanism necessary to
accomplish this by specifying lead laboratories. Important roles that
must be carried out by these laboratories and their partner
universities include integration of research into technology and
systems assessment. Another important role of the lead laboratories
will be to provide continuity in moving research through technology
development, systems engineering, pilot-scale testing, and product
commercialization. In addition to moving individual technologies, lead
laboratories must also work across multiple technologies to identify
and develop integrated, systems solutions.
An important element of the Program Lead Laboratory program element
is partnerships. As noted previously, university partnerships will be
important for research and development. The proposed Act calls for each
Lead Laboratory to partner with at least one university in carrying out
the program. Multiple university partnerships will likely play an
important role in carrying out this portion of the program, as well as
in facilitating technology integration and transfer from the Grants
Program.
Strong partnerships among Lead Laboratories and across DOE labs
will also be important. Building on DOE foundational science research
at multiple labs and collaboration with labs involved in the Grants
Program R&D will be important.
Success in pilot testing, technology transfer, and
commercialization will require strong partnerships with industry, end
users, and industry research associations. These partnerships must be
built through broad end-user and industry engagement with technology
road mapping, the Technical Advisory Board, and specific industry
commercialization partners.
sandia national laboratories is committed to making the proposed
programsuccessful through technical excellence and partnering
Sandia National Laboratories is committed to making the proposed
Energy-Water Efficiency Technology Research, Development, and Transfer
Program Act of 2005 successful. Essential ingredients of our engagement
are technical excellence and commitment to partnering.
Sandia National Laboratories is actively engaged in a broad range
of water research and technology development. In partnership with the
Bureau of Reclamation, Sandia jointly developed the 20-year
``Desalination and Water Purification Technology Roadmap.'' The Joint
Water Reuse and Desalination Task Force (a partnership of the American
Water Works Association Research Foundation, WateReuse Foundation,
Bureau of Reclamation, and Sandia National Laboratories) is currently
updating the 2003 road map to define a more detailed framework of
national research needs for desalination and water reuse. Sandia is
currently conducting research in areas such as biomimetic membranes and
nano-engineered water treatment technologies. Working with the
Department of Energy and the Energy-Water Nexus team, Sandia is
currently coordinating the development of a roadmap focusing on energy-
water technology challenges.
In the areas of water monitoring and water security, Sandia worked
with the American Water Works Association Research Foundation and the
Environmental Protection Agency to develop a security risk assessment
methodology for water infrastructure that has been used to conduct
vulnerability assessments of over 90 percent of large U.S. cities,
covering the water supply systems of over 130 million people. Sandia is
creating new generation sensor technologies enabling real-time
monitoring of water quality, and recently entered a major Cooperative
Research and Development Agreement (CRADA) for commercialization of
micro-chem-lab-on-a-chip technology for water applications. Future
sensor development will benefit greatly from the major microsystems,
microelectronics, and engineering design investments at the
Microsystems and Engineering Sciences Applications (MESA) facility at
Sandia.
Sandia's management philosophy has always stressed the linkage of
research through development to application. Systems integration is a
distinguishing strength of Sandia's technical management. We have a
long history of partnerships at both ends of the development cycle,
both with research universities and with industrial firms and
consortia. Sandia's approach to research and development derives from a
heritage of fifty years under industrial management, and it yields
tangible results. It is not science for its own sake, but science and
engineering working together with the mission in mind.
CLOSING COMMENTS
In closing, Sandia strongly supports the establishment of the
Energy-Water Efficiency Technology Research, Development, and Transfer
Program Act of 2005 as a vital component to U.S. energy and economic
security. We are committed to working with the Department of Energy to
make the proposed Act successful.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this program.
STATEMENT OF DR. JANE C.S. LONG, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, ENERGY AND
ENVIRONMENT DIRECTORATE, LAWRENCE LIVERMORE NATIONAL
LABORATORY, LIVERMORE, CA
Dr. Long. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am
Jane Long, Associate Director for Energy and Environment at
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. My job is to oversee
the laboratory's research and earth system science, atmospheric
releases, and nuclear power and fuel cycles.
Livermore is administered by the University of California
for the Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security
administration and is a multi-program laboratory with special
responsibilities in national security, homeland security,
energy and environment, and state-of-the-art capabilities that
are also applied to other pressing national needs. I will
summarize my written testimony here, and submit my written
statement for the record.
I am pleased to be here for the opportunity to discuss S.
1860, the Energy-Water Efficiency Technology Research,
Development, and Transfer Program Act of 2005. I would like to
make three points today: First, that water and energy security
are growing issues; second, that S. 1860 is an important bill
that addresses these issues and we fully support it; and third,
Lawrence Livermore is committed to making this program
successful in solving this real world problem.
Energy and water are constrained resources, as our chairman
just mentioned, subject to high and growing demand.
Increasingly, each of these resources are associated with the
Nation's security. The linkages between energy and water are
important and compelling areas for research and development and
require both fundamental science and applied technology.
Our population is growing and along with it, the demand for
energy is growing. And as we've seen lately, matching this
demand with supply is not guaranteed. As well, the demand for
water is growing while supplies are dwindling in the West,
especially in the West but throughout the country as well.
Water pumping, treatment and conveyance currently accounts
for 3 percent of national energy consumption and as much as 10
percent in California. So water uses energy. This water sector
energy use is likely to grow, and is likely to be an important
component of our energy sector in the future. Efficiency in
this area for both the water use and water purification,
therefore, is an issue. Technologies are needed to increase
this efficiency.
Energy uses water, as well. As Les mentioned, 39 percent of
all freshwater withdrawals are for energy production. A single
kilowatt hour of electricity uses 25 gallons of water, on
average, to produce. And we use three times as much water for
lights and appliances in our homes as we do for domestic water
direct use.
Water availability poses constraints for existing power
generation and future expansion. For example, Lake Powell is
half full after a 5-year drought. So what effect will that have
on power generation?
My second point is that this is an act that addresses the
problem. The first part of the act called for an assessment of
the current R&D and the state of programmatic support of the
Government. This is very appropriate, as it will include
perspectives from many agencies responsible for water and
energy and a roadmap to the R&D that is important for
addressing these issues.
The proposed legislation taps into the national labs,
university partners, research community, industry and a multi-
year commitment to address these energy/water efficiency and
supply issues. Grants are 40 percent of the funding and these
will draw the best of ideas from the greater research
community. Commercialization effort will ensure that the
research reaches fruitful application and an advisory board
will review the progress and keep the program on track.
Livermore is committed to making this program effective and
we're lucky to have many capabilities to add. At Livermore,
water treatment, and monitoring technologies are at all stages
of development, from new materials at the design state to
commercial units.
We, for example, look at selective treatment. Can we use
design material to create membranes that only remove
contaminants of interest and leave the others that aren't
harmful behind, thus saving energy? We have been working in
desalinization for 20 years and have won R&D awards in that
area, and recent research is essentially looking at
desalinization as if it was an artificial kidney.
As well, we have sensor programs that detect biological and
chemical agents to determine if contaminants are accidentally
or intentionally entering the water supplies. These sensors
utilize molecular biology and material science at a very
advanced rate. We have experience as well in managing water
problems and partnerships throughout the State of California in
particular with water districts, universities and industry.
Livermore is completely supportive of S. 1860 and we look
forward to contributing to the program's success. We appreciate
the committee's leadership in putting this legislation forward
and we think it's an important element in planning for our
Nation's water and energy future. This concludes my remarks,
and I'd be happy to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Long follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jane C. S. Long, Associate Director, Energy and
Environment Directorate, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory,
University of California
OPENING REMARKS
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today. I am Jane Long, Associate
Director of the Energy and Environment Directorate at Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL). Our Laboratory is administered by
the University of California for the Department of Energy's National
Nuclear Security Administration. Lawrence Livermore is a multi-program
laboratory with special responsibilities in national security and
state-of the-art experimental and computational capabilities that are
also applied to meet other pressing national needs. In particular, LLNL
pursues a broad portfolio of innovative research and development
programs in energy and environmental sciences, many of which deal with
water issues.
Water issues and their close ties to energy issues are the
important subjects of today's hearings. Both energy and water are
constrained resources subject to high and growing demand. They are
inexorably linked and understanding these linkages is vital to
effective future management of America's energy and water supplies.
Water supply and management uses large amounts of energy; thus, the
availability of freshwater resources may be curtailed by insufficient
or too costly energy. Conversely, the energy sector uses considerable
amounts of water. Insufficient water resources can reduce the supply of
energy or drive up costs.
Clearly, thoroughly understanding the linkages between energy and
water is prerequisite to increasing the supply and efficient use of
both resources. Congress recently took action to meet this need with
the passage of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and today's hearing is
about two relevant bills, S. 1016 and S. 1860. My comments focus on S.
1860, the ``Energy-Water Efficiency Technology Research, Development,
and Transfer Program Act of 2005.'' It is a vitally important bill and
we fully support it. The program defined by S. 1860 builds on Section
979 of the Energy Policy Act, which specifically calls for a DOE
assessment and research program to address energy and water related
issues.
S. 1860 establishes a well-designed program to assess the current
situation, build a roadmap for future activities, pursue energy-water
efficiency and supply technology research, development, and transfer to
end-users. It calls upon DOE's national laboratories, working in
partnership with universities, other research institutions, industry,
and governmental agencies, to develop and deploy the needed
technologies. It also defines appropriate mechanisms to steer the
activities and advise the Secretary and Congressional committees of
program progress.
Most importantly, S. 1860 fully recognizes the need to apply the
nation's best science and technology to ensure abundant energy and
water to meet our country's future demands. As one of the lead national
laboratories identified in the bill, Lawrence Livermore is committed to
vigorously pursuing research and development of new technologies,
working with U.S. industry to turn them into effective products for the
user community, and to teaming with Sandia, Oak Ridge and the other
national laboratories to meet this challenge. My testimony will include
pertinent examples of LLNL's capabilities in fundamental and applied
science, current research projects, and ongoing partnerships.
THE ENERGY-WATER LINKAGE
Passed by Congress and signed into law by the President, the Energy
Policy Act of 2005 provides the United States with its first national
energy plan in more than a decade. The Act promotes investments in
energy efficiency and conservation as part of a comprehensive plan to
reduce the nation's dependence on foreign energy. Affordable and
reliable energy is vital to the continuing economic growth of the
United States and the well-being of its citizens. Greater energy
security is a challenge that calls for a sustained effort in energy
technology research, development of more energy-efficient products and
new resources, and conservation. The Energy Policy Act is an important
first step.
The subject of this hearing is a proposed amendment to the Energy
Policy Act of 2005. The bill (S. 1860) builds on Section 979 of the
Act, which specifies that the Secretary of Energy shall carry out a
program of research, development, demonstration, and commercialization
to address energy-related issues associated with water and water-
related issues associated with energy. It also directs the Secretary to
assess the effectiveness of existing Federal programs to address energy
and water related issues.
The energy-water nexus. Because the energy and water sectors are
interdependent, water supplies may be curtailed by insufficient or too
costly energy, and conversely, insufficient water can reduce the supply
of and increase the cost of energy. This critical energy-water nexus is
the subject of the proposed bill: ``to improve energy production and
reduce energy demand through improved use of reclaimed waters, and for
other purposes.'' The linkages between energy and water provide
compelling areas for research and development that would substantially
benefit both sectors and will require substantial and timely
investments in both fundamental science and applied technology.
Water-related issues associated with energy supply and management.
Water is an increasingly strained resource, particularly in the West,
where population is growing most rapidly and water is least available.
More generally, freshwater supplies are dwindling in many parts of the
U.S. due to extended droughts, and future supplies will be affected by
long-term trends in regional and global temperatures. It is much more
than a national issue; water has been and will continue to be a potent
source of international conflict. Modernization of urban centers in the
developing world, including expanding energy infrastructures, will
demand tremendous amounts of water, making it vital to international
security that we develop and share technologies with other nations to
enhance and better manage their water supplies.
U.S. Geological Survey data show that electricity production from
fossil and nuclear energy requires 190,000 million gallons of water per
day, or 39% of all freshwater withdrawals nationally. While only a
portion of these withdrawals are consumed, the returned water is
thermally and chemically affected by its use. Moreover, enough water
must be available to sustain energy production and meet other needs.
Much of the nation's energy fuel production is also dependent on
adequate water supplies. Energy resource recovery and processing create
large volumes of wastewater that require treatment for reuse or
disposal. Future shifts to energy sources such as coal liquefaction or
gasification, biomass, and hydrogen will place additional demands on
water resources.
Energy-related issues associated with water supply and management.
Water pumping, treatment and conveyance use large amounts of energy--
equivalent to the energy used by the paper or refining industries
(about 3% of national energy consumption and as high as 10% in
California). Water sector use of energy will likely substantially
outpace growth in other high-energy use sectors. There will be greater
demand for water reuse and recycling as well as energy-intensive
treatment of impaired or saline water sources, a greater need to tap
deep groundwater sources, and higher requirements for water storage and
transport--all significantly increase energy usage.
The water sector's demand for energy will also grow due to a
deteriorating infrastructure for treatment and conveyance of freshwater
supplies, an increased need to treat for harmful natural constituents,
such as arsenic and other contaminants introduced into the environment,
and concerns over soil salinization and depletion of groundwater.
Significant improvements in energy efficiency will require investments
in research, development, demonstration and deployment of water
treatment technologies for treating an ever-growing number of
contaminants.
THE ENERGY-WATER EFFICIENCY AND SUPPLY TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH,
DEVELOPMENT, AND TRANSFER PROGRAM
The proposed amendment to the Energy Policy Act of 2005 establishes
the Energy-Water Efficiency and Supply Technology Research,
Development, and Transfer Program. The bill (S. 1860) defines a program
that provides a means for the Secretary of Energy to carry out
responsibilities established in Section 979 of the Energy Policy Act,
and it authorizes appropriations to execute the program.
The Energy-Water Efficiency and Supply Technology Research,
Development, and Transfer Program is designed to clarify issues at the
energy-water nexus and to pursue the development and deployment of
innovative technologies at this critical junction. The focus of the
program will be more efficient or decreased use of water and energy,
and creation of new water supplies through advances in treatment or
management.
Four features of the Energy-Water Efficiency and Supply Technology
Research, Development, and Transfer Program--specifically called out in
S. 1860--are important to long-term success. The program includes:
Initial development of a water-supply technology assessment
to guide the investment strategy.
A commitment to invest in research and development of needed
technologies together with their deployment for real-world
applications.
Effective use of the Department of Energy national
laboratories in partnership with universities, other research
institutions, industry, and governmental agencies to develop
and deploy technologies.
Appropriate mechanisms to steer the activities and advise
the Secretary and Congressional committees of program progress.
Water-supply technology assessment. The proposed program fittingly
begins with an assessment of the current state of energy-water
efficiency and supply technology research and the development of a
roadmap. Rapid completion of the assessment and roadmap development is
challenging, but necessary and appropriate, given the urgency of the
problem. Wide-ranging capabilities are needed to carry out the
assessment, including knowledge about water supply and energy systems,
expertise in state-of-the-art science and technology, access to systems
analysis tools, experience working with technology end users, and an
understanding of existing policy and sociological constraints.
There are areas of significant synergy between the energy-water
nexus program goals and those of existing programs within various
federal, state, regional, and local agencies--and likely large gaps
where new research and development investments will be required.
Roadmap development needs to consider the perspective, needs, and
equity of these agencies and other organizations that are responsible
for water and energy issues. There are also important efforts in water
research and development at regional, state and local levels, led by
government agencies, universities, and other organizations. These
contributions need to be integrated with the DOE efforts at the energy-
water nexus.
Research and development and real-world technology deployment. A
strength of the national laboratories is their ability to tackle a
problem--from fundamental science to engineering development--and seek
breakthroughs that offer dramatic improvements over current
capabilities. Coupled with a multi-year commitment to work energy-water
efficiency and supply issues, this attribute is important to long-term
program success.
Successful research and development projects alone are not the
answer. The proposed program includes investments to ensure that the
technologies created through energy-water research and development are
deployed successfully by end-users. In addition to technology
innovation, the program will support pilot testing and assessment,
technology transfer and commercialization, and an assessment of the
economic and policy constraints for regulatory and public acceptance.
To be successful, a new technology must be economically viable,
environmentally acceptable, easy to integrate into existing
infrastructure or processes, and compliant with all applicable laws and
regulations.
National laboratories leading a broad partnership. The bill
proposes that three national laboratories-Lawrence Livermore, Oak
Ridge, and Sandia--be designated as ``program lead laboratories'' and
shoulder principal responsibility for carrying out the Energy-Water
Efficiency and Supply Technology Research, Development, and Transfer
Program. Each lead laboratory will select one or more university
partners to assist in program efforts. Based on the technology
assessment and the developed roadmap, the program in future years will
include appropriated funds for activities at the lead laboratories and
program grants for research, development, and demonstration projects.
Since at least 40 percent of the funding in FY2007 and beyond are
earmarked for grants, the program will be inclusive--drawing on the
best of ideas from universities, other research institutions and
agencies, and industry.
Concentration of program responsibilities in three DOE national
laboratories makes eminent sense. Three is a number large enough to
provide diverse viewpoints and a very wide range of expertise and
technical capabilities; yet it is small enough to keep the program
manageable and provide the laboratories funding on scale commensurate
with the need to pursue large-scale multidisciplinary research and
development activities. Each of the three selected lead laboratories
brings to bear important attributes that will contribute to program
success:
Broad ranging capabilities. As premier research facilities,
the DOE national laboratories are large repositories of
multidisciplinary expertise and home to many of the world's
largest computers and state-of-the-art experimental facilities.
They define the forefront of science and engineering in
materials and nanotechnology development, advanced
computations, numerical simulation, and detection and analysis
of hazardous chemical and biological compounds. These cross-
cutting capabilities are essential to solving water challenges.
Relevant ongoing research and development activities. The
lead laboratories have been engaged in both energy and water
projects for many years. One particular source of special
expertise in water issues at Lawrence Livermore stems from long
standing efforts to characterize and cleanup groundwater at the
Laboratory (and other superfund sites). These activities in the
1990s led to the development and transfer to U.S. industry of
novel technologies for water treatment, including dynamic
underground stripping for rapid groundwater remediation, and
capacitive deionization (CDI) for removal of a variety of
contaminants. Lawrence Livermore's capabilities in materials
science, molecular modeling and separations science continue to
fuel develop and transfer of a wide variety of water-and
energy-related technologies, as discussed in the next section.
Interactions with a wide range of partners. The lead
laboratories routinely work with sister research institutions
including major universities, and transfer the technologies
they develop to U.S. industry for commercialization. In
addition, water technology programs at the laboratories entail
many partnerships with federal, state, regional, and/or local
water agencies.
Advisory and review processes. The proposed legislation very
appropriately establishes an Advisory Panel to review program progress,
help the lead laboratories identify legal and other barriers to
implementing technology options, advise the Secretary of Energy on
energy-water issues, and recommend program grant awards. Composed of
members with diverse expertise, background, and interests, the Advisory
Panel will be most helpful to the lead laboratories responsible for
carrying out the Energy-Water Efficiency and Supply Technology
Research, Development, and Transfer Program. The laboratories will
depend on their guidance, and they will support the panel as
appropriate to help shape the grant program. The program peer reviews
conducted by a National Academy of Sciences (NAS) group also will be
important. In recent years, the NAS has completed a wide range of very
insightful studies examining water quality and management issues.
lawrence livermore's contributing capabilities
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) has a proven track
record in applying its capabilities to the complex water issues facing
its nearby communities, California, the West, and the nation. The
Laboratory emphasizes bringing expertise from many scientific
disciplines to its water technology projects. LLNL scientists and
engineers have at their disposal unique facilities for analyzing trace
amounts of hazardous compounds, some of the world's fastest computers,
nanoscale characterization and fabrication capabilities, and special
software and analytical tools developed for water and/or energy
management.
At the Laboratory, water treatment and monitoring technologies are
at all stages of development, from new materials at design-stage, based
on breakthroughs in separations science, to laboratory and field-scale
pilots, to commercial units. These research and development activities
are sponsored externally and internally and pursued in partnership with
a variety of government agencies, water organizations, and
corporations.
Four areas of LLNL's technology research and development activities
are briefly highlighted here: selective water treatment, desalination,
advanced sensors, and monitoring/management tools. I also will discuss
our partnerships that support and inform these efforts.
Selective Water Treatment Technologies. Present water treatment
technologies, such as membrane filtration or reverse osmosis, are
energy-intensive and expensive, in part because they remove many
compounds in addition to contaminants. Technologies that selectively
remove only undesired contaminants can improve water treatment
operating costs and energy efficiencies enough to allow many small
communities and rural households to use local freshwater supplies that
currently do not meet potable standards because of a single contaminant
(e.g., arsenic, selenium, perchlorate, uranium, or nitrate).
With the Laboratory's world-class computing facilities, which
include three of the world's top 13 supercomputers, LLNL has made
breakthroughs in the fundamental science of separations technology,
developing complex molecular-level simulation models to understand the
chemical transport of contaminants through different types of
materials. The objective is to design materials that are ``tuned'' to
selectively attach to and remove compounds of choice. Laboratory
experts in advanced materials science then test these concepts using a
diversity of media, including membranes, ion-exchange resins, aerogels,
and aerogel composites. (An area of special expertise at LLNL, aerogels
are high-surface area, low-density materials that can adsorb large
amounts of contaminants per unit weight and volume.) To date, Livermore
scientists have been able to identify, fabricate and test designer
materials (e.g., chemical functional groups on membranes) to
selectively remove arsenic, metals, radioactive compounds, and
hydrocarbons from water. LLNL also has developed a spectrum of energy-
efficient portable treatment units. These units, designed to have low
capital and operating costs and to operate at remote sites, can be
configured to run on renewable energy sources such as solar power.
The Laboratory is also helping municipalities in California's
Central Valley that need to treat nitrate-or arsenic-contaminated
groundwater. The water is naturally hard and prone to precipitating
minerals, creating plugging problems in the low-cost filter media
needed to eliminate the nitrate and arsenic. LLNL is using its
geochemical modeling expertise to determine ways to prevent the
minerals from forming, allowing these communities to efficiently use
these low-cost media rather than higher cost alternatives to meet
arsenic and/or nitrate standards.
Desalination. LLNL has been developing technologies to improve the
energy efficiency of desalination processes for over twenty years. In
the 1990s, the Laboratory licensed an innovative approach to capacitive
deionization (CDI) using aerogels to desalt water. In 1995, this
technology received an R&D 100 Award as one of the top 100 technology
innovations of the year. Next-generation and spin-offs from this
original technology are under development, including a concept based on
the electrodialysis (ED) process. ED is more energy efficient than
reverse osmosis at removing salt from brackish water, but it is still
not cost effective enough to treat large volumes of marginally impaired
waters. Laboratory scientists are working on developing ``smart''
membranes for ED. They would be designed to selectively remove only the
contaminant of interest. Accordingly, the process would be far more
efficient and lower energy costs by 50 percent or more. California
state agencies are actively supporting this research and development.
Sensor Technologies. LLNL is applying its expertise in sensor
technologies and its national and homeland security capabilities to
help water utilities and agencies. In support of the U.S. Department of
Homeland Security, LLNL has recently performed an assessment of sensors
and systems currently available to utilities for detection of
biological and chemical contamination in water distribution systems.
More generally, unique facilities at Livermore are available for real-
time detection and response to hazardous releases. They include the
National Atmospheric Release Advisory Center (NARAC), the Biosecurity
and Nanosciences Laboratory, the Biodefense Knowledge Center, and the
Forensic Science Center.
In addition, Livermore is at the forefront of developing new
sensors for chemical and biological hazards, including detectors for
single molecules of deadly pathogens, and rapid biohazards detection by
polymerase chain reaction (PCR). Over the past three years, three LLNL-
developed biological agent detection systems have earned R&D 100
Awards. Coupling its expertise in electronics miniaturization and
materials science, the Laboratory is also developing high-resolution
portable chemical sensors, including a sensor for arsenic, based on
selective membrane technology.
Water Monitoring and Management Tools. LLNL is applying innovative
analytical and modeling tools to monitor and manage water resources.
For example, the Laboratory has state-of-the-art facilities for age-
dating tritium (helium-3) and methods for low-level detection of
tracers and contaminants. Integrated with high-resolution hydrologic
models, these capabilities are aiding California in assessing
groundwater vulnerability to MTBE and other contaminants in the State's
Groundwater Ambient Monitoring Assessment (GAMA) program. LLNL has and
continues to assist the state of California in multimedia analysis for
new transportation fuels. In support of the Orange County Water
District, LLNL scientists used these methods to determine how long
reclaimed water, which was injected to prevent seawater intrusion,
would remain underground before withdrawal for potable use. LLNL has
also helped stakeholders understand water management alternatives to
meet Total Maximum Daily Loads limits in the Dominguez Channel, Long
Beach, California. LLNL is supporting the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation by
using these techniques to determine if an aquifer in California's
Imperial Valley, fed by leakage from agricultural canals, is a
sustainable water supply or could be used for water banking.
LLNL also develops database management tools for water agencies to
use to assess and manage contaminated water resources. GeoTracker, a
GIS tool developed by the Laboratory and managed by the state of
California, provides a public online database of groundwater
compositions for all leaking underground fuel tank (LUFT) sites and
public wells. Scientists are currently working with a California water
agency and the National Water Research Institute on a tool to balance
contributions from multiple water sources and manage arsenic loading to
a municipal water supply. Another software tool allows water managers
to visualize sources, uses, and disposal of water in systems from
watershed to national scales, as demonstrated by use of U.S. Geological
Survey data to diagram water flows in the U.S. and in some states. LLNL
staff participated in the recent water energy relationship study
conducted by the California Energy Commission as part of its 2005
Integrated Energy Policy Report.
Partnerships. Livermore researchers collaborate with a wide variety
of partners including many universities across the nation and industry,
ranging from large multinational to small companies that serve niche
markets. Sponsors and federal, state and local agency partners include:
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Geological Survey, California
Environmental Protection Agency, California Energy Commission,
California Department of Water Resources, and California State Water
Resources Control Board.
For example, LLNL researchers will investigate innovative brine
disposal options in a joint project with two California water districts
interested in pursuing brackish water desalination as a new water
source. Also involving university researchers for membrane testing and
an engineering firm, this project will receive state funding as well as
contributions from the lead partners. Our many university/research
institution partners include: Arizona State University, Hunter College,
Santa Clara University, Stanford University, University of Arizona,
University of California (UC) Berkeley, UC Davis, UC Los Angeles, UC
Merced, UC San Diego Scripps Institute of Oceanography, UC Santa Cruz,
UC Cooperative Extension, University of Texas, Austin, and Lawrence
Berkeley National Laboratory.
A significant fraction of public drinking water supply wells in the
State of California are contaminated by nitrate, the single most
reported contaminant in public wells. Using internal funding, LLNL
researchers have been investigating nitrate transport and assimilative
capacity in groundwater basins. Working with water agencies, academic
institutions, an agricultural outreach organization, and supporting
students, LLNL conducted studies in both urbanized groundwater basins
and at dairy farms. The significance of the work has been recognized by
follow-on funding from the State Water Resources Control Board. Our
many water utility partners include: City of Modesto, Santa Clara
Valley Water District, Zone 7, Dublin San Ramon Water District, East
Bay Municipal Utilities District, Los Angeles Department of Water and
Power, Alameda County Water District, City of Ripon, Grayson, San
Benito County Water District, and Orange County Water District.
A licensee of LLNL's capacitive deionization technology has just
announced an agreement for development and manufacturing of the key
aerogel material that is the heart of the company's product. Given the
commercial viability of the technology, LLNL researchers are working on
next-generation innovations to improve performance and efficiency.
Private industry/consortia partners include: CDT Systems, Balance
Hydrologic, Perlorica, Tetra Tech, Boyle Engineering, Malcolm Pirnie,
Crystal Clear Technologies, RMC Water and Environment, and the National
Water Research Institute.
CLOSING REMARKS
Our Laboratory is fully supportive of S. 1860, the ``Energy-Water
Efficiency Technology Research, Development, and Transfer Program Act
of 2005.'' It is an important bill; America's current and future needs
for abundant energy and water will only be met by pursuing innovative
science and technology to address energy and water issues.
S. 1860 establishes a well-designed program to assess the current
situation, build a roadmap for future activities, and pursue energy-
water efficiency and supply technology research, development, and
transfer to end-users. The program makes effective use of DOE national
laboratories working in partnership with others to develop and deploy
technologies. It also defines appropriate mechanisms to steer the
activities and advise the Secretary and Congressional committees of
program progress. S. 1860 is an important element in planning for our
nation's water and energy future.
Senator Bingaman. Thank you very much. Unfortunately,
they're about to finish off this vote so I think I better put
this hearing in recess until Senator Domenici returns. Then
we'll hear from you, Dr. Roberto.
[Recess.]
STATEMENT OF DR. JAMES B. ROBERTO, DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR SCIENCE
AND TECHNOLOGY, OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY, OAK RIDGE, TN
Dr. Roberto. My name is James Roberto, and I am the Deputy
Laboratory Director for Science and Technology at Oak Ridge
National Laboratory, which is a Department of Energy multi-
program laboratory managed by UT-Battelle, a partnership of the
University of Tennessee and Battelle Memorial Institute.
The Water Technology Act would open an important area of
research for our laboratory and for the Nation. Reliable energy
and clean water are essential elements to the quality of life.
When we lack one or the other, our standard of living suffers.
We have a responsibility to safeguard these resources for the
American people.
In my testimony today, I will concentrate on two subjects.
One, how energy/water issues are becoming acute in the
Southeastern States. And two, how new science can make a
difference. Population increases throughout the United States
will drive demand for both energy and water into the
foreseeable future. As energy production accounts for the
largest withdrawal of freshwater in the United States, the
growing demand for energy and the need to provide water for
cities and industry will inevitably collide.
Water Technology notes that Nevada will have a population
of four million people by 2030, which is twice what it had in
2000. The same trends are occurring in Southeastern States such
as Georgia, and Florida where the growth rate is about the
same. Most of Georgia's new water demand will be located in the
Atlanta metropolitan area that is already struggling with water
supply shortfalls.
To meet future demand, many eastern coastal cities are
turning to seawater desalination projects. For example, Tampa
has been operating a seawater desalination plant since 2003 to
augment its groundwater supplies. Tampa's experience is an
important, leading example of how to provide new water sources
for our cities, but desalination remains expensive, energy-
intensive, and environmentally challenging.
In central Virginia, the expansion of a nuclear power plant
is being delayed because of limited water resources. Lake Anna
was created in 1971 to provide cooling water for the power
station. Over the years, the lake has become home to marinas,
subdivisions, and a State park. As is happening elsewhere in
the United States, changing water-use values are putting
pressure on water for energy uses.
Expansion of the power station would lead to water loss
through increased evaporation, putting fisheries in the
reservoir-based recreation at risk. This and many other
examples make it clear that water and energy are major resource
development issues throughout the country, both in the West and
the East.
One example of a broad class of technologies that can have
a transforming impact in the last two of these areas is the use
of inorganic membranes. Depending on the materials used,
inorganic membranes are resistant to corrosive liquids and
gases, even at high temperatures over 1000 C.
In seawater desalination applications, the increased
durability and other properties would result in less costly
operation and maintenance and less energy-intensive performance
could be achieved.
At ORNL, we have been exploring ways to build inorganic
membranes for many years. The proposed Water Technology Act
would enable us to develop this technology. DOE's laboratories
have a wide range of capabilities that are well suited to
tackle the most difficult challenges at the intersection of
energy and water. These include new information systems,
computational models, and monitoring technology to better
understand demands for both energy and water. New materials,
separation methods, and sensors/controls can be developed to
create clean water and to increase water-use efficiencies. The
biotechnologies and nanotechnologies that are being developed
within the national laboratories will have many applications to
cleaning water.
DOE's national laboratory system is an excellent place to
center a new water technology program, because of our multi-
disciplinary nature and our ability to carry out complex
integrated projects. We need to draw on a broad range of
skills, not only from the labs, but also from other agencies,
academia and industry.
We also must ensure that the new technology that is
developed is transferred expeditiously to commercial end-users.
A base technology program in labs and universities, combined
with competitive grants, will produce effective directed
research and the opportunity to incorporate the best new ideas
from all sources.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your commitment to providing
reliable energy and clean water to our Nation and the world.
The scientific community appreciates the committee's leadership
in this area and firmly believes that the future of our Nation
depends on continued progress in science and technology,
including the energy/water nexus.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Roberto follows:]
Prepared Statement of James B. Roberto, Deputy Director for Science and
Technology, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: My name is James
Roberto, and I am the Deputy Laboratory Director for Science and
Technology at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL). My role at ORNL is
to oversee the Laboratory's science and technology programs, including
physical and materials sciences, neutron sciences, biological and
environmental sciences, advanced computing, energy and engineering, and
national security. ORNL is a Department of Energy multiprogram
laboratory managed by UT-Battelle, LLC, a partnership of the University
of Tennessee and Battelle Memorial Institute. It is an honor to appear
before the Committee in support of The Energy-Water Efficiency and
Supply Technology Research, Development, and Transfer Program Act of
2005 (referred to here as the Water Technology Act).
The Water Technology Act would open an important area of research
for our Laboratory and other parts of the federal and nonfederal
research community in the U.S. As Senator Domenici has stated, reliable
energy and clean water are essential elements in the quality of life of
our citizens and those elsewhere in the world. When we lack one or the
other, our standard of living suffers greatly. We have a responsibility
to safeguard these resources for the American people.
With your leadership and others, we are all getting better educated
on the issues associated with unsafe water and unreliable energy--this
is a hopeful sign. I will not repeat more water facts here, but I have
attached a statement from the National Laboratory Energy-Water Nexus
Team, a multi-laboratory team that has been working for more than two
years to highlight these issues. This attachment is a concise statement
of the relation between energy production and water resources and of
how science and technology can contribute to new solutions to resource
limitations. The Energy-Water Nexus Team is a broad collaboration among
DOE's Laboratories that I hope will continue to function within the new
Program you are proposing.
In my testimony today, I will concentrate on two subjects: 1) how
energy-water issues are becoming acute in the southeastern states, and
2) how new science can make a difference. The first point shows that
water problems are not restricted to the western U.S. The second shows
some of the benefits that will come from the Water Technology Act.
ENERGY-WATER ISSUES IN THE SOUTHEAST
Population increases throughout the U.S. will drive demand for both
energy and water into the foreseeable future. As energy production
accounts for the largest withdrawal of freshwater in the U.S., the
growing demand for energy and the need to provide water for cities and
industry will inevitably collide over limited freshwater. The
competition for water between energy, municipalities, and industry is
often compounded by the need to reallocate available water to
environmental conservation. We are seeing these types of competitive
problems in the eastern U.S. today.
In the introduction of the Water Technology Act, Senator Domenici
explains how Nevada will have a population of four million people by
2030, twice as many as in 2000. The same trends are occurring in
southeastern states such as Georgia, where the growth rate is about the
same. Most of Georgia's new water demand will be located in the Atlanta
metropolitan area that is already struggling with water supply
shortfalls. Population growth rates similar to those in Nevada and
Georgia are occurring all along the east coast of the U.S., in states
from Florida to Virginia. It is clear that there are water technology
needs throughout the country and that the R&D investments in this
proposed legislation are needed as soon as possible.
To meet future water demand, many eastern coastal cities are
turning to seawater desalination projects. For example, Tampa has been
operating a seawater desalination plant since 2003 to augment its
groundwater supplies. Tampa's reverse osmosis plant is located next to
a 2,000-MW, coal-fired power plant, where they share a water intake.
Tampa's experience is an important, leading example of how to provide
new water sources for our cities, but desalination remains expensive,
energy-intensive, and environmentally challenging. Biofouling of water
intakes and membranes; unexpectedly high costs for construction,
operation, and maintenance; and environmental impact of disposal of
concentrated brines are continuing problems. These unresolved technical
problems are delaying water solutions at other cities in the East and
the West.
In central Virginia, the expansion of a nuclear power plant is
being delayed because of limited water resources. The North Anna
Nuclear Power Station near Mineral (north of Richmond) is located on
Lake Anna, a 9,600-acre impoundment of the relatively small North Anna
River. Lake Anna was created in 1971 to provide cooling water for the
power station. Over the years, the lake has become home to marinas,
dozens of subdivisions, a state park and thousands of recreational
users. As is happening elsewhere in the U.S., changing water-use values
are putting pressure on water for energy uses. Expansion of the North
Anna Power Station would lead to water loss through increased
evaporation of cooling water (either from the cooling reservoir or wet
cooling towers), and that water loss would put plant safety, striped
bass fisheries in the reservoir and downstream, and reservoir-based
recreation at risk. This and many other examples make it clear that
water and energy are major resource development issues throughout the
country, both in the West and the East.
NEW SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS
Can new science, technology development, and technology transfer
help solve these problems quicker, cheaper, or better than existing
technologies? I am confident that the answer is ``yes''--science and
technology can make a real difference, and in a reasonable period of
time. A combination of improvements to existing technologies and new
technologies that we can expect from the dramatic advances occurring
in, particularly, the materials sciences will help us use water more
efficiently, produce water for human use from brackish or salt water,
and reduce and often remove contaminants from water that we return to
the environment. Let me illustrate the opportunities for progress
through one example of a broad class of technologies that can have a
transforming impact in the last two of these areas, the use of
inorganic membranes.
Reverse osmosis membranes can be constructed out of inorganic
materials: ceramics or metals. Inorganic membranes would be much more
versatile than existing organic membranes. Depending on the materials
used, inorganic membranes are resistant to corrosive liquids and gases,
even at high temperatures (over 1000 C). In seawater desalination
applications, inorganic membranes would have distinct advantages. They
could be selectively designed for use in the pre-treatment stage to
remove biofouling organisms and other contaminants, or they could be
designed for use in later treatment stages. The increased durability
and other properties would be compatible with cheaper and more frequent
and repetitive regeneration methods. Less costly operation and
maintenance and less energy-intensive performance could be achieved. At
ORNL, we have been exploring ways to build inorganic membranes for many
years. The new Program that would be established by the Water
Technology Act would enable us to develop new applications that could
make a real difference, such as portable, low-power water treatment
packages to supply clean water to disaster victims.
DOE's Laboratories have a wide range of capabilities that are well
suited to tackle the most difficult challenges at the intersection of
energy and water. These include new information systems, computational
models, and monitoring technology to better understand future supplies
and demands for both energy and water. New materials, separation
methods, and sensors/controls can be developed to create clean water
and to increase water-use efficiencies in the energy sector. Increasing
water-use efficiencies in energy, as well as in other industrial
sectors, is an important priority, because it will delay the onset and
the severity of unproductive competition between energy and water
resources. As others have mentioned, the biotechnologies and
nanotechnologies that are being developed within the national
laboratories will have many applications to cleaning water that we hope
will be more energy-efficient than current technologies.
The proposed Water Technology Program would have many important
benefits beyond providing for domestic water and energy needs. These
additional benefits include homeland security, increased resilience
against climate change and variability, and contributions to
international stability in regions of the world that suffer from lack
of clean water. New technology to improve energy and water efficiency
will contribute directly to improvements in the use of resources and
protecting quality of life domestically and internationally.
THE BEST PATH FORWARD ON ENERGY-WATER TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT
DOE's National Laboratory system is an excellent place to center a
new water technology program, because of our multi-disciplinary nature
and our ability to focus on challenging missions, such as this.
However, we know that we cannot do this alone. The full spectrum of
basic to applied research, demonstration, and deployment will be
needed. The new water technology program should be implemented in a way
that is needs-based and merit-based, so that funding is allocated to
the most pressing problems and work is done by the best researchers. We
need to ensure that we draw on a broad range of skills from Labs, other
agencies, academia, and industry. We also must ensure that the new
technology that is developed is transferred expeditiously to commercial
end-users, so that we impact energy and water resources as quickly and
cost-effectively as possible. As the Water Technology Act implies, a
base technology program in Labs and universities, combined with
competitive grants, will produce effective directed research and the
opportunity to incorporate the best new ideas from all sources. This is
a strategy that has proved successful in delivering high-impact
outcomes in a variety of arenas.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your commitment to providing reliable
energy and clean water to our nation and the world. The scientific
community appreciates the Committee's leadership in this area and
firmly believes that the future of our nation depends on continued
progress in science and technology, including the energy-water nexus.
ATTACHMENT
The National Laboratory Energy-Water Nexus Team's answer to
Question 4 of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources'
Water Conference on April 5, 2005: What potential exists and what
should be the federal government's role in enhancing the available
water supply through the development of new technologies, conservation,
metering, more efficient storage, water banking and other water
transfers?
ENHANCING WATER SUPPLIES WHILE ADDRESSING ENERGY NEEDS THROUGH RESEARCH
AND TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT
As highlighted in recent National Academy of Science reports,
scientific research and technical innovation will be critical elements
in resolving the impending water crises we face nationally and
internationally. Achieving this will require increased investment,
coordination among many federal agencies and collaboration among
entities at federal, regional, state and local levels. There are a
number of different areas where research and development could enhance
water supplies.
Water plays many essential roles in our lives and in our economies:
maintaining public health and sanitation, producing food, protecting
sensitive ecosystems, enhancing recreation and aesthetics, and playing
a critical role in industry, energy production, and economic
productivity. All of these are potentially at risk should water
supplies fail. The challenges of maintaining water sustainability also
are fundamentally important both to national security and global
stability. In observance of the 2002 World Day for Water, U.N.
Secretary General Kofi Annan noted that ``By 2025, two-thirds of the
world's population is likely to live in countries with moderate or
severe water shortages. Fierce national competition over water
resources has prompted fears that water issues contain the seeds of
violent conflict.'' In the U.S., competition also is growing for
limited supplies of water of sufficient quality for use by
municipalities, industries, agriculture, water and energy utilities,
and others, including meeting ecosystem and recreational needs.
Insecurity over water as a powerful source for conflict is evidenced by
37 incidents globally since 1948; but, over the same time period, water
has been a greater force for international cooperation, including 295
negotiated water agreements (Shiffries and Brewster, 2004). Making
sufficient alternatives available to negotiators depends in part on
increased scientific understanding and new technological options that
can increase the number of alternatives for enhancing water supplies to
balance demands from competing water users.
A particularly important place for science and technology
investment is at the energy-water nexus. The needs for both energy and
water are expected to grow substantially over the next 25 years, and
while the separate challenges arising from these projections are
recognized, little attention is given to the fact that the future of
one of these resources may be compromised by a failure of the other:
insufficient or too costly supplies of water can cripple energy
production; insufficient or too costly energy can cripple water
supplies. A stable U.S. energy portfolio requires adequate and
dependable water. According to the USGS, electricity production from
fossil and nuclear energy requires 190,000 million gallons of water per
day, or 39% or all freshwater withdrawals nationally. In other words,
U.S. households indirectly use as much or more water turning on the
lights and running their appliances as they use directly for bathing
and watering their gardens. Conversely, water pumping, treatment and
conveyance use large amounts of energy, equivalent to energy used by
the paper or refining industries, about 75 billion kWh/yr or 3% of
national energy consumption. In the west, energy use for water is even
higher: about 7% of California's electricity is used for water pumping
and as much as 25% of electricity use is water-related (Gleick et al.,
2004).
TARGETING RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT AT THE ENERGY-WATER NEXUS
Energy-water linkages result in synergies for research and
technology efforts at the energy-water nexus. Increasing efficient use
of energy effectively extends both water supply and energy supply; more
efficient use of water effectively likewise enhances supplies of water
and energy. There is a clear need for research and technology to
develop a better understanding of the energy-water nexus and to find
the innovative technological solutions needed to address the challenges
at this critical junction. Such efforts should include energy-efficient
technologies for treating and using impaired water sources, scientific
and technologic advances to reduce water usage in power generation,
reuse of waters used or produced in energy resource recovery, and
improving energy efficiency in water pumping and conveyance, as well as
a long list of other areas that will result in more efficient or
decreased use of water and energy.
Water acquisition, management, movement, distribution, purification
and post-use treatment are large users of energy (Anderson, 1999).
Water sector energy demand also likely will substantially outpace
growth in other high-energy use sectors. Increasing water demand,
shifts to water reuse and recycling, more use of impaired water
sources, tapping of deeper groundwater sources, and increased water
storage and transport will significantly increase future energy demand.
Energy demand for treatment and conveyance of freshwater supplies is
increasing due to deteriorating infrastructure (American Water
Resources Association, 2005), increased awareness of harmful natural
constituents such as arsenic (Bitner, 2004), introduction of new
contaminants into the environment (e.g., endocrine disruptors,
disinfection byproducts), and concerns over soil salinization and
depletion of groundwater (Lawford et al., 2003; McGuire et al., 2003).
Addressing these factors will require long-term commitments of
significant resources to research, develop, demonstrate and deploy
water treatment technologies that can improve efficiencies for removing
traditional compounds as well as treat an ever-growing number of new
contaminants. Such research should include development of new energy-
efficient and selective materials for membranes, ion exchange resins
and filters, innovative processes for desalination, and improved
processes for handling concentrate waste streams.
With inclusion of freshwater and saline water withdrawals for
thermoelectric and hydropower, the energy sector is the largest water
use sector. While these withdrawals are not completely consumptive,
enough water still must be available to ensure sustainable energy
production. With the exception of some renewable energy sources, and
regardless of fuel sources, our electricity production is dependent on
water supplies (Electric Power Research Institute, 2002; Brocksen et
al., 1996). Additionally, much of our energy fuel production is
dependent on adequate water supplies to obtain and process fuels (Wolff
et al., 2004). Energy resource recovery and processing also create
large volumes of wastewater that require treatment for reuse or
disposal (Gleick et al., 2004). Future sources of energy such as coal
liquefaction or gasification, biomass, and hydrogen will place new
demands on water resources.
Many factors are driving the current condition of increasingly
strained water resources toward a severe water crisis, translating to
negative results for the energy sector. Nationally, population is
growing most rapidly where water is least available. Internationally,
in addition to the water needed for growing populations, tremendous
amounts of water will be needed to modernize urban centers and
industrialize the developing world. Freshwater supplies are dwindling
due to extended droughts in parts of the U.S. and in other countries
throughout the world (Hirsch, 2004). Water will be foremost among
resources affected by long-term trends in regional and global
temperatures or other manifestations of climate change.
All of these factors will contribute to increasing difficulties for
the energy sector to obtain the water it needs for existing plants and
for future expansion. Newspapers from throughout the country
increasingly are reporting that drought, increasing competition among
user groups for existing water supplies, and fears of negative impacts
on ecosystems are causing denial of permits for new thermoelectric
power generation or restrictions on existing electricity generation.
For example, the Salt Lake Tribune reported that the drought now
impacting the western U.S. has reduced hydropower production at Glen
Canyon Dam by 25 percent, reducing output to just 124 megawatts out of
165 megawatts of power capacity. Drought has also reduced hydropower
output from numerous smaller projects throughout the state, lowering
revenues for hydropower producers and making electricity more expensive
for many of Utah's households. In Lassen County in northern California,
concerns over water are causing residents and conservationists to
oppose construction of a 1400-megawatt coal-fired power plant planned
across the state line in Nevada. The plant would produce cheap
electricity at 2 cents per kilowatt-hour compared to 5 cents per
kilowatt-hour for gas-fired plants, however, experts think that the
16,000-acre feet of water per year needed for the plant greatly exceeds
sustainable withdrawals from the area's water resources. In both cases,
water shortages result in increasing costs and decreasing supplies of
electricity. In central Virginia, near Mineral, a siting permit to
expand the North Anna Nuclear Power Station is being contested due to
concerns over water. Lake Anna, a 9,600-acre river impoundment, was
created in 1971 to provide cooling water for the North Lake Anna
Nuclear Power Station. Over the years, the lake has become home to
marinas, dozens of subdivisions, a state park and thousands of
recreational users. The siting permit has encountered significant
resistance from other water users, residents and environmental groups
over the impact of reducing lake levels, especially during droughts,
and the resulting risk to plant safety, as well as the impacts on
aquatic species and recreation from impingement, entrainment and
thermal discharges from expanding the facility.
There are also energy implications resulting from choices in water
resource utilization. For example, in California, where power shortages
recently necessitated rolling blackouts and other extreme power
conservation measures, water constraints are pushing industries and
power plants to shift to wastewater reuse and recycling. Because energy
as well as water may be limiting factors, the future availability and
cost of the additional energy that will be required for wastewater
treatment and conveyance should be considered in conjunction with the
cost and availability of various water source alternatives, or
switching to other options such as dry cooling or other low water-
intensity power generation such as solar and wind power. The cascading
blackout that temporarily devastated many parts of the economies of
regions in the Northeast and Midwest several years ago also resulted in
suspension of Cleveland's water supply because electricity was not
available for pumping stations. Future city planning is likely to
consider a mix of energy resource alternatives or back-up generators to
increase the reliability and security of both energy and water systems.
Decision analysis and systems tools that allow coupling the energy and
water sectors are critical for such integrated planning.
Problems at the energy-water nexus are national in scope but there
are profound regional differences in water issues and energy sources
that dictate solutions be fit to regional and local needs. Water
scarcity is most obvious in the arid West where surface water
withdrawals are maximized and groundwater pumping rates exceed natural
recharge rates, but even in the more humid Eastern states, limited
storage, groundwater level declines, salt water intrusion and depletion
of stream flow needed for aquatic ecosystems are common problems (NSTC,
2004). The benefits from new investments should be maximized by
focusing on technologies that can be deployed nationwide by virtue of
their adaptability to a variety of regional water resource scenarios.
Investment should also be made in a process to ensure that the
technologies created through energy-water research and development are
deployed successfully to end-users. Components of such a process should
include technology innovation, research and development, pilot testing
and assessment, technology transfer and commercialization, and
concurrent studies of the economic and policy constraints that may
impede regulatory and public acceptance. To be successful, a new
technology must be economically viable, environmentally acceptable,
should be easily integrated or substituted into existing infrastructure
or processes, and comply with all applicable laws and regulations.
SUMMARY
As highlighted in recent National Academy of Science reports,
solving the national challenge of sustainable water and energy supply
will require a coordinated and concerted investment in science and new
technology development. There is an urgent need to increase research
and development efforts to create science-based solutions to water-
related constraints on future energy supplies and energy-related
constraints on future water supplies. Over the last decades, there have
been investments in some water related areas, such as groundwater
cleanup and environmental restoration, fossil energy produced water
management, thermoelectric power efficiency, and in-home water and
energy efficiency. All of these efforts individually fall within the
energy-water overlap, but more integration and coordination is needed
to provide a foundation for broader research and technology development
specifically targeted to cover the scope of the nexus between national
energy and water supply needs. Science and engineering expertise to be
tapped include high-performance, high-resolution computer simulation
capabilities, advanced sensors and controls, separations science
including advanced materials development, impaired water treatment and
water reuse technologies, improved water and energy efficiency
technologies and systems, technology testing and demonstration
facilities, tools for integrated analysis of complex interdependent
systems, and tools for decision-support analysis and visualization.
Finally, a regional approach to water resources is needed, so that new
technology development is matched to local and regional needs and
priorities. Regionally based efforts should foster cooperation among
national laboratories, universities, other federal agencies, private
industry, state and local agencies to target the most pressing national
and regionally cross-cutting priorities. Creation of strong regional
public/private partnerships that engage federal, state and local
decision makers must be a key part of any solution.
The Chairman. Thank you very much. Senator Bingaman went to
vote, as I indicated, and he will probably return. Senator
Salazar is here now. And Senator, we're going to start
questions. These are the four panelist that have just spoken.
If you have any questions, I'll give you a turn shortly. If you
would like to make an observation regarding the hearings, you
are free now to do that, whichever you prefer.
Senator Salazar. I'm here just to support the committee and
the chairman.
The Chairman. All right. Let me just make an observation
for a moment. There's no doubt in my mind that our country has
grown used to waiting until a crisis before we do anything and
I'm very worried on many fronts as to what's going to happen
because of that. This is one of those.
Second, I'm very concerned that we spend a lot of our money
on things that are not going to take care of our future. And
somehow we have to get out of that ethic some way, and spend
some money on some things that apply to our future. I have many
Senators on this committee and I'm so pleased they're here
because they feel the same way.
The Senator on my right feels that we're spending far too
little on things we chose to call hardware, tangible things
like new technology for water and the like. And we try to find
money someplace. My worry is that we'll pass this bill--because
if we work at it, we will--and then where do we get the money
to do it? And it just won't happen, just because we wrote it.
Having said that, Senator Craig, you will know these four
are the first panel. We're finished with their testimony. I
will start with questioning, followed by Senator Salazar, then
you.
So let's start with the representative of the Federal
Government. Mr. Faulkner, you stated in your testimony that the
appropriate Federal role in water supply and distribution is
providing appropriate scientific and technology support for
these efforts.
Do you believe that S. 1860 generally promotes the Federal
role articulated in your testimony as representative of the
administration's position?
Mr. Faulkner. Sir, I think there's widespread agreement, as
you said, that the energy and water nexus is an important
issue. We do believe there's an important Federal role to play
in research and development on energy/water related
technologies, as well as in the laboratories.
Our laboratory systems have unique capabilities to bring to
bear on that, to accomplish that mission. We do think that
there are some specific things about the legislation, as I said
in my testimony, that we have some concern about, mostly about
providing sufficient flexibility to the Secretary of Energy.
The Chairman. All right. You stated in the testimony that
S. 1860 appears to leave out the private sector and its key
role in the research and development, demonstration and
commercialization.
S. 1860 provides that at least 30 percent of the funding be
made available for non-Federal competitive grants and provides
for the private sector to be a full advisory panel member.
Could you tell us, is this what you mean by excluding the
private sector, or do you mean this is not enough for the
private sector?
Mr. Faulkner. I believe the latter, sir, would be my view.
I think public/private partnerships in research and development
are really the bedrock of what at least my office does, at the
Department of Energy. Getting the private sector in early in
research and development is critical to the development and the
commercialization of those technologies.
The Chairman. As I understand it, much of the DOE's water
resources research has been done within the Office of Science,
which focuses on basic research. And it's my belief that we
should promote more applied research. What other offices within
DOE should be brought to bear, if any, in carrying out S. 1860?
Mr. Faulkner. As much as $20 million in research and
development across the Department is on water-related topics.
That's in the nuclear energy area, the energy efficiency area,
the fossil energy area. And then there's some work going in my
office also in terms of Federal energy management. They've been
looking at water issues, reducing water use in Federal
facilities for many years.
And then we also have our Energy Star program, which looks
at setting criteria for reducing water use. So there are a
number of different parts of the Department engaged in this,
and the technologies they pursue are important to this area.
The Chairman. I have some other questions, but I want to go
to Dr. Shephard, and then yield to the other side.
Dr. Shephard, what unique research capabilities do you
think Sandia Laboratories should or could bring to bear to
carry out the purpose of S. 1860?
Dr. Shephard. As you know, the Sandia National Laboratories
has been, since its inception, a science-based engineering
laboratory. We have a very strong industrial heritage that
dates back to Bell Labs and AT&T and Western Electric. Those
two attributes have continued through to this day.
I believe that an important and--a very important aspect of
this particular legislation is to assure that we remain focused
on a systems perspective that allows us to understand how the
various elements associated with research, development,
application and commercialization are tied together from
basically fundamental research and the investments that this
country is making in a facility like Sandia, relative to our
Center for Integrated Nanotechnology and our Microsystems and
Engineering Science Applications facility, all the way through
to the other end of the spectrum, which really relies very
highly on probabilistic risk assessment methodologies and
capabilities.
When one couples that with our direct engagement with
industry--and by all metrics, Sandia has traditionally led the
Department of Energy complex in terms of technology transfer,
in terms of patents, in terms of CRADA, in terms of moving
technologies into the private sector--that sweep from systems
engineering to basic research and development to a strong
industrial heritage collectively contribute to provide Sandia
the right set of capabilities for this.
The Chairman. I have additional questions, as I do of the
other laboratories, but I'm going to now yield. If I don't get
time, I'll submit five or six questions to each of you.
Senator Bingaman.
Senator Bingaman. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Let me
ask about an issue. I guess I'll start with Dr. Shephard, since
I know that you folks at Sandia have been focused on this.
Maybe some of the other witnesses also have.
The biggest problem that I hear about--and I'm sure Senator
Domenici hears about it regularly, as we travel around New
Mexico--is this problem of arsenic in the water. Of course,
we've established a requirement that all of these municipal
water systems meet a very, very high standard. I think it's 10
parts per billion of arsenic. It used to be 50 parts per
billion, then it was determined that that still was unsafe, and
now it's 10 parts per billion.
I know there's some research going on at Sandia about how
to deal with this arsenic problem in a cost-effective way, and
what kinds of technologies would assist in doing this. Could
you give me an update on where that stands, whether there's any
sort of comprehensive effort, or is this just sort of something
that a few people are interested in, or----
The Chairman. Dr. Shephard, would you please hold. Senator
Bingaman, would you yield to me for just one moment? Senator
Bingaman, starting back about 3 years ago, we started funding,
and through Sandia's special efforts, they're getting very
close to having a special institute that would be directed at
this.
But in the meantime, there are three laboratories, mobile,
set up for arsenic research elimination. One is in Albuquerque,
and I can't remember the other. And actually they are looking
at three or four, five different technologies. They haven't got
one that they can say is ready yet, and everybody here should
know, I've talked with Senator Craig about it, you should know
Senator, the deadline for meeting the standard is January of
this coming year. And it's a very enormous problem, because
most of them can't meet it. Albuquerque can, Senator, because
they mix water with what they've minimized arsenic in the
previous pool.
I think he's going to explain in your answer what they're
doing, and I would tell you that if we can keep it going for a
while, we're going to find some terrific answers, but we have
to be very worried about what happens the next couple of
months. I will share with you and the committee what I think
are some ways to get some help, but I don't have a way right
now.
Thank you. Excuse me for interrupting.
Senator Bingaman. Sure.
Dr. Shephard. Yes, sir, Senator Bingaman, and Mr. Chairman,
Sandia has been actively engaged, as Senator Domenici has
indicated, for a number of years, and actually looking at
various technologies that you're aware of as well for
addressing this particular problem. It is a widespread,
ubiquitous set of issues for the Southwestern part of the
United States, but other areas as well around the country.
We have recently--in fact, as recently as the last 2
weeks--convened an outreach program where we have brought
together leaders from the various communities around the State
of New Mexico explicitly to try to engage them and understand
their specific needs and issues in terms of meeting the
particular compliance requirements that, as the chairman has
indicated, come into effect in January of next year.
We are looking at the development of a pilot plant. Rio
Rancho, New Mexico actually is actively engaged in
commercialization-related activities as an end user, again, to
provide feedback to our researchers internal to the laboratory
to see what actual processes are most effective and most cost-
efficient overall in terms of treating locations and
communities the size of Rio Rancho, to those much smaller
locations which have similar problems in other parts of our
State.
Senator Bingaman. Thank you very much.
Let me go to Mr. Faulkner with a question. You know, one of
my pet peeves all along is it doesn't seem to me we have a very
well structured system for monitoring developments in other
countries that deal with some of these issues. I don't know
what we have in the Department of Energy that focuses on this
set of issues. You know, the need for ensuring water quality in
particular, is much greater in many of the Third World
countries than it is even in our own. And I know there's a lot
of work going on in some of these other countries to try to
deal with that problem, to try to solve that problem.
Do we have any systematic way in the Department of Energy
of tracking what other countries are doing, what the level of
progress is, and their technology development?
Mr. Faulkner. I don't know for sure, Senator, but my guess
would be no. But what I'd like to do is go back and check on
that and insert that for the record if that's okay.
[The information follows:]
The Department of Energy does not have a systematic way of tracking
what other countries are doing in the field of ensuring water quality,
nor are we aware of other agencies conducting such work.
Senator Bingaman. I would appreciate that. It seems to me
to make a lot of sense for us to do it. This is not just a
United States problem. None of these are just United States
problems. To the extent that we can come up with solutions, we
need to share them with the rest of the world. To the extent
that someone else comes up with solutions, we need to steal
them, or borrow them, or whatever you want to call it. We need
to take advantage of those solutions is the point I'm trying to
make.
There is one other question I wanted to ask. My
understanding is the White House Office of Science and
Technology was working on a comprehensive research plan to
support fresh water availability. Mr. Faulkner, do you know
when that plan is due out? Is that something that you're
familiar with?
Mr. Faulkner. Yes, sir. They've issued one report already,
which is outlining sort of the bigger broader issue. They are
working on finishing up another report, the one you're
referring to, I think. But they're looking at six challenges
and I'm told that will be early in this coming year. And then
there's a third one following that, that they've only started
conceptualizing. But the one I think you're talking about will
be early in 2006.
The Chairman. Senator Salazar.
Senator Salazar. If I can just make a quick comment about
your legislation, S. 1860. First, I think that all of the labs
that you've identified there are wonderful labs that add
tremendously to the technology and research of our country--
Sandia, Lawrence, and Oak Ridge Laboratory.
And I think the subject of the bill with respect to water
efficiency and technology is something that we have not given
enough attention to. And so I'm just delighted to be in support
of your bill, and I offer to co-sponsor your legislation and to
help you get it through.
The Chairman. Senator, would you mind, maybe we've already
asked you, but check and have your staff communicate with us,
if you have the arsenic problem in your State.
Senator Salazar. There is indeed an arsenic problem in many
of the communities in the southern part of Colorado. The town
of Alamosa has probably 5,000 to 6,000 people in its population
and they know they have to deal with the standard and the
deadline and have had to spend millions of dollars trying to
figure out what the solution is to meeting the arsenic
standard.
In fact, I think, from a water rights and water quality
point of view, there are solutions available to the community
that probably could be implemented at 1/100th of the cost, if
it was only allowed to happen. But the arsenic issue is
something that many of the communities in Colorado are very
concerned about.
The Chairman. Well, Senator, I think the same thing you
just said applies to a lot of places. They need a little more
time to find these alternatives. They're not going to find them
by January, from what the experts have told me. I think we have
to work collectively to see how we can ask in a reasonable way
for an extension, and we're working on it, and we'll invite you
to join us. Senator Bingaman's staff is in on it, Senator
Craig's, and we'll ask other members.
Senator Salazar. I'd be happy to help.
The Chairman. Now we're going to yield to Senator Craig.
STATEMENT OF HON. LARRY E. CRAIG, U.S. SENATOR
FROM IDAHO
Senator Craig. Mr. Chairman, first and foremost, thank you
for your attention to this. I think the energy/water nexus is
critically important. You talked about arsenic and you and I
have had numerous conversations about that already. I don't
know how many communities we have in Idaho, but the geology of
Idaho, without question, says we've got arsenic, and we have it
at much higher levels than even the scientists would agree is
healthy and yet we have a very healthy population. In fact, it
is interesting that Idaho--well, you know, the interesting
thing, Senator Bingaman, is that Idaho--Idaho and Utah have
some of the longest living people in the country. Maybe it's
because of--instead of. I'm not sure.
But anyway, beyond the reality is the reality, and the
reality is we've got a law that many of our communities are
trying to comply with, and can't get there. It's obviously very
important that we extend time, but in extending time, get the
technologies to them. The Senator and I--the chairman and I
have also had conversations about a new treatment facility that
is a spin-off from an incubator at the University of Idaho,
that is now a standup company that is stripping additional
phosphates out of the water and is doing very well, and is
doing the heavy metals and arsenic very successfully.
So there are technologies coming and developing, but I will
simply get my oar in the water and suggest there is another
fine and leading laboratory that happens to be in the mountain
west, and that is important. And a great deal of work is going
on at INL, and they've worked collaboratively with Sandia and
Lawrence Livermore and others, as we work on this issue from
hydropower engineering, geothermal generation, and of course
nuclear.
Idaho, and its laboratory, is unique in one respect. It
sits on the world's largest active aquifer at the moment and is
working cooperatively with all of the water interests of Idaho
in that capacity.
One of the areas also, as we look at nuclear hydrogen, the
nuclear/hydrogen nexus, is the ability to reduce the amount of
water necessary to generate nuclear power and hydrogen as we
begin to rely increasingly on a finite resource in the West,
maybe to provide the next generation of surface transportation.
Obviously, that technology is part of what we're doing in--
and moving forward. But we've led in a couple of other areas
that I think very well--the biochemical science of water. A lot
of work has gone on in Idaho on that issue.
And of course, the one that I think is working extremely
well--when I was a freshman Senator, I was sitting on a tractor
on a farm in Idaho, that was an INL tractor. I didn't know
there was such a model. Actually, it was a John Deere tractor,
but it had a national laboratory sign on it. And we had
installed it with a GPS, and a program in which we were
applying fertilizer to pieces of a field necessary to test the
soil in the field, and the GPS was guiding us in doing that.
The Idaho lab, along with these farmers, were pioneers in that
which has now become a somewhat standard application in the
area.
But it not only increased production, it reduced the
overall amount of water used, the amount used growing the
crops. Better known as the whole crop utilization approach,
that really is again a part of a very successful effort. So I'm
very supportive of S. 1860, but for one small amendment. Thank
you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. The problem is, that one amendment will yield
another amendment, will yield another amendment, and we'll
probably have to take all of them out.
Senator Craig. That sounds also reasonable.
The Chairman. We're speaking of the laboratories,
obviously, in any event. Let's move ahead.
Senator Martinez, did you have something?
STATEMENT OF HON. MEL MARTINEZ, U.S. SENATOR
FROM FLORIDA
Senator Martinez. Sir, I appreciate very much you calling
this hearing. And thank you, Ranking Member Bingaman. I believe
it's a problem that our Nation faces. Certainly, the State of
Florida very much faces this issue. It is one that is of great,
compelling importance to us, as we grow as a State.
You know, Mr. Chairman, the State of Florida in the next
census is anticipated to surpass New York and be the third
largest State of the Union. As that occurs, about 1,500 new
people each and every day make Florida their home, and as they
do, the demands for water in our State are dramatically
increasing. So we are very concerned.
I have a fuller statement that I would like to make a part
of the record, if you don't mind, sir, but I just believe that
it is important that we look at ways in which we can provide
for agriculture, for consumption by new residences, and for
business users, as well as for environmental protection.
We have in Florida the tremendous environmental issues
relating to the Everglades and Lake Okeechobee, which is a
large body of water, but controlling that flow of water and
maintaining the comprehensive Everglades restoration program,
which requires an awful lot of water, are issues that concern
us greatly.
We have some utility entities in Florida that are looking
to begin operation of desalination plants, but still don't find
it cost-effective, because of the high cost of energy
associated with that. And I just wondered if, in the research
that any of you may be doing, or in the work that you're seeing
others do, there is any anticipation on the horizon of how we
can make cost-efficient the desalination of water?
Dr. Roberto. I would like to take at least one brief shot
at that. At Oak Ridge we've been working for a very long time
on inorganic membranes, which could also be used in the reverse
osmosis process. The difference is that these membranes are
more robust, they can operate at a much higher temperature, and
they have other properties, such as being much more resistant
to corrosion.
As a result, we believe that these membranes have the
potential to lower the energy cost, lower the maintenance cost
and increase the out time of these plants. And this could be
one technology breakthrough that could help make the difference
in those plants and others around the country.
Senator Martinez. What is the horizon of that kind of
research, that kind of breakthrough?
Dr. Roberto. We know how to make the membranes now. The
technology of applying them on that scale has not been
developed. And so I think we're talking about a time scale in
years, not a time scale in the next few months. But I think it
is--as you know, a lot of coastal cities in the United States
are looking very seriously at desalination now, and I think
that this will be a key technology that will be considered in
that process.
Senator Martinez. Any others?
Dr. Long. At Lawrence Livermore, we are also working in the
area of desalinization, both in the electrostatic desalination
technique, which is like electrodialysis, like an artificial
kidney. And as well, our previous technology in this area, took
a few years from benchmark to success. So I think it is a
similar timeframe.
As I mentioned before, we're also looking at selective
membranes where Livermore's computational ability is being used
to actually design the way the membrane works to target only
the contaminants that you want to remove, so that you're not
spending the energy on contaminants that you don't want to
remove.
And I think this is in an early stage, but it's very
promising in terms of potential efficiency.
Senator Martinez. That's great.
Dr. Shephard.
Dr. Shephard. If I may make a comment or two. In 2003,
Sandia, along with several other agencies, jointly prepared
what is called the Desalination Technology Roadmap, which is
really an attempt to bring focus from a variety of different
perspectives on a systems approach as to those innovative
technologies that in fact must be invested in over the course
of the next 20 years to address exactly the types of problems
that you are finding in Florida today.
This first roadmap in 2003 is now being updated with
interactions with the Bureau of Reclamation, with the America
Reuse Water, and the American Association of Water Users,
collectively, and with the input from the National Academy of
Sciences, to ensure that the five or six key objectives that
must be met to address the problems being encountered in
Florida and elsewhere, not only in this country, but elsewhere
in the world, in fact are being addressed. And there is a
direct linkage between the basic fundamental research that Dr.
Roberto and Dr. Long have explicitly discussed, relative to
their laboratories, work that's going on at the universities as
well, to address this larger systems approach toward this
particular problem.
Senator Martinez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Senator, might I say, on many fronts, the
United States has finally gotten on the bandwagon of trying to
desalinate, in funding--putting some real money in for a
change. I regret to tell you that, in my opinion, the lead
money is being put in by the U.S. Navy, and it sounds kind of
wild, but actually when you think about it, they really--they
need to desalinate and have emergency equipment of large
capacity. The most active major project is a U.S. Navy project,
and it happens to be going on on a desalinization pond in New
Mexico, very dry country.
But nonetheless, they're putting it together and they're
making headway. But they're right. It's a----
Senator Martinez. You know, Senator, a little historical
note about the Navy on that is Guantanamo Naval Base in Cuba,
in the early 1960's, when our era of confrontation with Mr.
Castro began, the water used to come to the Navy base from Cuba
and it was cut off. And we, in a matter of a few days, put
together a desalination plant there that still operates to this
day. And so I guess that's where they got their beginning on
that, I suppose.
[The prepared statement of Senator Martinez follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Mel Martinez, U.S. Senator From Florida
Mr. Chairman and Senator Bingaman, I want to thank you for
willingness to hold this important hearing today. The Full Committee
will hear testimony from water utility operators and representatives
from our National Laboratories on a crisis that I believe is looming on
the horizon--the availability of drinking water.
Drought, increasing population, and competing demands from
business, agriculture and the environment for limited water supplies
has taken us to the brink. The economic, social, and environmental
consequences of a water supply crisis are not local or regional in
nature. Most experts, including the Department of the Interior, agree
that large portions of the Untied States are facing a water supply
crisis of potentially immense proportions as our population continues
to grow and few new sources of water are developed. It is a national
problem and I believe that it demands the attention of Congress.
There is a critical shortage of water in Florida, because of the
lack of access to waters that flow into the Everglades and the
explosion in the state's population. The state of Florida consumes over
8 billion gallons of freshwater a day, with 92 percent of it coming
from aquifers and we are starting to run out of a once unlimited supply
of water. It has been estimated that over 1,500 people a day move to
Florida, which is putting an ever increasing strain on limited supplies
of potable drinking water. In the next U.S. Census, it is expected that
Florida will surpass New York as the third most populous state with
over 21 million people. Complicating these problems for communities in
Florida, is meeting their drinking water needs and carefully managing
the levels of water in Lake Okeechobee in order to comply with the
requirements of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Program
(CERP); the largest ecosystem restoration recovery effort in our
nation's history.
It is my belief that the answer, in part, to averting future water
supply crises and ensuring that water is available to families, farms,
and businesses lies in desalinating seawater and brackish surface and
groundwater and making that water available for municipal and
industrial uses.
To meet these challenges I introduced S. 1016, the Desalination
Water Supply Shortage Prevention Act to encourage the development of
environmentally sound and economically feasible desalination projects.
I am proud to say that my colleague from California, Senator Feinstein,
announced her support and has agreed to cosponsor this legislation.
It will provide energy assistance grants to qualified entities such
as local water agencies and public utilities in the amount of 62 cents
per 14 Kilowatt Hours of electricity consumed by the facility for the
initial ten years of a project's operation. 14 Kilowatt Hours in the
amount of electricity needed to desalinate 1,000 gallons of water. The
rationale for this approach is that while the cost of desalinating
water has dropped dramatically over the last decade, the energy costs
associated with desalination are still quite high. Waiting for the cost
of desalination to go down is a luxury that, in my opinion, we cannot
afford. A modest investment to jump-start the development of these
projects today is the most prudent alternative.
It is true that the approach suggested in my legislation is
different from the traditional approach of providing construction grant
funds. That difference is intentional. First, while the availability of
energy assistance grants will encourage the development of desalination
projects, these grants will be performance based. These facilities will
not receive assistance until they are actually constructed. Under this
legislation, only the very best projects that received all of the
required permits and environmental approvals will get built by local
sponsors and only those will receive financial support.
All over the nation we have municipalities, cities, and utilities
with the capability of making desalination from brackish water and
seawater on a large-scale. Florida has historically been a leader in
the development and use of desalination technology. I am happy that Jim
Reynolds, Executive Director of the Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority,
has come a long way to testify before this Committee on the importance
of providing meaningful assistance to make desalination a viable
alternative for cities struggling to meet their water needs.
I want thank you again, Chairman Domenici, for your leadership on
this issue and bringing water policy into a more prominent role for
this Committee. Although we have different proposals to promote
desalination, our objectives are the same. As our urban areas continue
to grow, we must make a commitment to meeting our water infrastructure
needs. I am committed to working with the Committee and our nation's
scientists and water utilities to find solutions to the urgent lack of
drinking water.
The Chairman. Last Senator. Senator, you've got your
laboratory here. Do you have any questions?
Senator Alexander. Of course, Mr. Chairman. I want to begin
by thanking you for putting the spotlight on the relationship
between energy and water. And of course, I'm delighted that Dr.
Roberto is here representing the Oak Ridge Laboratories, as
well as representatives of the other distinguished
laboratories.
We've been talking a lot around here about clean energy,
and I heard Senator Craig talking about it as well. And unless
you've already discussed this, one of the things I've been
impressed with about the Oak Ridge Laboratory is its ability to
be a lead laboratory, that is to work with other laboratories,
other universities and tackle a project. Neutron sources is a
great example of that.
But on the energy and water relationship, I've just got one
question to any of you, but maybe I'll start with Dr. Roberto.
What can you say to me about the importance of this research
and development on the relationship of energy and water to our
ability to produce the clean energies that we must have?
I think those of us who are here right now all agree that
the only way is to produce large amounts of clean energy,
carbon-free energy in a reliable way. The amounts we need right
now are nuclear and coal. And how will this research and
development accelerate our ability to produce larger amounts of
carbon-free, and low-emission energy from those two sources?
Dr. Roberto. I think that what we understand is that clean
coal and nuclear are very intensive water users. And so
research of the energy/water nexus is very important in terms
of trying to develop those technologies in a way in which we
use the water most efficiently.
When you get into cleaning the coal, whether it's removing
the sulfur and nitrous oxides, or dealing with other emissions,
you will find that those technologies are water intensive. And
we need to develop new technologies that can do this more
efficiently and use less water. I think one of the
opportunities of this R&D effort is to make those new
technologies that we're going to need for clean energy for the
future more attractive and make them possible, because we will
be using water at a rate that is sustainable.
Dr. Long. I would like to add a little bit to that. As we
begin to look at the energy/water problem, we need to look at
the whole spectrum of energy/water problems as a system, as Dr.
Shephard has pointed out. And one of the areas that I think
will be fruitful for examination is what water you use for
what.
For example, we don't necessarily require as much for
cleanliness as water for cooling, for power purposes, as we
might use for drinking water. And to look at the whole system
and to maximize the amount of water that's available for
drinking and what quality that needs to be, versus what kind of
quality you might need for other industrial and important
energy uses is going to be part of the problem.
The whole system involves more than energy and water. It
also is linked to climate. As we produce the energy and the
climate is affected by the energy use that we have, we have
increased dryness, requiring more energy. So the system is very
self-reinforcing. And to interrupt this cycle, we're going to
have to be much more clever about how we manage that as a
system.
Dr. Shephard. The comment I would have is I'd go back to an
earlier remark that this Nation responds well to crisis, and
crisis management. And as I look back over 30 years, when we
had the first oil embargo, of course, through the efforts--the
sustained leadership, in fact--of this committee, we now have
an energy policy act that was signed in August of this year.
I believe we are at this same junction, relative to how we
address the issues associated with water, and its coupling with
advancements of technology in the commercialization process.
One of the appealing aspects, I believe, of the current
proposed legislation is, in fact, that strong focus on the
coupling of commercialization with the initial concepts of
research that must go on so that, in the longer run, that
becomes much more effective and much more efficient,
specifically to allow us to address the types of issues that
you've pointed out in terms of climate change, and in terms of
impacts to carbon emissions and greenhouse gas emissions.
At the same time, it's important to recognize that as part
of the review of our desalination roadmap, the National Academy
of Science has explicitly identified your point: that unless we
go forward and find other ways to reduce the release of carbon
and greenhouse gases as part of this process of generating new
supplies of water, we are not doing ourselves, as a society,
the type of benefit that we deserve, so we can't leverage the
investment that we need.
Mr. Faulkner. Sir, I see you're out of time, but do I have
time for a comment?
The Chairman. Yes, you do.
Mr. Faulkner. You're absolutely right, that to get the big
amounts of power quickly, coal and nuclear are what's on the
table now, but we should not lose sight of the fact that down
the road, technologies like solar and wind can be used for
desalination or producing power without a reliance on the heavy
use of water. So it's important to keep our eye on that ball,
too, as we go down the road.
The Chairman. Very good point. Anybody else have anything
here? I'm going to submit some additional questions to all of
you, but before we let you go, Mr. Faulkner, S. 1016, with
reference to the Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority, you commented
on that briefly, indicating that the administration did not
support it and you stated why; is that correct?
Mr. Faulkner. I commented in general about the subsidy,
sir.
The Chairman. Yes, sir. What if there was a construction
assistance, instead of subsidy, would that deserve another
look?
Mr. Faulkner. It could, sir. I don't know if I can give a
definitive answer on that.
The Chairman. So that's a little bit----
Mr. Faulkner. I think, in general, the thought here is a
concern in this tightening fiscal environment about resources
and, you know, new missions, new responsibilities without maybe
the resources to do that. And I know the Congress is looking at
that, too, but that's a concern of the administration.
The Chairman. I understand. Senator Martinez, you
understand that legislation was directed at a problem you have
and we will work with you and the administration to see what we
can do. We understand the position that they took and it's
probably--I assumed it was going to be forthcoming, not only
because of what he said, but where do you stop? If you do it
there, where else do you have to do it? So we'll work on that.
Mr. Faulkner. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that, and I hope
that there's a way that we can accomplish what we're trying to
do, which is kick start some projects so we can get this moving
down the road. The research might come by the time that we've
got so many people in Florida that we've got a crisis, not a
problem.
The Chairman. Okay. Let me say to all of you, thank you for
coming. Sorry about the way things were split up today, but you
understand that we very much appreciate the emphasis and help
you give us by your presence and your testimony. We'll continue
to inquire of you. You're excused and the next panel, please
take the podium. Let me see if I can announce them here.
The second panel is made up of Jim Reynolds, executive
director, Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority, Key West, Florida;
Edmund Archuleta, El Paso Water Utilities general manager, Dr.
Pankaj Parekh, director of drinking water quality compliance,
Los Angeles; and Colin Sabol, chief marketing officer, GE
Infrastructure Water & Process. We've got you there now. Please
take your seats and we'll start.
Okay. Mr. Reynolds, same instructions. Your statement will
be made part of the record. Summarize.
STATEMENT OF JIM REYNOLDS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, FLORIDA KEYS
AQUEDUCT AUTHORITY, KEY WEST, FL
Mr. Reynolds. Chairman Domenici and members of the
committee, my name is Jim Reynolds. I am the executive director
of Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority and I serve on the board of
directors of the U.S. Desalination Coalition. I very much
appreciate having the opportunity to testify today in support
of S. 1016, the Desalination Water Supply Shortage Prevention
Act of 2005.
The Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority is the sole provider of
potable water for all the residents of the Florida Keys. As
water resource managers throughout the United States, we are
struggling to address the long-term challenges posed by
drought, increasing population, and competing demands from
business, agriculture, and the environment. These challenges
led us to join together with water agencies and utilities from
other States, including California, Texas, Hawaii, and New
Mexico, to form the U.S. Desalination Coalition, a group
dedicated to advocating an increased Federal role in advancing
desalination.
Drought, increasing population, and competing demands from
business, agriculture and the environment for limited water
supplies has taken us to the brink. The economic, social, and
environmental consequences of a water supply crisis are not
local or regional in nature. It is a national problem and I
believe that it demands the attention of Congress.
The recent hurricanes and the one now bearing down on the
Florida Keys have highlighted, in the most dramatic way, the
extraordinary importance and value that water plays in our
lives.
The ultimate goal of the U.S. Desalination Coalition is to
encourage the Federal Government to create a new program to
provide financial assistance to water agencies and utilities
that successfully develop desalination projects that treat both
seawater and brackish water for municipal and industrial use.
The Desalination Water Supply Prevention Act of 2005,
introduced by Senator Martinez, and co-sponsored by Senator
Feinstein, will achieve this goal in a fiscally responsible
way.
Despite the tremendous advances in desalination technology
that have reduced the costs of desalinating water, energy costs
remain quite high and are responsible for more than 30 percent
of the overall cost of desalinated water. S. 1016 directs the
Secretary of Energy to provide incentive payments to water
agencies and utilities that successfully develop desalination
projects. This would be a competitive, performance-based
program that will help to offset the costs of treating seawater
and brackish water. The legislation would also ensure that
there is a balance in the amount of money going to seawater and
brackish water projects in any 1 year.
Most experts believe that the cost of desalinating water
will continue to come down over time and that desalination will
eventually be widespread. But waiting for this to occur is a
luxury that, in my opinion, we cannot afford. A modest
investment to jump-start the development of these projects and
stimulate advances in desalination technology today is the
smart thing to do.
It is true that the approach suggested in S. 1016 to
encourage the development of seawater and brackish groundwater
desalination projects is different from the traditional
approach of providing construction grant funds. That difference
is by design. While the availability of energy assistance and
incentive payments will encourage the development of
desalination projects, these grants will be performance based.
In other words, the Federal Government will bear none of
the risk of project permitting and construction as it does
under the construction grant approach. Only those projects that
are technically, environmentally and economically sound, and
have actually been constructed will be eligible to apply for
the incentive payments. I am proud that the Florida Keys has
historically been a leader in the development and use of
desalination technology. In fact, the very first seawater
desalination plant ever built in the United States was
constructed in the 1840's to provide water to Fort Zachary
Taylor in Key West. Today, the FAA maintains desalination
plants on Stock Island and in Marathon for use in case of
emergencies or a disruption in service of our main pipeline
that is 130 miles long and crosses 42 overseas bridges. These
facilities produce freshwater from seawater, as a limited
emergency source of potable water for the Lower and Middle
Keys.
Passage of S. 1016 is of vital importance to the future of
the Keys. The Aqueduct Authority currently obtains its water
from the fresh groundwater from the Biscay Aquifer in Dade
County. However, because of skyrocketing growth in south
Florida and the needs of Everglades National Park, the South
Florida Water Management District is setting limits on the
amount of water our agency can withdraw from the aquifer.
As a result, we are moving forward with a plan to
supplement our water supplies by building a new brackish water
desalination facility in south Dade County that will produce 7
million gallons per day of fresh drinking water. S. 1016 will
allow us to meet the needs of the environment without
subjecting our customers to a massive increase in water rates
that would otherwise result.
Mr. Chairman, the U.S. Desalination Coalition also supports
the enactment of S. 1860. I support increased research in this
area and believe that the goals of your legislation are
consistent with and complementary to the goals of S. 1016.
In conclusion, thank you again for holding today's hearing
on these important pieces of legislation. We very much
appreciate your leadership on this important issue and hope
that the committee will move promptly to pass both S. 1016 and
S. 1860.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Reynolds follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jim Reynolds, Executive Director, Florida Keys
Aqueduct Authority, on Behalf of the U.S. Desalination Coalition
Chairman Domenici and Members of the Committee, my name is Jim
Reynolds. I am the Executive Director of Florida Keys Aqueduct
Authority and I serve on the Board of Directors of the U.S.
Desalination Coalition. I very much appreciate having the opportunity
to testify today in support of S. 1016, the Desalination Water Supply
Shortage Prevention Act of 2005.
The Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority is the sole provider of potable
water for all the residents of the Florida Keys and presently serves
over 44,000 customers in Monroe County. Like water resource managers
throughout the United States, we are struggling to address the long-
term challenges posed by drought, increasing population, and competing
demands from business, agriculture, and the environment. These
challenges led us to join together with water agencies and utilities
from other States including California, Texas, Hawaii, and New Mexico
to form the U.S. Desalination Coalition, a group dedicated to
advocating an increased Federal role in advancing desalination.
Seawater and brackish water are virtually inexhaustible resources that
can be tapped as a viable long term tool for meeting our Nation's
growing water supply needs.
Drought, increasing population, and competing demands from
business, agriculture and the environment for limited water supplies
has taken us to the brink. The reservation of fresh water for the
natural systems to maintain a sustainable environment and protection
against drought are concerns throughout the Country. The economic,
social, and environmental consequences of a water supply crisis are not
local or regional in nature. It is a national problem and I believe
that it demands the attention of Congress.
The ultimate goal of the U.S. Desalination Coalition is to
encourage the Federal government to create a new program to provide
financial assistance to water agencies and utilities that successfully
develop desalination projects that treat both seawater and brackish
water for municipal and industrial use. The Desalination Drought
Prevention Act of 2005, introduced by Senator Martinez, will achieve
this goal in a fiscally responsible way. Similar legislation has been
introduced in the House of Representatives by Representatives Jim Davis
of Florida and Jim Gibbons of Nevada and now has approximately 30
cosponsors. I am delighted to be here today in support of this
legislation and tell you how it will positively affect the Florida Keys
Aqueduct Authority and the State of Florida.
Despite the tremendous advances in desalination technology that
have reduced the costs of desalinating water, energy costs remain quite
high and are responsible for more than 30% of the overall cost of
desalinated water. S. 1016 directs the Secretary of Energy to provide
incentive payments to water agencies and utilities that successfully
develop desalination projects. This would be a competitive,
performance-based program that will help to offset the costs of
treating seawater and brackish water. Under the proposed program,
qualified desalination facilities would be eligible to receive payments
of $0.62 for every 14 kW of electricity used for the initial ten years
of a project's operation. The legislation would also insure that there
is a balance in the amount of money going to seawater and brackish
water projects in any one year.
The rationale for this approach is that while the cost of
desalinating water has dropped dramatically over the last decade, the
energy costs associated with desalination are still quite high. Most
experts believe that these costs will continue to come down over time
and that desalination will eventually be widespread. But waiting for
this to occur is a luxury that, in my opinion, we cannot afford. A
modest investment to jump-start the development of these projects and
stimulate advances in desalination technology today is the smart thing
to do.
It is true that the approach suggested in S. 1016 to encourage the
development of seawater and brackish groundwater desalination projects
is different from the traditional approach of providing construction
grant funds. That difference is by design. While the availability of
energy assistance grants will encourage the development of desalination
projects, these grants will be performance based. In other words, the
Federal government will bear none of the risk of project permitting and
construction as it does under the construction grant approach. Only
those projects that are technically, environmentally and economically
sound, and have actually been constructed will be eligible to apply for
the grants.
I am proud that the Florida Keys has historically been a leader in
the development and use of desalination technology. In fact, the very
first seawater desalination plant ever built in the United States was
constructed in the 1840s to provide water to Fort Zachary Taylor in Key
West. Today, the FKAA maintains desalination plants on Stock Island and
in Marathon for use in case of emergencies or a disruption in service
of our main pipeline that is 130 miles long and crosses 42 overseas
bridges. These facilities produce freshwater from seawater, as a
limited emergency source of potable water for the Lower and Middle
Keys.
Passage of S. 1016 is of vital importance to the future of the
Keys. The Aqueduct Authority currently obtains its water from the fresh
groundwater Biscayne aquifer in Dade County. However, because of
skyrocketing growth in south Florida and the needs of Everglades
National Park, the South Florida Water Management District is setting
limits on the amount of water our agency can withdraw from the aquifer.
As a result, we are moving forward with a plan to supplement our water
supplies by building a new, brackish water desalination facility in
south Dade County that will produce 7 million gallons per day of fresh
drinking water. S. 1016 will allow us to meet the needs of the
environment without subjecting our customers to a massive increase in
water rates that would otherwise result. I hope that you agree that
potable water is not a luxury and that it is a necessity that must
remain affordable especially too many of our citizens who are on low or
fixed incomes.
Mr. Chairman, the U.S. Desalination Coalition also supports the
enactment of S. 1860, the Energy--Water Efficiency Technology Research,
Development, and Transfer Program Act of 2005. We support increased
research in this area and believe that the goals of Senator Domenici's
legislation are consistent with and complementary to the goals of S.
1016. As important as enhanced research of desalination technology may
be, however, we do not believe that additional research should come in
lieu of a federal investment of the development of actual projects that
will provide clean and reliable water to families and businesses. In
fact, a strong case can be made that we will learn a great deal about
how to improve the efficiency of desalination technology through the
development and operation of large-scale seawater and brackish
groundwater desalination facilities.
We are very supportive of the program grants that would be
authorized under S. 1860. We would hope that a significant portion of
the grant funds to be made available under this program would be
directed to water agencies and utilities developing desalination
demonstration projects. These projects are often a precursor to the
development of full scale desalination projects. The information
derived from such projects can be very helpful in the continuing
improvement of membrane technology, energy recovery systems, and pre-
treatment techniques.
In conclusion, thank you again for holding today's hearing on these
important pieces of legislation. We very much appreciate your
leadership on this important issue and hope that the Committee will
move promptly to pass both S. 1016 and S. 1860.
STATEMENT OF EDMUND ARCHULETA, GENERAL MANAGER, EL PASO WATER
UTILITIES, ON BEHALF OF WATEREUSE,
EL PASO, TX
Mr. Archuleta. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I
am Ed Archuleta, general manager of the El Paso Water Utilities
and I'm a current member of the board of directors of the
WateReuse Foundation. I appreciate the opportunity to testify
before you today on behalf WateReuse in support of S. 1860.
We're a non-profit organization whose mission is to advance
the beneficial and efficient use of water resources through
desalination, recycling, reuse, for the benefit of our members,
the public, and the environment.
We've worked for a number of years with the Bureau of
Reclamation, and a number of other agencies. And what I'd like
to do, Senator, and members of the committee, is make certain
points.
In El Paso, we have to work with multiple agencies, with
Mexico, with New Mexico, with other counties in Texas. We also
face a growing population much like Senator Martinez indicated
in Florida. So we're all looking for new solutions and I think
this bill and the opportunity it brings will allow for that. So
we're in very strong support of S. 1860.
In El Paso--you talked a few minutes ago about arsenic. The
Rio Grande has faced, for a number of years now, significant
drought. Three years ago, we had to go beyond our surface water
supplies from the river, plus the ground water. We knew that we
had some wells that had had brackish ground water intrusion.
They have been ``abandoned'' for some time.
And we decided, why not put those back in service,
installing skid mounted reverse osmosis. They also happened to
be high in arsenic compared to the new standard. So we put in
11 wellhead reverse osmosis units and we solved three
problems--one of salinity, one of arsenic, and the third
important one, which is, of course, drought.
So we were able to get through the drought, simply by
applying this type of technology. We purchased the--in this
case, the General Electric Osmonic system, and they work
perfectly fine. We started a few years ago to work with Fort
Bliss, which is a military installation, to develop a large
scale desalination plant. We just started construction of that
in July, on what's going to be the world's largest inland
desalination plant.
We knew through geology that there were some areas within
Fort Bliss property that would be ideal for concentrated
disposal by deep well injection. And that's how we're going to
be able to deal with that concentrated waste. But we are
looking for the research that's going to give us better
solutions to the disposal of this concentrate. And that's one
of the prime reasons we support this type of legislation.
We've worked, as have others, with the national
laboratories, particularly Sandia National Laboratories, and we
understand and appreciate the expertise that they bring.
However, members of the committee, one of the things that
we'd like you to consider is to partner with the water
utilities that make up the WateReuse, as we have for example on
the arsenic research, and involve us in this process so that we
become part of the solution, if you will, with real-life-type
implementation of the research to see if we can get these to
market sooner.
For example, we recently developed a partnership between
our utility, El Paso Water Utilities, the New Mexico State
University, the University of Texas at El Paso, and the city of
Alamogordo, New Mexico, to develop a partnership with Sandia
Labs on three initial projects. So the partnership could use
the support of S. 1860.
Certainly, in times of Federal deficits, we believe the
best way to address these national priorities is to create this
Federal/local research partnership. And WateReuse stands ready,
both with its research expertise as well as a portion of the
utility generated income, to support the goals of good
legislation.
Again, WateReuse thanks you, Mr. Chairman, and Senator
Bingaman, who has left the room. I know, Senator, that both you
and Senator Bingaman will be with us in Albuquerque in early
December when the Multi-State Salinity Coalition, which is a
national coalition of water agencies interested in
desalination, meets in Albuquerque on December 8 and 9.
So with that, Mr. Chairman, I would be pleased to respond
to any questions you or the other members may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Archuleta follows:]
Prepared Statement of Edmund Archuleta, General Manager, El Paso Water
Utilities, El Paso, TX, on behalf of the WateReuse Association
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I am Ed Archuleta,
General Manager of the El Paso Water Utilities and a current member of
the Board of Directors of the Water Reuse Foundation (WateReuse). I
appreciate the opportunity to testify before you today on behalf
WateReuse in support of S. 1860, the Energy-Water Efficiency Technology
Research, Development, and Transfer Program Act of 2005.
The WateReuse Association (WateReuse) is a non-profit organization
whose mission is to advance the beneficial and efficient use of water
resources through education, sound science, and technology using
reclamation, recycling, reuse, and desalination for the benefit of our
members, the public, and the environment. Across the United States and
the world, communities are facing water supply challenges due to
increasing demand, drought, and dependence on a single source of
supply. WateReuse addresses these challenges by working with local
agencies to implement water reuse and desalination projects that
resolve water resource issues and create value for communities. The
vision of WateReuse is to be the leading voice for reclamation,
recycling, reuse, and desalination in the development and utilization
of new sources of high quality water.
WateReuse assists its members in implementing projects that solve
these water supply challenges for local communities by:
sponsoring research that advances the science of water reuse
and focuses on the Association's commitment to providing high-
quality water, protecting public health, and improving the
environment;
reaching out to members, the public, and local leaders and
officials with information that communicates the value and
benefits of water reuse; and
encouraging additional Federal support for water reuse,
including funding for research and local projects.
WateReuse members use advanced treatment processes and monitoring
to produce water of sufficient quality for the intended purpose from
treated municipal and industrial effluent, storm water, agricultural
drainage, and sources with high salinity such as seawater and brackish
water.
The Association's membership is growing rapidly as more communities
around the nation recognize the need to reuse water and develop
alternative supplies. WateReuse now has more than 310 organizational
members nationwide, including more than 150 local water and wastewater
agencies.
The Association has developed a successful cost-shared research
program with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) and other research
organizations through its WateReuse Foundation. The Foundation is
engaged in conducting ``leading edge'' applied research on important
and timely issues, including: 1) evaluating methods for managing
salinity, including the disposal of concentrates from membrane
treatment systems; 2) working cooperatively with USBR, Sandia National
Laboratories, and through the Joint Water Reuse & Desalination Task
Force (JWR&DTF) to implement the Desalination and Water Purification
Technologies Roadmap developed in 2003 by Sandia and USBR; 3)
evaluating ways to advance public acceptance of indirect potable reuse;
4) understanding the occurrence and fate of emerging contaminants, such
as endocrine disrupting compounds, in conventional and advanced water
recycling systems; and 5) gaining a better understanding of water
quality changes that might occur in aquifer storage and recovery (ASR).
The WateReuse Foundation currently has a water reuse and desalination
research portfolio consisting of more than 50 active projects with a
value of more than $10 million.
My utility in El Paso must work with multiple jurisdictions
including the United States and Mexico, Texas and New Mexico, and
multiple counties, all of which face the challenge of providing water
resources to a growing population in an arid region of our country.
This experience, and my service as Chairman of the AwwaRF Board of
Trustees and as a Board Member of the Water Reuse Foundation has
convinced me that it is essential for our nation to identify and
develop new technologies to treat new sources of water, including
brackish groundwater, and to do so in the most energy efficient manner
possible. Senator Domenici, the water community is deeply appreciative
of your leadership and vision as exhibited in S. 1860 that provides the
framework for this crucial enterprise.
S. 1860 AND THE IMPORTANCE OF A COMPREHENSIVE APPROACH TO THE NATION'S
ENERGY-WATER NEEDS
The importance of the energy-water nexus has become apparent to
water and energy professionals at all levels of government. Water is
critical to the production of energy and, conversely, energy is needed
for water production. Water and wastewater utilities consume
approximately 3% of the nation's electrical energy to pump, treat,
store, and distribute water.
In the future, the nation will depend more and more on the
availability of ``alternative water supplies,'' primarily reclaimed and
reused waters and the desalination of seawater and brackish
groundwater. In order for these two sources of ``new water'' to be
cost-effective, research is needed to drive down the costs. For
example, the new Tampa Bay Water desalination facility will produce
water at a currently estimated cost of $2.54/1000 gallons. By contrast,
the cost of wholesale water from the Metropolitan Water District of
Southern California to its customers is approximately $1.50/1000
gallons. It is this differential of about a dollar per thousand gallons
that must be addressed through research.
Similar research is needed for water reuse since many of its
applications require membrane applications. For example, Orange County
Water District in California currently is designing and constructing
its Groundwater Replenishment System (GWRS) at a cost of $487 million.
The technologies utilized are microfiltration, ultraviolet irradiation,
and reverse osmosis--technologies that also are used in desalination.
In El Paso, we are in the process of constructing what will be the
world's largest inland desalination facility. One of the technologies
featured will be reverse osmosis. One of the greatest challenges facing
us will be the disposal of concentrate resulting from the removal of
salts and other solids. The types of research envisioned in S. 1860
would likely benefit El Paso in two very tangible ways: 1) reduction of
the energy costs of the membrane technologies employed; and 2)
development of better and less expensive means of the disposal of
concentrate.
WateReuse is strongly supportive of S. 1860 for two basic reasons.
First, we believe that research will benefit the entire water community
by driving down costs and facilitating the development of new
technologies that will allow water utilities to resolve difficult
challenges such as concentrate disposal. Second, in the arid West and
Southwest, the annual rainfall ranges from about seven inches to 12
inches per year. To accommodate the rapid population growth that is
occurring in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, and southern
California, we need to be able to reclaim and reuse our wastewater and
we need to be able to desalinate water in a cost-effective manner. Only
research will allow us to do that.
According to the Desalination and Water Purification Technology
Roadmap, ``by 2020, desalination and water purification technologies
will contribute significantly to ensuring a safe, sustainable,
affordable, and adequate water supply for the United States.'' For this
to happen, however, a substantial research investment will be needed to
find a way to reduce the capital and operating costs. Although
desalination has several advantages, it will always have two huge
technical challenges: 1) removal of as much as 35,000 milligrams per
liter (i.e., 3.5% by volume) of salt and other impurities; and 2)
disposal of the brine concentrate that is a by-product of the treatment
process. The WateReuse Foundation, working in conjunction with Sandia
National Laboratories and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation through the
JWR&DTF, is heavily engaged in conducting research on innovative, cost-
effective methods of concentrate disposal and sponsoring research on
membrane technologies and alternative technologies.
The scientific expertise of our national laboratories is something
that we all recognize and we are excited over the prospect of having
some of these capabilities focused upon developing new, energy
efficient water treatment technologies. The purpose of my testimony
today to better acquaint the Committee with what we consider the other
crucial aspect of this enterprise which is to ensure that these new
technologies are applicable to, and implementable by, water agencies.
Based upon my experience in running a water agency and also in working
with my fellow Board Members at WateReuse and Trustees at AwwaRF, there
is often a wide gap between what seems to work in a laboratory and what
does indeed work at a water treatment facility and also what will be
approved for use by state regulatory agencies.
S. 1860 challenges three of our national laboratories to identify
groundbreaking new approaches to water treatment. I believe they will
be successful in this endeavor. But it is also essential that the
research expertise of the water community, as embodied by organizations
such as WateReuse, should also be made a part of the research agenda. I
am not referring here to technology transfer activities, but rather how
S. 1860 can create the framework for a true working research
partnership between the national labs and the water community. For
example, within the past three months, a partnership of El Paso Water
Utilities, New Mexico State University, Texas A&M, the University of
Texas at El Paso, and the City of Alamogordo (CHIWAWA) have initiated
three desal research projects with Sandia Labs. We will be meeting in
Albuquerque in early December at the time of the Multi-State Salinity
Conference to discuss the parameters of the research program and agree
on our research schedule. This partnership could use the support of S.
1860 could provide.
CHIWAWA's (Consortium for High Tech Investigations of Water and
Wastewater) work with Sandia is aimed at ensuring that cutting edge
next generation technologies developed by the national laboratories
also have the benefit of the practical research expertise offered by
our research organizations. WateReuse has a proven track record of
cooperation in developing and executing research that is of direct
practical use by the very utilities that provide their financial
support. For example, it has enabled water utilities to comply with an
ever expanding regulatory scheme at a cost less than the expected
compliance cost without such research. Direct involvement by utilities
assures that research is driven by practical need rather than academic
interest and increases dramatically the likelihood of adoption and
implementation by the water community.
In addition to WateReuse and research management capabilities, the
financial support from our more than 1000 subscribing water and
wastewater agencies allow us to provide local funding to leverage those
of the federal government. The WateReuse Foundation, through
contributions from its Subscribers, local water and wastewater
agencies, and state agencies, has leveraged funds received from the
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation by a factor of more than 3:1. We believe
that in these times of federal deficits the best way to address the
national priorities outlined in S. 1860 is to create a federal-local
research partnership which includes investment from all levels of
government. WateReuse stands ready with both its research expertise and
a portion of its utility generated income to support the goals of your
legislation.
WateReuse notes that today's hearing is also examining innovative
ways to finance desalination technologies. Specifically, S. 1016 would,
if enacted, provide operating subsidies for facilities to subsidize
energy costs. WateReuse has supported strong federal partnerships for
water supply facilities and during these times of fiscal austerity, we
believe that creative financing mechanisms hold the promise of
maintaining a federal partnership. At the same time, the ability to
drive down the overall costs of producing alternative water supplies
ranging from technology to disposal of byproducts is equally important.
Research and technology demonstration holds the promise of delivering
on this priority. We hope that as the committee considers tools like
operating subsidies that it also target research needs.
Again, WateReuse thanks you, Mr. Chairman and Senator Bingaman, for
convening this hearing. We would be pleased to work with you in
addressing critical issues related to energy-water efficiency and water
technology research. We strongly support the Committee's leadership
efforts to ensure adequate and safe water supplies for the entire
country in the 21st century. Also, I want to thank you both for
agreeing to be speakers at the Multi-State Salinity Conference in
Albuquerque on December 8 and 9.
At this time, Mr. Chairman, I would be pleased to respond to any
questions you or the other members may have.
STATEMENT OF PANKAJ PAREKH, Ph.D., DIRECTOR OF DRINKING WATER
QUALITY COMPLIANCE, ON BEHALF OF THE AWWA RESEARCH FOUNDATION
Mr. Parekh. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am
Pankaj Parekh of the Los Angeles Department of Power and Water,
and also chair of the Awwa Research Foundation's committee for
tailored collaboration.
I appreciate the opportunity to testify before you today on
behalf of the AwwaRF and in strong support of S. 1860. There is
a consensus among the water supply community that it is
essential for our Nation to identify and develop innovative
technologies to treat new sources of water, including brackish
groundwater and sea water, and to do so in the most energy-
efficient manner possible and with the least disruption of the
environment. The water supply community is deeply grateful and
appreciative of the leadership and vision as exhibited in S.
1860 that provides the framework for this crucial enterprise.
AwwaRF's priority is to address, through research, the most
pressing needs of the water community. Over the past decade and
a half, these challenges have included the control and
reduction of disinfection byproducts, cryptosporidium,
perchlorate, and arsenic, to name only a few.
In each case, AwwaRF-sponsored research has taken a leading
role in ensuring that water utilities have had the tools
necessary to meet these challenges and to continue to fulfill
their obligation to provide safe and affordable drinking water
to the public. We believe that S. 1860 offers not just the
vision and promise of how to achieve these ends, but also a
practical roadmap for a Federal-local partnership that will
allow the water supply community to meet its obligations to the
public.
AwwaRF is a member-supported, international, non-profit
organization that sponsors research to enable water utilities,
public health agencies, and other professionals to provide safe
and affordable drinking water to consumers. Our more than 900
subscribing water utilities in the United States and in seven
foreign countries invest $2.05 per every million gallons of
delivered water into the research subscription program
administered by AwwaRF. This produces over $13,000,000 in
income each year, which we leverage with in-kind contributions
from researchers and in funding partnerships, which include a
number of Federal agencies.
Over the past quarter of a century, AwwaRF has invested and
leveraged over $370 million in over 900 research projects which
address desalination and water treatment other programs. This
includes a number of projects which address arsenic treatment
and treatment technologies, including our current research
partnership with Sandia National Labs and WERC at New Mexico
State University and our cooperative agreement with Sandia
National Labs, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and WateReuse through
the Joint Water Reuse and Desalination Task Force to implement
the Desalination and Water Purification Roadmap developed in
2003 by Sandia and USBR.
All AwwaRF research is done by sub-agreement with water
utilities, universities, private research organizations,
consulting engineering firms. This sub-agreement approach
allows the Foundation to avoid the cost of equipping and
maintaining separate laboratories and instead enables us to
leverage existing facilities throughout the academic and water
supply communities in support of our research.
AwwaRF's staff of over 50 manages this research. The
results are published in the form of a final report which is
widely disseminated. AwwaRF also conducts an ongoing program of
technology transfer conferences and periodicals that bring the
latest in priority research directly to water agencies. AwwaRF
holds no patents on any technology that is developed through
our research but instead publishes and disseminates its
research results to a wide audience.
The scientific expertise of our national labs is well
recognized and we are excited over the prospect of having some
of these capabilities focused upon developing new, energy
efficient water treatment technologies. The purpose of my
testimony today is to better acquaint the committee with what
we consider the other crucial aspect of this enterprise to
ensure that these new technologies are applicable to, and
implementable by, water agencies.
Less than 2 weeks ago, AwwaRF, as part of the Arsenic Water
Technology Partnership, was privileged to participate in an
arsenic workshop in Albuquerque attended by you, Mr. Chairman.
The topic of concern was the pending EPA arsenic regulation and
how utilities, particularly smaller ones, are going to meet the
new Federal standards.
There were dozens of representatives from New Mexico water
agencies at the workshop and it was obvious how much these
agencies are in need of affordable technologies which will
enable them to comply with the EPA-mandated arsenic standards.
Their concern reminded us of how crucial it is that the
knowledge that will be produced by S. 1860 be applicable and
usable at the local level and with all sizes of utilities to
solve water supply problems.
But based upon my experience, both with my own water agency
and with the larger water supply community, there is often a
wide gap between what seems to work in a lab and what does
indeed work at a water treatment facility, and also what will
be approved for use by State and Federal regulatory agencies.
S. 1860 challenges three of our national laboratories to
identify groundbreaking new approaches to water treatment. But
it is also essential that the research expertise of the water
community, as embodied by organizations such as AwwaRF, be a
partner in this research. I am not referring here to technology
transfer activities, but rather how S. 1860 can create the
framework for a true and dynamic working research partnership
between the national labs and the water community.
This ensures that cutting-edge, next-generation
technologies developed by the national laboratories also have
the concurrent benefit of the practical research expertise
offered by AwwaRF. With more than a third of a billion dollars
in either completed or ongoing research backed by hundreds of
researchers and thousands of project advisory volunteers,
AwwaRF offers this capability to the S. 1860 process at the
outset of this journey.
As a long-standing and familiar supporter of good and
useful water research, I cannot overemphasize how much the
early and direct involvement of utilities during technology
research and development dramatically increases the likelihood
of adoption and implementation of the new technologies by the
water supply community.
In addition, such collaboration expedites the application
of research results in the field. In addition to AwwaRF's
groundbreaking research, expertise and management capabilities,
we offer the financial support of our more than 900 subscribing
water agencies. Their annual investment in the research
subscription program allows us to offer a local leverage for
Federal funds.
In closing, we wish to once again express our appreciation
to you, Mr. Chairman, and the committee, for holding this
hearing and for the introduction of S. 1860. We hope that this
testimony has provided the committee with some food for thought
with regard to the need to drive the research strategy to its
ultimate application at a utility level, and also consider the
readily available venue offered by AwwaRF to further leverage
the cost-sharing potential with water utilities in support of
the goals of S. 1860.
The challenges and the vision embodied in this legislation
are as important to the water community as those of a century
ago when drinking water disinfection rapidly became the norm
and saved countless lives. The resulting public good was
crucial for our national well-being in the 20th century. We
believe that S. 1860 is a true bridge to helping us meet the
challenges of the 21st century in providing adequate water
supplies and energy to the Nation and we thank you for the
opportunity to present our thoughts.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Parekh follows:]
Prepared Statement of Pankaj Parekh, Ph.D., on behalf of
the Awwa Research Foundation
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I am Pankaj Parekh of
the Los Angeles Department of Power and Water, and also Chair of the
Awwa Research Foundation's committee for tailored collaboration. I
appreciate the opportunity to testify before you today on behalf of the
Awwa Research Foundation, [AwwaRF] and in strong support of S. 1860,
the Energy-Water Efficiency Technology Research, Development, and
Transfer Program Act of 2005. There is a consensus among the water
supply community that it is essential for our nation to identify and
develop innovative technologies to treat new sources of water,
including brackish groundwater and sea water, and to do so in the most
energy-efficient manner possible and with the least disruption of the
environment. The water supply community is deeply grateful and
appreciative of the leadership and vision as exhibited in S. 1860 that
provides the framework for this crucial enterprise.
AwwaRF's priority is to address, through research, the most
pressing needs of the water community. Over the past decade and a half,
these challenges have included the control and reduction of
disinfection by-products, cryptosporidium, perchlorate, and arsenic, to
name only a few. In each case, AwwaRF sponsored research has taken a
leading role in ensuring that water utilities have had the tools
necessary to meet these challenges and to continue to fulfill their
obligation to provide safe and affordable drinking water to the public.
S. 1860 focuses not just on drinking water contaminants but how our
nation can access previously unusable water sources to meet the water
supply challenges of the 21st century. One of the few certainties that
we all live with is the fact that there is no ``new'' water on the face
of the earth. Faced with this reality there is no alternative but to
identify and develop cost-effective treatments that will allow our
nation to make use of all available water sources to help us meet the
21st century needs of our growing population. The prospect of cost-
effective and energy-efficient technologies to address this challenge
is truly exciting to all of us. We believe that S. 1860 offers not just
the vision and promise of how to achieve these ends but also a
practical roadmap for a federal-local partnership that will allow the
water supply community to meet its obligations to the public and to do
so well into the 21st century.
AwwaRF is a member-supported, international non-profit organization
that sponsors research to enable water utilities, public health
agencies, and other professionals to provide safe and affordable
drinking water to consumers. Our more than 900 subscribing water
utilities in the United States and in seven foreign countries invest
$2.05 per every million gallons of delivered water into the research
subscription program administered by AwwaRF. This produces over
$13,000,000 in income each year which we leverage with in-kind
contributions from researchers and in funding partnerships which
include a number of Federal agencies. Over the past quarter of a
century, AwwaRF has invested and leveraged over $370 million in over
900 research projects on all aspects of drinking water treatment and
supply. This includes a number of projects which address desalination
and arsenic treatment, including our current research partnership with
Sandia National Labs and WERC at New Mexico State University and our
cooperative agreement with Sandia National Labs, U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation (USBR) and WateReuse through the Joint Water Reuse and
Desalination Task Force to implement the Desalination and Water
Purification Roadmap developed in 2003 by Sandia and USBR.
All AwwaRF research is done by sub-agreement with water utilities,
universities, private research organizations, consulting engineering
firms, and other qualified organizations. This sub-agreement approach
allows the Foundation to avoid the cost of equipping and maintaining
separate laboratories and instead enables us to leverage existing
facilities throughout the academic and water supply communities in
support of our research. AwwaRF's staff of over 50 manages this
research. The results are published in the form of a final report which
is widely disseminated throughout the water community and with federal
and state agencies. AwwaRF also conducts an ongoing program of
technology transfer conferences and periodicals that bring the latest
in priority research directly to water agencies. AwwaRF holds no
patents on any technology that is developed through our research but
instead publishes and disseminates its research results to a wide
audience. Interested parties are then free to use this knowledge and
develop these technologies for commercial application that ultimately
improve protection of public health.
The scientific expertise of our national labs is well recognized
and we are excited over the prospect of having some of these
capabilities focused upon developing new, energy efficient water
treatment technologies. The purpose of my testimony today is to better
acquaint the Committee with what we consider the other crucial aspect
of this enterprise to ensure that these new technologies are applicable
to, and implementable by water agencies. Less than two weeks ago,
AwwaRF, as part of the Arsenic Water Technology Partnership was
privileged to participate in an arsenic workshop in Albuquerque
attended by you, Mr. Chairman. The topic of concern was the pending EPA
arsenic regulation and how utilities, particularly smaller ones, are
going to meet the new federal standards. There were dozens of
representatives from New Mexico water agencies at the workshop and it
was obvious how much these agencies are in need of affordable
technologies which will enable them to comply with the EPA mandated
arsenic standards. Their concern reminded us of how crucial it is that
the knowledge that will be produced by S. 1860 be applicable and usable
at the local level and with all sizes of utilities to solve water
supply problems. But based upon my experience both with my own water
agency and with the larger water supply community, there is often a
wide gap between what seems to work in a laboratory and what does
indeed work at a water treatment facility and also what will be
approved for use by state and federal regulatory agencies.
S. 1860 challenges three of our national laboratories to identify
groundbreaking new approaches to water treatment with particular
emphasis on desalination technologies. I believe they will be
successful in this endeavor. But it is also essential that the research
expertise of the water community, as embodied by organizations such as
AwwaRF, be a partner in this research. I am not referring here to
technology transfer activities, but rather how S. 1860 can create the
framework for a true and dynamic working research partnership between
the national labs and the water community. This ensures that cutting
edge next generation technologies developed by the national
laboratories also have the concurrent benefit of the practical research
expertise offered by AwwaRF. With more than a third of a billion
dollars in either completed or ongoing research backed by hundreds of
researchers and thousands of project advisory volunteers, AwwaRF offers
this capability to the S. 1860 process at the outset of this journey.
As a long-standing and familiar supporter of good and useful water
research, I cannot over-emphasize how much the early and direct
involvement by utilities during technology research and development
dramatically increases the likelihood of adoption and implementation of
the new technologies by the water supply community. In addition, such
collaboration expedites the application of research results in the
field.
AwwaRF has pioneered the transfer of membrane technology from other
industries into the water supply sector. Membranes hold the promise of
drastically reducing the cost of utilities in meeting EPA's Surface
Water Treatment Rule and are the backbone of desalination efforts in
turning brackish waters into pure drinking water. AwwaRF research
proved the efficacy of UV light to inactivate Cryptosporidium, which is
a much more cost effective technology and will likely save water and
wastewater utilities hundreds of million of dollars. When perchlorate
threatened several California water supplies, AwwaRF research developed
practical removal methods using available technology to save millions
of dollars and provide safe water to affected communities.
In addition to AwwaRF's ground breaking research expertise and
management capabilities, we offer the financial support of our more
than 900 subscribing water agencies. Their annual investment in the
research subscription program allows us to offer a local leverage for
federal funds. Since 1983, AwwaRF has provided a nearly seven to one
match for EPA and DOE funding which it has received from the Congress.
The goals embodied in S. 1860 are so important to water agencies
throughout the United States and the world that AwwaRF would be willing
to provide a substantial cash and in-kind match along with our research
management expertise in support of the initiatives addressed in S.
1860. We believe that in these times of federal deficits the best way
to address the national priorities outlined in this legislation is to
create a federal-local research partnership which includes investment
from all levels of government. AwwaRF stands ready with both its
research expertise and a portion of its utility generated income in
support of the goals of your legislation.
AwwaRF is also aware that the Committee is considering 5.1016 today
and that this legislation provides for incentive payment to owners of
qualified desalination facilities to partially offset the cost of
electrical energy required to operate their facilities. S. 1016 calls
attention to a large and growing concern among water utilities which is
how to pay for the cost of electricity associated with water treatment.
The development of innovative technologies under discussion today at
this hearing will require ever growing amounts of electrical power
which will grow increasingly expensive in the future. Funding
partnerships between water agencies and the federal government, as
proposed by S. 1016, are one option for addressing this challenge.
AwwaRF has long been involved with the research aspects associated with
the cost of electricity, including $6M invested in 18 projects and
research partnerships with interested parties such as the California
Energy Commission. Paying for the energy costs associated with water
treatment is a major concern and priority throughout the water supply
community and we appreciate the fact that the Committee is addressing
this issue in its hearings today.
In closing, we wish to once again express our appreciation to you,
Mr. Chairman and the Committee for holding this hearing and for the
introduction of S. 1860. We hope that this testimony has provided the
Committee with some food for thought with regard to the need to drive
the research strategy to its ultimate application at a utility level
and also consider the readily available venue offered by AwwaRF to
further leverage the cost-sharing potential with water utilities in
support of the goals of S. 1860. The challenges and the vision embodied
in this legislation are as important to the water community as those of
a century ago when drinking water disinfection rapidly became the norm
and saved countless lives. The resulting public good was crucial for
our national wellbeing in the 20th century. We believe that S. 1860 is
a true bridge to helping us meet the challenges of the 21st century in
providing adequate water supplies and energy to the nation and we thank
you for the opportunity to present our thoughts.
STATEMENT OF COLIN SABOL, CHIEF MARKETING OFFICER, GE
INFRASTRUCTURE WATER & PROCESS TECHNOLOGIES, TREVOSE, PA
Mr. Sabol. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the
committee, for inviting me to appear here today before you. GE
Water is a leading provider of water treatment systems and
services, with over 6,000 working in 50 countries around the
world.
We create new sources of fresh water for millions of people
living in water-scarce regions of the world and conserve
billions of gallons of water annually. Membrane technology is
the key to creating new water sources, but remains a costly
alternative to surface water treatment.
GE and others are making great strides in reducing the cost
of these technologies, but we have a long way to go to achieve
the levels that will drive broad adoption, and doing so
requires much greater levels of investment.
The 2,500 scientists at the GE Global Research Center are
pursuing a number of longer-term water scarcity research
programs that could substantially lower the overall cost of new
water. Such programs include nanotechnologies, smart membranes,
advanced pretreatment processes and remote monitoring and
diagnostics. We have reviewed the two bills and would like to
share our perspective on some aspects of each.
With respect to S. 1016, we recognize the value of
subsidies, and given the inflated cost of energy, short term
assistance, via these subsidies, will help water-scarce
communities more rapidly adopt today's current technologies. It
seems possible, however, that S. 1016 could cause unintended
consequences, such as encouraging communities to install
current technologies that are less efficient and dissuade them
from implementing more efficient technologies when they come in
the future.
The long term solution to producing economical sources of
new water lies in developing advanced energy-efficient
technologies, and S. 1860 represents an incredibly important
step in that direction. We are confident that this funding is
very likely to drive a 30 percent reduction in operating costs
and a 25 percent reduction in capital costs in the next 5
years.
We believe that it is essential for the bill to focus more
on the process of driving commercialization of funded research
proposals. Based on GE's experience developing and
commercializing technologies around the world, we'd like to
suggest that you consider the following:
No. 1, lead laboratories and advisory panel should select
at least one industry partner to participate in every program,
to guide and validate the commercial aspects from initiation
through commercialization.
No. 2, to encourage full engagement from companies with
global commercialization experience and technical depth. Grants
to these parties should be at least a million dollars per year.
No. 3, a stage-gate development process. Administration of
the research grants should be separated into phases, and
aligned with a classic stage-gate product development process.
GE's adoption of such a product development process has
dramatically increased our commercialization success rate.
Funding for each stage of the grant should absolutely be
contingent on successfully meeting the requirements of each
gate.
GE looks forward to working with policymakers, users, and
the technical community to create safe, affordable new water
sources for this country and the world. Thank you, Mr. Chairman
and members of the committee. I'm happy to take questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Sabol follows:]
Prepared Statement of Colin Sabol, Chief Marketing Officer,
GE Infrastructure
INTRODUCTION
Chairman Domenici, Senator Bingaman and members of the Committee,
today it is my honor to share with you GE's thoughts on both the
recently submitted ``Energy-Water Efficiency Technology Research,
Development, and Transfer Act of 2005'' (S. 1860) and the
``Desalination Water Supply Shortage Prevention Act of 2005'' (S.
1016).
BACKGROUND
By way of background, GE is a global leader in diverse technologies
and one of the world's most recognized brands. Through our Research and
Product Development programs, we consistently provide our customers
with advanced technologies to generate power, purify and treat water,
reduce emissions, increase energy efficiency, enhance safety and
security, and improve health care.
GE Water & Process Technologies is a leading global provider of
water treatment systems and services. Our treatment systems create
safe, affordable ``New Water'' for millions of people living in water-
scarce regions of the world from many sources, including ground water,
surface water, sea water and recovered wastewater. In addition, water
is the lifeblood of industry, and our products and services conserve
billions of gallons of water annually for our industrial customers. GE
creates this New Water using multiple technologies, including reverse
osmosis, electrodialysis, and treatment systems that remove impurities
and improve water quality.
WATER SCARCITY IS SPREADING
As population increases and industrial development expands, the
stress on water resources will continue to increase. According to the
World Meteorological Organization, the number of people living in
regions defined as ``stressed'' and ``high stress'' will increase from
4 billion in 1995 to nearly 6 billion in 2025--an increase of 50% in 30
years. (Figure 1).*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Figures 1-6 have been retained in committee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a global trend that can also be felt in the U.S. due to
shifts in population and impairment of existing water resources. For
example:
Increasing populations and high demand are depleting
freshwater aquifers in the southwest U.S.;
Groundwater contamination is a growing problem in New
England;
Competition for water access in the Colorado river basin
have created far-reaching economic and political tensions in
that region;
Lead and bacteria contamination have affected drinking water
supplies in areas, including here in Washington DC.
Paradoxically, many regions of high stress have abundant water
supplies nearby. The problem is one of access to clean, usable water.
There are technology solutions to this problem. GE and other companies
are able to provide technologies to convert seawater, brackish water
and recovered water into useful water supplies. As demand increases, it
will become increasingly important to reduce the cost to treat and
purify water.
ECONOMICS OF WATER TREATMENT AND DESALINATION
Water treatment costs vary by the amount of salt removal, cost of
energy, size of plant, as well as the type of treatment technology. As
shown in Figure 2, different water resources require different
treatment technologies, and higher salinities have higher costs.
Desalination costs are dominated by capital investment, energy and
maintenance costs. (Figure 3) Reverse osmosis systems, which utilize
membrane technology for water treatment, have the lowest cost of
operations, especially in areas with high power cost.
TECHNOLOGY ADVANCES HAVE REDUCED COST OF CLEAN WATER
GE and others have made great strides in reducing the cost of
desalinating seawater using membranes, from over $20/K-gal in 1980 to
under $4/K-gal today (Figure 4).
While membrane technology advances have resulted in significant
cost reductions, energy still accounts for up to 60% of the operating
cost (Figure 5). Further improvements in energy efficiency will deliver
sustainable reductions in operating cost. Along with improvements in
energy efficiency, improvements in membrane performance and membrane
life through integrated treatment systems can reduce capital cost and
life cycle cost.
ROADMAP FOR SUSTAINABLE REDUCTION IN CLEAN WATER COSTS
Membrane-based treatment solutions are essential to creating new
water sources such as brackish water aquifers, seawater, and even
wastewater. Membrane based desalination and reuse is a proven solution,
but a broader application of these technologies to create meaningful
new water sources requires investment to further reduce the energy
consumption associated with the operation of membrane systems.
Significant improvements in clean water cost can be achieved by
investing in the development of:
New membrane and other separation technologies that require
less energy than today's best available technology.
New longer life membrane technologies that are resistant to
chlorine and other chemicals to reduce maintenance and
replacement costs.
Advanced membrane systems with increased capacity per
capital cost;
Higher efficiency of energy recovery systems to reduce
energy costs;
Integrated water-treatment, energy-generation systems to
increase overall energy and water production efficiency.
GE is already investing in research to develop membranes that have
lower energy consumption, improved life, and innovative integrated
treatment systems such as the integration of membrane-based
desalination and energy generated from wind turbines.
GE is also evaluating whether to embark upon a number of far-
reaching, longer-term water scarcity research programs that could
result in disruptive desalination and reuse technologies that would
substantially reduce energy consumption, increase throughput, and thus
substantially lower the overall cost of New Water. Such potential
programs include nanotechnologies; ``smart'' membranes (with pores that
adjust so that they can perform selective separation); a 10X
simplification in pretreatment processes; and advanced remote
monitoring and diagnostics.
We are committed to continuing our efforts in these areas, but
government support would enable us to accelerate existing programs, and
to pursue altogether new research programs.
COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
We have reviewed the ``Desalination Water Supply Shortage
Prevention Act of 2005'' (S. 1016) and the ``Energy-Water Efficiency
Technology Research, Development, and Transfer Act of 2005'' (S. 1860),
and we would like to share our perspectives on certain aspects of each.
With respect to the ``Desalination Water Supply Shortage Prevention
Act of 2005'' (S. 1016), we recognize the value of subsidies as
effective means to encourage early adoption and deployment of water
treatment solutions that exist today. And for communities in need,
especially given the inflated costs of energy today, short-term
assistance with energy subsidies will help those communities more
rapidly adopt today's technologies.
However, it seems possible that S. 1016 could inadvertently drive
undesirable outcomes. For example, it is possible that energy subsidies
would encourage certain communities to implement inefficient New Water
technologies. Once such technologies are installed, they could dissuade
a community from implementing newer, more efficient technologies.
Consequently, we believe that the long-term, sustainable solution
to producing economical sources of New Water lies in developing more
advanced, energy-efficient technologies to treat multiple water
sources. And, we believe that the ``Energy-Water Efficiency Technology
Research, Development, and Transfer Act of 2005'' (S. 1860) would be an
important step towards realizing such new energy-efficient
technologies.
As a practical matter, we believe that substantial incremental
funding for research and development would significantly accelerate the
development of economical sources of New Water. We further believe that
the S. 1860 is focused on the right set of research and development
programs. More specifically, we believe that a broad research and
development program aimed at membrane advancements, improved `Total
System' energy efficiency, and integrated water-renewable energy
systems could lead to a 30% reduction in operating costs and a 25%
reduction of capital costs in the next five plus years, with
significant reductions achievable in the next one to three years. Such
advances would be consistent with what GE and others in the industry
have achieved in the past. (As Figure 4 showed, the cost of
desalinating seawater using membranes has dropped from over $20/K-gal
in 1980 to under $4/K-gal today.)
We also believe that it makes sense to begin with a Technology
Roadmap. However, the development of this roadmap could be expedited by
building on the Desalination and Water Reuse Technology Roadmap that
was published by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and Sandia National
Labs in 2003. The new Roadmap should--in addition to definitively
outlining the current state of best available technologies and near-
term technological advancements--take a longer-term view and explore
potential breakthrough areas for energy-water efficiency technologies.
In addition, we believe that it is absolutely essential for the
Bill to focus more on the process of driving commercialization of
funded research proposals. Based on GE's own experience developing and
commercializing technologically advanced products around the world, we
would like to share the following suggestions for enhancing the
prospects for successful technology transfer and commercialization:
1) Grant Size: Private sector grants should be at least
$1,000,000 per year. Such a grant size will encourage ``bigger
ideas'' and draw proposals from a wider base of experienced
research and development organizations.
2) Industry Partners: The Lead Laboratories and the Advisory
Panel should select at least one Industry partner to
participate in each program. The Industry partners could
participate as advocates, advisors, joint research partners or
subcontractors to the principle research entity. The input of
such industrial partners would especially help guide and
validate the commercial aspects of the technology programs.
3) Stage-Gate Development Process: Administration of the
research grants should be separated into phases and aligned
with a classic `Stage-Gate' product development process. GE's
adoption of a `Stage-Gate' product development process, which
is based on our leading efforts in Design For Six Sigma
practices, has dramatically increased our commercialization
success rate. Funding for each stage of the grant should be
absolutely contingent on fully satisfying the requirements of
each stage. This process could be simplified into the following
six Stages:
Market Development
Assessment & Initiation
Development
Scale-up & Sampling
Commercialization
Production
Thus, for a given government grant, if the research entity fails to
meet the requirements of any stage, the administrator would have the
ability to terminate the remainder of the grant.
As a leader in the industry, GE looks forward to working with
policymakers, users, and the technical community to continue to improve
desalination and reuse technologies and increase the availability of
economical New Water and energy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of
this committee, for your time.
The Chairman. Thank you very much. Let me apologize to you,
Mr. Sabol. I had not read your testimony and I wrote down what
I was going to ask you, and actually it was, how do we make
sure that research is directed in areas that are most apt to be
commercialized soonest and with some degree of success?
I understand your suggestions as I see them, and are
directed somewhat in that direction. We do need to end up with
products. We need to end up with the technology that's usable,
and the laboratories aren't going to use it, because they're
not in the business of buying and selling and generating water.
So we've got to have somebody with them to make sure we're
doing the right thing.
So your suggestions are going to be taken very seriously,
and we'll see how they set with others. But clearly, they make
sense to me. Let me say that I have about 10 or 15 questions. I
think I'm going to submit them. First, I'm going to yield to
the Senator from Florida and then come back for a couple here.
Senator, would you like to make any comments or anything else
you would like right now?
Senator Martinez. Mr. Chairman, I would just real briefly
say to Mr. Reynolds, I appreciate him traveling such a long
distance, particularly when his home community is being
threatened by Hurricane Wilma. Thank you very much for coming
and lots of luck. I may see you down there. Let's hope that's
not the case.
Mr. Chairman, I think rather than ask any questions,
because of the hour I will simply just make a comment that I
recognize the point that Mr. Sabol makes, that it would be nice
to wait until the new technology comes in. It's like I always
do with my new computer. I say I'm not going to get this one
with the video camera, because there's going to be a better one
coming next week that will also sing music to me, and now in
fact cell phones do that.
The problem with that is in the meantime, you don't have a
camera to take the video of your children as they grow. And so
likewise, Mr. Reynolds and I think Mr. Archuleta's problem to
some degree is that if you tell me there's going to be
wonderful new technology available in a year, maybe that's
fine. If it's 10 years, then what do we do with the people of
Key West and the people of El Paso to provide a steady,
available and frankly affordable supply of potable water?
And so that's the dilemma we're in, Mr. Chairman, why it
prompts me to want to jump start some of this with what S. 1016
attempts to do to give the opportunity to these places which
are strapped and in need of something now to be able to do
something.
Mr. Reynolds, I appreciate your pointing out in your
testimony some of the difficulties. It's hard to conceive that
too many communities in Florida have to pipe their water 145
miles over the Florida Straights. It's not exactly over land,
either. With how many--did you say 43 bridges?
Mr. Reynolds. Yes.
Senator Martinez. It's beautiful. I invite you all to come.
But it is a tough way to get your water, and the reliability of
that, frankly, with hurricanes in the area, becomes really a
challenge and a problem. So, Mr. Chairman, thank you very much
for your indulgence, I appreciate it.
The Chairman. Mr. Archuleta, I failed to mention, and you
corrected it without indicating that my statement needed
correcting, when I talked about the largest desalinization
effort, I should have said portable. The portable one is being
built by the Navy. The permanent one, which is larger, is being
built by the military, or the Army, and in partnership, or in
community with your groups. And that is in El Paso and it's not
the one that's at Alamogordo being done by the Navy, but the
combination of the two means that right there in our area is
probably the biggest expenditure by the Government of
desalinization technology research money.
Mr. Archuleta. Absolutely.
The Chairman. We hope that yours succeeds. I look forward
to coming down there. I have not yet, but I'm going to make an
effort to do that. We'll probably see you there.
Mr. Archuleta. That's great. Thank you, Senator.
The Chairman. The laboratory people, I see most of them are
still here. I want to talk with you a little bit more, Mr.
Sabol. The primary purpose, I think, of the bill is to ensure
that the Federal investment in water research resources is
ultimately adopted and used by industry to address real-world
problems.
In your experience, what is the greatest impediment to the
transfer of technology from the Government to the private
sector, and how would you improve that, if you know, and how do
you plan to evaluate technologies that are developed under this
program to see if they have application?
Mr. Sabol. Well, Senator, I think the area that I'm
probably best qualified to answer this question is from inside
of General Electric Company.
The Chairman. Yes, sir.
Mr. Sabol. We struggle with the same sort of issues that
the Government transferring technology to the private sector
struggles with. We have global research centers, very much like
your national labs, and the business units are responsible for
taking technology that they develop and bringing it to market.
And what GE has done, and I've outlined a bit in my
testimony, is connect those business units to our global
research center very early in the process. Eighty percent of
the money that that global research center spends is directed
by the businesses toward projects that their customers are
asking them to work on, and those 80 percent of the dollars
that GE spends at the global research center have a very high
hit rate in the marketplace once they get there.
The primary reason is because they're connected to customer
needs from the beginning, and the sales force and the business
teams are engaged in the process and believe in it from the
beginning.
It is important to note, though, that 20 percent of the
money is spent without guidance from the business, so that we
have a creative engine that's not encumbered by what customers
think they really want, but really looking beyond that.
So I think it's important to have both. But connecting the
business to the technical development very early on is the key.
The Chairman. I think that maybe this is right--that you
have raised concerns that there does not exist in the national
laboratories an adequate review process of the success in
obtaining, getting to research objectives. How would you
suggest that we instill in this program that link, if it's
missing? Are there any business models that you can suggest
that might instill that kind of discipline?
Mr. Sabol. I can't speak directly to how the process works
in the national labs, I don't have visibility to it, but I do
think that given the magnitude of some of the investment
dollars contemplated in this bill, that it's important to make
sure you get a return on that investment.
And the way we've done it in GE, and many companies around
the world have used a stage gate process that simply breaks the
development and commercialization process into steps, where
there's a rigorous review at each step to make sure that the
project is still on track, that the customer still wants it
when it comes out based on the way it's being developed and
that there's adequate review at each step.
Projects can go on far too long and spend too much money if
they aren't reviewed at critical milestones. So we would
strongly recommend that that same sort of process be
implemented, if it doesn't exist already.
The Chairman. Now, tell me about that review. Who does the
review and what are you looking for?
Mr. Sabol. The review is conducted with the technologists
that are actually developing the technology, the sales force
that's actually responsible for selling the technology and,
importantly, with customers. The customers actually come in and
give their own point of view based on what they're hearing. So
getting that team, all three of those parties, engaged very
early on, and at each critical step, there's little chance that
the project can fall off the tracks.
The Chairman. Thank you very much. Frankly, it's
interesting. That question doesn't only apply to this. I have
the same problem with big projects that are built for the
Department of Energy, with high technology as a goal. It takes
a long time to get from the start to the end, and we're getting
fooled along the way into thinking we're getting where we
aren't. And that ends up not achieving on time, sometimes not
achieving at all, and sometimes costing way too much.
The problem I'm stuck worrying about is this, how do I find
that out as soon as possible, that what I just described is
occurring? And we haven't solved that yet, but I've gotten my
dander up because it's happened too much and I'm not going to
let it happen anymore. I don't know how we're going to fix it,
but we're going to stop at some points and take a real look.
There's one thing that you have that we don't have in the
regular science projects. Frankly, you have commercial users
and that's really interesting, because they come along and they
could stop something. Because you're making headway, but they
could tell you, look, the door and that knob that you've got
all the way, but that door isn't going to work. Right?
Everything else is beautiful, but if you need that door--I'm
just giving you something, they'll tell you. We're not sure we
know that in the big science projects, nor do we know how to
find out about it. We'll be conferring with you.
Do any of you have comments regarding the issue I'm
speaking of? Maybe it doesn't apply to your work. That is, how
do we make sure that the money we're spending on research is
being spent for something that is apt to achieve, and that we
know as soon as we can whether it's on the right track?
Mr. Reynolds?
Mr. Reynolds. I think through constructing projects and
having the water utilities use the technology to see how it
actually performs in use is very beneficial. And even when we
build projects with the Aqueduct Authority, we have all the
users involved. The maintenance guys, the operations guys,
everybody is involved, the engineers, get everybody's
perspective to make sure what you're designing is really what
you need and that's the----
The Chairman. But you're not really doing research, are
you? You're applying it all right now, when you're talking
about it, aren't you?
Mr. Reynolds. Yes, we're in application and we believe that
by investing in desalination technology that the manufacturers
will in turn also invest in trying to make more efficient
products.
The Chairman. Mr. Archuleta.
Mr. Archuleta. Let me add to that, Senator. I mentioned
this partnership that we have with the universities, and all
that, you know we're really kind of a research triangle there
involving our desert area there, the opportunities and
challenges that we bring.
But, for example, in brackish groundwater, silica is an
issue in terms of feed water going into it. And that's one of
the projects that we identified with Sandia. And I think that's
very promising in terms of having a utility working with
laboratories.
The other one is in the concentrate disposal. There are
issues about the downhole, you know, implications of that, and
the whole regulatory scheme. I can tell you that one of the big
challenges we have, too, is convincing the regulators that some
of these things are not harmful to the environment. We can work
with them and firm it, and streamline that process so we get
there faster.
The other issues on membranes, we don't see ourselves, we
see more the General Electrics, and other kind of folks working
on the next--and the laboratories working on the next
generation of membranes, or some other device maybe besides
membranes.
So I think there's a little bit of a split between some of
the local people--can work with others on some of those local
problems. And I think the next generation of membranes is
probably left more to the laboratories than to the private
sector.
Mr. Parekh. Mr. Chairman, I couldn't have framed the
concern any better than you did. I think you're right on the
mark with the challenge that is offered when you have Federal
funding available for research. And I think it's absolutely
essential that obviously the national labs be involved, because
they have a tremendous knowledge base behind them to help us
with this.
The point I would like to make to help this along is not
too dissimilar to what Mr. Sabol has said, to include--from the
initiation of the funding, the inclusion of partnerships that
are going to be most relevant to this research.
And in our case, just like Mr. Archuleta explained, we
think the American Waterworks Research Foundation brings a
tremendous amount of history and expertise in terms of what is
actually going to be applied and what is needed by the drinking
water utilities that are going to ultimately use these
products.
The Chairman. Okay. Could I ask one last question of you,
Mr. Sabol? You've explained in general terms what General
Electric Water Resources Division or whatever its formal name
is--in terms of people. What are the volume of sales? Did you
tell us that?
Mr. Sabol. The water business in General Electric is
approximately $2.2 billion dollars in revenue. Of that,
approximately half is in membrane-based equipment.
The Chairman. So, in that regard, what do you do? You make
it and sell it, is that it then?
Mr. Sabol. We do. We engineer the pieces of equipment to
the customer's specifications, and we build the actual devices,
membranes, and equipment and then install it and operate it in
some cases.
The Chairman. Would you envision that your company could
form some relationship, if we wanted it to go that way, with
one of the research teams or entities that we're funding so
that you would work together on research and toward an end?
Mr. Sabol. Absolutely.
The Chairman. Do you do that now, with pure institutional
research institutions?
Mr. Sabol. We do.
The Chairman. Like?
Mr. Sabol. General Electric works with everything from the
national labs to State and local entities that do research to
other companies that we work with to develop research. It's a
fairly common process, and as long as the goals are aligned,
it's very achievable.
The Chairman. Do you think--if I heard you right, you're
saying that certain projects that are being funded--that
research projects they come and go, some are started and die,
some are funded partially, but don't get completed, which I
gather means, you make decisions, before you waste all the
money, use all the money, that it just isn't going to work at
different points; is that correct?
Mr. Sabol. That's absolutely correct. It's very difficult
to walk away from a project that's partially completed, but if
the customer is saying we're not going to hit the cost point
they need, or not going to meet the functional characteristics
that they need, we pull the plug on the project.
The Chairman. I'm going to say this right now, and then I'm
closing the record, and if it goes in the ears of the
laboratories and they worry about this segment--but you're
going to have to think about it. I have a suspicion that one of
the problems in funding big laboratories, national laboratories
and projects like this, is it's very hard to stop a project
midway and it's very hard to say this isn't going to work.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm going to get that answered before
we finish this legislation, because there's got to be a way to
stop things without 10 years elapsing, and then finding that
something else passed it by, and you could have found out 3
years into it that it was moving in the wrong direction. I just
think private sector does it--you've already said you make
mistakes--so I'm not trying to tell the laboratories you never
do and they always do, I'm not saying that. But I think it's a
lot harder for the private sector to make--to continue to do
it, because pretty soon you get fired.
Mr. Sabol. Absolutely.
The Chairman. I mean, they look at you and say every year,
is this the right guy for this job, right?
Mr. Sabol. That's right.
The Chairman. And you're young, which means they look for
young people, that means they got rid of somebody else. I don't
know who, maybe they were old people. Anyway, maybe we need
that. Maybe we need a way of holding those in charge, and
letting them go, instead of the project. Maybe they get their
job terminated. But we can't do that either. That's enough of
me. We stand in recess until call of the chair. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 4:10 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
APPENDIX
Responses to Additional Questions
----------
El Paso Water Utilities,
Public Service Board,
El Paso, TX, November 3, 2005.
Hon. Pete V. Domenici,
Chairman, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Domenici: I wish to thank you and your staff for
allowing me the opportunity to appear before the Senate Committee on
Energy and Natural Resources on Thursday, October 20, 2005. As you
know, I was there as a representative of the WateReuse Association and
its Foundation, but also as the General Manager of the El Paso Water
Utilities.
The purpose of this letter is to respond to your letter of October
24, 2005 on questions you asked me to respond for the record.
Since I testified on behalf of the WateReuse Association and its
Foundation, many of the questions that you asked will be responded to
by Mr. Wade Miller, the Executive Director. However, the questions that
you ask specific to El Paso Water Utilities, I am responding to per the
attachment.
Again, it was good seeing you and I am glad that I was able to
perhaps provide some information to you and your Committee that is
useful on these Bills. I also informed our Mayor and Public Service
Board members of your interest in visiting El Paso some time in the
near future as our Desalination Plant moves further into construction.
We would welcome your visit any time your schedule permits. We do a lot
of good regional planning with New Mexico and you are extremely well
thought of and regarded in this region and this community for the
outstanding leadership that you have provided on water policy and
energy management. I also look forward to seeing you at the Multi-State
Salinity Coalition meeting in Albuquerque in early December.
Sincerely,
Edmund G. Archuleta, P.E.,
General Manager.
[Enclosure.]
Questions From Senator Domenici
Question 1a. The two bills we are considering today take two
different approaches to meeting water supply challenges. It is my
understanding that the City of El Paso recently began construction of a
desalination facility which is expected to cost $87 million.
Do you believe the federal government should focus its investment
on subsidies or water technology research and development?
Answer. The El Paso Water Utilities (``EPWU'') believes that
federal investment in desalination should be in research and technology
development because that is the most beneficial way to bring down the
cost of ocean and inland desalination.
Question 1b. Assuming that S. 1016 is passed before the El Paso
facility begins producing desalinated water, how much help would S.
1016 provide?
Answer. Obviously, any subsidies would help, but because the energy
costs of inland desalination are lower than ocean desalination, I do
not believe that S. 1016 would have a substantial impact on the EPWUI-
Fort Bliss operation. The estimated capital plus operating costs of
approximately $500 per acre-foot ($1.53 per 1000 gallons) is affordable
to the consumer. Also, subsidies would send the wrong energy use
signal.
Question 2. What has been your experience in your past partnerships
with the national laboratories?
Answer. EPWU along with its CHIWAWA partners (New Mexico State,
Texas A&M, UTEP and the City of Alamogordo) are currently developing
three research programs related to inland concentrate disposal: deep
hole injection, silica removal and salt tolerant plants. Initially, the
CHIWAWA partners had hoped to gain some research funding through Sandia
National Laboratories. Without an increase in Sandia's research account
for this specific purpose, this will not happen in this initial phase
of our collaboration.
As the past Chair of the AWWA Research Foundation, I have worked
with Sandia National Laboratories on cost-effective methods for arsenic
treatment. This has been a great and positive partnership.
Question 3. How would you recommend ensuring that the research
undertaken pursuant to S. 1860 address real-world problems?
Answer. In the El Paso region, both El Paso and Alamogordo are
building large desalination plants (ours is under construction and
Alamogordo's is under design), the biggest area that we want to cut
costs and find a better approach is in concentrate disposal. Finding
better, cheaper, perhaps more useful methods, will not only conserve
water, but also save energy and better protect our environment.
With the Tularosa Desalination Research Facility under construction
and with El Paso's TecH20 Center under design, we are the perfect model
to advance the science of concentrate management in an inland area.
Technical advances in this area would be of great value to cities in
this country and around the world.
With the technical capabilities of national labs and universities,
plus the practical need of cities, we believe our consortium. (CHIWAWA)
is a good model to begin this work where the need is the greatest and
the talent/human resources are there.
______
GE Infrastructure,
Water & Process Technologies,
Trevose, PA, November 4, 2005.
Hon. Pete V. Domenici,
Chairman, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you again for the opportunity to appear
before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources on
Thursday, October 20, 2005, to give testimony on S. 1016 and S. 1860.
We were honored to appear before your Committee and provide our views
on these two bills.
We are also pleased to respond to the follow-up questions that
Senator Bingaman submitted for the record, and we are attaching our
responses, which we have written beneath each of his questions.
Please let us know if we can provide any further information.
Sincerely yours,
Colin R. Sabol,
Chief Marketing Officer.
[Enclosure.]
Questions From Senator Bingaman
Question 1a. It appears that GE is already investing significant
amounts in water technology research.
Is most of GE's water technology research being done here in the
United States?
Answer. We conduct between 60-70% of our research here in the
United States. We conduct most of our domestic research in two
locations: (1) GE's Global Research Center in Niskayuna, New York; and
(2) GE Water's headquarters in Trevose, PA. However, we are very
interested in expanding our research presence in key water-scarce
regions, including New Mexico, where we recently applied for a grant
that would fund water scarcity research.
Question 1b. To date, has any Federal funding been available to
advance that research? If so, from what source?
Answer. GE Water has responded to Request for Proposals (RFPs) from
the Bureau of Reclamation, but the size of the grants we sought were
too small to support meaningful R&D efforts in the areas of
desalination and reuse.
GE Water has in the past also solicited funding from DOE and NIST,
but the RFPs that we have responded to have not been directly related
to desalination or water reuse.
Question 2. Your testimony in several places mentions ``integrated
water-treatment, renewable energy systems''. I can think of a lot of
potential applications for these type of systems--particularly in rural
areas and Indian reservations in New Mexico.
Are such systems readily available at the present time, or is more
research needed to make them economically viable?
Answer. We are very much aware of the need for integrated water-
treatment, renewable energy systems in rural areas and Indian
reservations, and we are interested in implementing a number of
demonstration projects, including at least one in New Mexico. However,
we do believe that it is necessary to conduct further research focused
on the electromechanical interfaces (i.e., pumps, controls, power
storage & conversion) between the renewable sources and water systems.
Question 3a. In your testimony you suggest that the ``Lead
Laboratories and the Advisory Panel should select at least one industry
partner to participate in each program.'' The bill calls for industry
to be represented on the Advisory Panel and to be eligible for the
competitive grant program.
Do you think that a specific industrial advisory group is needed
for each area of R&D that would develop under S. 1860?
Answer. We do believe that a specific industrial advisory group is
needed for each major area of R&D that would develop under S. 1860. We
further believe that each of the groups should include participants
from industry.
In addition, we believe that projects run by the lead laboratories
would benefit from industrial partnerships. Such partnerships would
help to ensure that the research performed by the laboratory has
commercial value.
Question 3b. To achieve your goal of helping to guide and validate
the commercial aspects of the technology programs, do you think it also
necessary to include industry representatives in the process to develop
the technology roadmap?
Answer. We do believe that it is necessary to include industry
representatives in the process to develop the technology roadmap. Such
industry participation would increase the likelihood that the roadmap
would result in commercially viable desalination and reuse products and
services. GE Water participated in the development and refinement of
the Desalination and Water Reuse Roadmap already completed by Sandia
and the Bureau of Reclamation, and we found this to be a very positive
experience.
______
University of California,
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory,
Livermore, CA, November 7, 2005.
Hon. Pete V. Domenici,
Chairman, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
Ranking Member, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Domenici and Senator Bingaman: Thank you for the
opportunity to appear before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources on Thursday, October 20, 2005, to give testimony regarding S.
1016, to direct the Secretary of Energy to make incentive payments to
the owners or operators of qualified desalination facilities to
partially offset the cost of electrical energy required to operate the
facilities, and for other purposes; and S. 1860, to amend the Energy
Policy Act of 2005 to improve energy production and reduce energy
demand through improved use of reclaimed waters, and for other
purposes.
I am pleased to submit the attached responses to your additional
questions, to submit along with my written testimony for the record.
Should you require any further information, please do not hesitate
to contact me.
Sincerely,
Dr. Jane Long,
Associate Director.
[Enclosure.]
Questions From Senator Domenici
Question 1. A significant portion of this bill is dedicated to
technology transfer and commercialization of water supply technologies.
How do you plan to make the information garnered as a result of
this bill available to the public?
Answer. The success of the program depends wide dissemination of
results as well informed input, so we will use a variety of means of
communication. Of course, our detailed plans will be coordinated with
other R&D centers in the overall national program. In addition to
presenting research results at technical conferences, we plan to
communicate the activities of the center to the user communities in
less formal meetings with individual water districts, water agencies,
power companies, and engineering firms. Widespread acceptance and use
of new technologies for water treatment depends upon favorable
recommendations from the responsible individuals in specific water
supply utilities that have experience with the new technologies.
Because of this, we will continue to work closely with water agencies
and water utilities on a local level to stay informed of their
technology needs, provide assistance and troubleshooting for pilot and
demonstration tests of new technologies, and continue to help utilities
to optimize treatment methods for cost and safety. In support of these
outreach efforts to users, others in the technical community, and the
general public, the Laboratory's R&D center will maintain a web site,
which will provide our research results as well as the results from
pilot and demonstration tests.
Our R&D center will have an advisory board, separate from the one
described in the legislation, with representatives from water and power
agencies, water districts, industry and academia. This board will
review the direction and progress of our research and development
efforts, and provide guidance to ensure that the technologies and tools
we develop will be adopted by the user community. An additional benefit
to having a board is that the board members, chosen on the basis of
their influence in the water resource community, will help to ensure
wide dissemination of information about our activities.
Question 2. Do you believe your past and present partnerships with
industry, government agencies and water organizations help you promote
the real-world application of technologies developed as a result of S.
1860? If so, how?
Answer. As I highlighted in my written testimony, we are working
with local water utilities to test our own new technologies, and in
troubleshooting current problems with contaminant removal. We are also
partnering with several engineering companies, local water agencies and
utilities on proposals for new technology development. These
partnerships are absolutely essential to the viability of a R&D center.
They are needed to focus technology development on areas of need, guide
laboratory development of technologies that are most likely to be
workable in real-world applications, and gain from the wealth of
practical experience of individuals employed by industry and the
utilities.
Question 3. How can the technologies developed as a result of S.
1860 address global water shortages?
Answer. Providing cheap, potable water to reduce or eliminate
global water shortages is a key goal of the program. For example, in
our R&D center, we plan to develop inexpensive technologies to allow
safe water re-cycling, to develop `smart' membranes to carry our
selective extractions from `impaired water' contaminated for example
with arsenic or nitrate, and to reduce the energy cost of desalination
of brackish and ocean waters. Large reductions in the amount of energy
needed for desalination are possible. Current technologies are at least
a factor of 5 times higher in energy usage than what is
thermodynamically possible. There is no global shortage of water--the
shortage is of safe potable water. We need to reduce the cleanup cost
to increase that supply. The development of commercially available,
cost-effective, low-maintenance systems will constitute a significant
contribution to the issue of safe global water supplies.
Question 4. What application do the technologies that would be
developed as a result of S. 1860 have with respect to homeland
security?
Answer. Real-time information on the quality of water entering and
distributed in the public water supply system is a clear need both for
accidental and intentional contamination. A focus area for our
technology center will be the development of in-line sensors to replace
conventional sampling and remote chemical analyses, which have up to
several day turn-around. This is an area of synergy between current
U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) funded R&D, where sensor
development for chemical and biological warfare applications is being
carried out, and water supply R&D. The same methods used for Chem-Bio
sensing can be modified for sensing contaminants of concern in water
supply systems. This is already an active area at Livermore and other
laboratories, but would be greatly accelerated through the
establishment of an R&D center. Similarly, treatment systems developed
through this program would be most useful for emergency response in
instances where water supply has been compromised.
Question 5. In your testimony, you state that the national
laboratories have a proven track record of developing new technologies.
How will you ensure that these technologies are engineered in an
economically-viable manner?
Answer. As in many past and current activities, we will partner
with engineering firms that focus on construction and operations of
water treatment plants, with public water providers and with agencies,
utilities and private corporations in the energy arena. Guidance on
economics and operational constraints will be obtained from industry/
agency partners and advisors at multiple stages of development. Each
technology will require an economic assessment and comparison to
conventional methods for efficiency, cost savings and overall benefit.
Such assessments are likely to require updating as the technologies
approach commercial technology transfer. In order to insure that our
program's R&D results reach the public, our role must cross-cut from
laboratory R&D through end user needs. We will use our center's
resources and to help promising new technologies survive the so-called
`Valley of Death', the difficult transition from proof-of-concept to
commercialization.
Question 6. It is my understanding that Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory currently has a significant amount of water resources
research underway. What research capabilities does Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory have that are not available in the private sector?
Answer. LLNL has specific capabilities not available in the private
sector including unique computational and analytical laboratories as
well as special expertise in particularly important, relevant areas of
chemistry and materials science. I believe an even more important
strength is the Laboratory's ability to integrate these capabilities to
provide solutions to problems of national interest.
As an example, LLNL licensed an innovative approach to capacitance
deionization (CDI) to desalt water using aerogels. In 1995, this
technology was selected as one of the top 100 technology innovations of
the year (R&D 100 Award). Next-generation and spin-offs from this
original technology are under development. Because electrodialysis (ED)
processes have fundamental efficiency advantages over reverse osmosis
(RO), LLNL is integrating its special capabilities in molecular
modeling with membrane science and engineering expertise to improve
energy efficiency potentially by an order of magnitude over current ED
processes. We are pushing the ion selectivity and transport thresholds
for ED closer to theoretical limits. (This effort was highlighted in
the National Nanotechnology Initiative at Five Years: Assessment and
Recommendations of the National Nanotechnology Advisory Panel, prepared
by the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, May
2005 (pg. 37) (which can be found at http://www.nano.gov/html/news/
PCASTreport.htm)). In addition, using internal (LDRD) funds, LLNL has
recently developed a new energy-efficient electrodialysis technology
for selective removal of contaminants such as nitrate. With local water
utilities, we are seeking outside funding for pilot-testing of this
technology. We are also beginning a project, funded by the California
Department of Water Resources, to develop a potentially very energy
efficient desalination technology called `ion pumping'.
These projects have clearly benefited from the broad range of
technical capabilities that exist at a national laboratory such as
LLNL, and that do not exist in the private sector. For example, we can
call on experts in all aspects of technology development to help us;
hydrodynamics experts to optimize fluid flow properties, synthetic
chemists for membrane functionalization, polymer engineers to select
durable membrane materials, and others. We also leverage off R&D in
other areas. For example, we are able to modify sensor technologies
currently being developed for DHS applications for water monitoring
applications. We can apply computational fluid dynamics codes currently
being used for a wide range of applications including nuclear testing,
to model concentration polarization at membrane surfaces, a key
limitation on the energy efficiency of membrane-based separation
processes.
In addition, we can take advantage of our world-class computational
resources to carry out first-principles modeling of potential
technologies to evaluate their potential performance before using
resources for materials synthesis and laboratory testing. This is the
approach we used to develop our new electrodialysis technology, and the
approach is currently being used for our ion pump work. Modeling has
not been used in this manner in the past. Technologies have mainly been
developed through trial and error. We believe the computational
approach is now sufficiently mature to significantly benefit future
technology development for water treatment.
(For more information on LLNL's water technology development
capabilities, please see the short description, attached.)
Question 7. Which of the missions contained in S. 1860 do you
believe Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory would be best qualified
to undertake?
Answer. The key elements in S. 1860 include an advisory panel,
assessment of current efforts, identification of research and
development priorities, development of a technology roadmap to guide
program activities, a directed research, development, demonstration,
transfer and commercialization effort and a grants program. LLNL has
led or participated in assessment, prioritization and technology
roadmapping activities such as those described in S. 1860. We bring to
the effort wide ranging expertise in many relevant science and
technology areas. An equally important aspect of roadmap development is
the involvement of a wide range of stakeholders from the energy and
water communities. LLNL's partnerships span across the multiple
stakeholder communities whose involvement will be necessary for these
efforts. This familiarity with the stakeholders and their diverse
perspectives will be important to the success of the roadmap developed
and the program itself.
With respect to the directed R&D program, LLNL has extensive
capabilities and a strong track record in both the development and
commercialization of technologies and management tools, including those
in water treatment and energy arenas (please see other responses for
details). We also have a proven track record in successfully
collaborating with industry, universities and agencies at the diversity
of levels described in S. 1860. The technology roadmap that will be
developed as part of the S. 1860 activities will prioritize the
missions of this legislation. LLNL will focus its efforts on identified
high priority R&D topics.
Question 8. How will you coordinate research currently underway
with the authority provided by S. 1860?
Answer. In its expanded role as part of the national program, LLNL
will continue current activities in the area of water and energy supply
technology, which are funded with a mixture of state and federal funds.
We would expect these activities to broaden over time and address the
priorities defined by the roadmap. An important aspect of our role as
an R&D center would be to coordinate LLNL's R&D activities with program
collaborators (partnering with universities and other national
laboratories, public/private partnerships with industry, water and
energy utilities and agencies). Efforts in all program elements--as
well as work other agencies--need to be complementary. Working with the
broader energy and water communities will ensure improved
communication, and it will aid in leveraging other ongoing efforts. The
roadmapping process will take into consideration other recent or
ongoing research prioritization and roadmapping efforts (e.g., the
USBR-Sandia Desalination Roadmap completed in 2003 and DOE's Water-for-
Energy roadmap currently in progress). (See also response to Senator
Bingaman's questions).
Our current activities would be enhanced by the authority provided
by S. 1860 in that it includes commercialization issues, which are not
supported through current funding.
Question 9. How will Lawrence Livermore's significant super-
computing capability be brought to bear in carrying out S. 1860?
Answer. As described above, our resident super-computing
capabilities allow us to evaluate new ideas for treatment technologies
by carrying out first-principles computer simulations, the results of
which can be used to screen and select the best approaches for design.
The same computational methods can then be used to optimize
technologies that are undergoing laboratory and field testing. We
believe the computational approach is now sufficiently mature to
significantly benefit future technology development for water
treatment.
Question 10. What do you believe are the most promising
technologies to accomplish the objectives of S. 1860?
Answer. The roadmapping effort will integrate the prioritized needs
of the energy and water communities, provide an understanding of
existing efforts, and define promising areas to pursue. We have
described some areas of technical promise both in this response and in
the description of LLNL's water technology development capabilities,
attached. Integration of energy efficiency will be essential (see our
response to Senator Bingaman as well.) Perhaps the greatest benefit of
the proposed national program is the integrated approach to
simultaneously address energy and water issues.
For example, the implementation plan for the USBR-Sandia
Desalination Roadmap has defined several promising areas for R&D. Some
of LLNL's efforts in these areas include the following:
Energy costs for desalination can be reduced significantly. New
technologies are needed that take advantage of new materials and new
understanding of physical processes at the molecular level to reduce
the energy use to levels two to three times lower than at present.
Technologies that use electrostatic fields to manipulate and separate
ions from water show great promise in this area.
The use of species selective `smart' membranes for removal of
contaminants is a promising more energy-efficient treatment technology.
Such membranes have been developed for sensor applications. LLNL is
evaluating promising separations technologies to identify those that
could be modified to remove toxic species from water.
Technologies are needed to minimize and dispose of concentrates
(saline brines) produced from desalination. A promising approach
combines selective extraction of contaminants and production of high-
purity, marketable by-products with computer-optimized brine reduction
processes. Overall, the approach could significantly reduce the volume
of produced brines, and enable efficient salt management in the
watersheds of inland urban areas. Marketable by-products can offset
treatment costs.
Questions From Senator Bingaman
Question 1. Obviously with the existence of a National Laboratory
Energy-Water Nexus team, the Labs have been looking at these water and
related energy issues for some time.
Given that, how long will it take to develop the technology roadmap
called for in the bill, which is intended to establish the framework
for investing the resources provided to the program?
Is anything currently underway in this area? If so, does it include
representatives from government, the academic community, and industry?
Answer. The current legislation allows for a two-year window. As I
stated in my written testimony, rapid completion of the assessment and
roadmap development is challenging, but necessary and appropriate,
given the urgency of the problem. The effort will greatly benefit from
the fact that some aspects of this technology roadmap are already in
various stages of development and involve members of the Energy-Water
Nexus Team. Specifically, the USBR-Sandia Desalination Roadmap
completed in 2003 and DOE's Water-for-Energy roadmap currently in
progress will be available and need to be integrated into the Energy-
Water roadmap called for by this bill. Regional differences and
synergies will need to be considered and included in a national
roadmap. This will require review and integration of state and regional
efforts. An example is the CA Energy Commission's white paper on the
Water-Energy Relationship (which can be found at http://
www.energy.ca.gov/2005publications/CEC-700-2005-011/CEC-700-2005-
011.PDF), which is summarized in the Integrated Energy Policy Report
(and can be found at http://www.energy.ca.gov/2005_energypolicy/
index.html).
Question 2. S. 1016 focuses on the need to provide federal
assistance to address the high energy costs associated with
desalination. At the same time, GE's testimony indicates that over the
past 25 years, the cost of seawater desalination has dropped from $20/
1000 gallons to $4/1000 gallons.
Based on the current state of research and development, is there a
significant chance that we will be able to significantly reduce
desalination energy costs further in the next decade?
Answer. There are opportunities to reduce energy costs in at least
two ways: optimizing operations to lower energy costs by utilizing off-
peak or renewable energy sources, and through improving technologies
that directly reduce energy requirements. As noted in the CA Dept. of
Water Resources 2005 CA Water Plan Update, unlike every other type of
water facility, where staffing edges out energy use as the main
operating expense, desalination's primary operating cost is for energy.
In a recent summary by the Joint Water Reuse and Desalination Task
Force (2005), energy costs for currently operating brackish water
desalination systems accounted for 11% of the total costs; for seawater
desalination it was 44%. Most desalination plants operate continuously,
so electricity is used during all seasons, and all times of the day.
Current plants are operating 90 percent of the time to maximize return
on capital costs, with downtimes only for maintenance. If financing
schemes that consider entire life cycle costs for a plant (including
energy costs for operation) could be devised, it would be feasible to
run plants during off-peak power periods, and/or to utilize
intermittent power sources such as wind or solar. Integrated energy-
desalination planning tools would optimize the performance of such
systems so that desalination could take advantage of lower priced
power, facilitate development of alternative energy sources, and
relieve peak grid demand periods.
In addition, in spite of the many improvements in membrane design
that have increased the energy efficiency of RO, we are still at least
5 times above the theoretical energy minimum for salt removal. For RO,
there also are energy improvements to be made in other parts of process
train (e.g. pumps, alternative power systems, waste heat, energy
recovery devices). For example, current energy recovery devices in RO
systems recover only about 40% of the energy. There are also many
opportunities to move away from RO altogether, to improve other
existing technologies such as ED/EDR, to explore innovative concepts,
and to improve water recovery (thereby increasing water/energy ratio).
Water recovery is limited by mineral scaling issues and concentrate
disposal options. It is a fruitful area for technology research and
development.
[Attachments]*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Attachments have been retained in committee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
______
Sandia National Laboratories,
Energy, Security & Defense Technologies Division,
Albuquerque, NM, November 7, 2005.
Hon. Pete Domenici,
Chairman, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: I am pleased to provide the answers to your
questions relating to my testimony of October 20, 2005. The attached
document contains the responses to your questions as requested in a
letter to me dated October 24, 2005.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to participate in this very
important process. If you have any questions, please feel free to
contact me at (505) 845-9064.
Sincerely,
Les E. Shephard,
Vice President.
[Enclosure.]
Questions From Senator Domenici
Question 1a. In your testimony, you suggest that without
significant technological advances, we may not be able to meet our
energy and water needs in the next 20 years.
Will you please explain?
Answer. In simple terms, water and energy production are
interdependent. An inadequate supply of one often affects the supply
and cost of the other. Estimates show that the energy demands of the
United States will increase by approximately 30% over the next 20
years. Today, thermoelectric power production accounts for
approximately 40% of the freshwater withdrawals in the United States, a
number roughly equal to the agricultural sector. In a growing number of
regions in the United States, all available water is completely
allocated. Without some combination of significant new water supplies
and more water-efficient power generation technology, the United States
cannot economically meet the projected growth in power generation
capability
The energy required for the withdrawal, conveyance and treatment of
water is 4% of the total U.S. electric power generation. In the future,
the projected energy requirements for water and waste water treatment
for non-traditional water resource utilization, including desalination
and waste water reuse, are projected to increase to 6-10% of the total
electricity generated. Populations continue to grow, particularly in
water stressed areas such as the west, southwest, and Florida. A major
factor in creating affordable new water to meet these growing
population demands is reducing the amount of energy required to pump,
treat and distribute impaired water.
The interdependency can be simply summarized, no water--no
electricity. Clearly technology advancements are required to keep
energy costs and water costs, both in terms of actual dollars and
competition amongst sectors, from derailing continued economic growth.
Question 1b. How would S. 1860 help meet this need?
Answer. The proposed legislation, S. 1860, would provide a
systematic approach to solving to this problem by designating the
authority for the Department of Energy (DOE) to engage in this critical
mission space, by drawing on the assets of the national labs and
universities and, by leveraging other research and development efforts
through a grants program with other federal agencies and private
industry. A key element of the program established by S. 1860 is the
inclusion of an explicit commercialization and tech transfer task.
Coordinating this work through road mapping activities will enhance the
impact of the federal investment by prioritizing activities to get the
greatest return for the federal investment dollar today and into the
future. This bill will create breakthrough technologies by tightly
coupling research, development and technology transfer in the energy
and water sectors. For example, considering inland brackish water or
other impaired sources, the water supply could be dramatically
increased through research on advanced technologies with the potential
for significant reduction of water desalination or treatment costs and
energy requirements, followed by pilot scale testing of the most
promising technologies, followed by active technology transfer and
commercialization.
Question 2a. Since Fiscal year 2002, Congress has appropriated over
$23 million for Sandia National Laboratories to undertake research on
arsenic removal, advanced desalination, to aid in the planning of the
Tularosa Desalination Facility and to undertake an energy-water supply
roadmap.
Has the funding you have received for water technology enhanced
Sandia National Laboratory's ability in this area, and how?
Answer. Yes. This funding has solidified a water program at Sandia
that is strongly focused on key water technologies and strong
partnerships, both inside and outside of the government, with industry,
and with end-users. The program has significant leveraging of diverse
capabilities across the labs, pulling significant technological
advances from areas such as computational methods, nanoscience
technologies and microsystems. This program has attracted the
engagement of top researchers at Sandia, including one of the three
Sandia Fellows, several Senior Scientists and Distinguished Members of
the Technical Staff to develop advanced concepts. This investment has
enabled us to focus our historic water-related research in radioactive
waste management, environmental remediation, basic geosciences, sensor
development, vulnerability analysis and other security technologies,
and modeling of complex and interdependent systems, such as energy and
water, on the problem of domestic and international water supply
shortages and conflicts. Our leadership in this area continues with our
road mapping activities. As a result of the growing program in
desalination and treatment, several laboratories have been refocused
and reconfigured to focus exclusively on advanced water treatment
technology development. Finally, Sandia senior management has made
strategic decisions to support the development of this integrated water
initiative with Laboratory Directed Research and Development (LDRD) and
program development funds.
Question 2b. What is the status of each of water technology-related
activities currently being undertaken by Sandia National Laboratories?
Answer. Sandia National Laboratories has provided leadership and
has had impact in five major areas: 1) Desalination roadmap development
and design and development of the Tularosa Desalination Facility with
the Bureau of Reclamation, 2) Advanced desalination technology
development, 3) Arsenic treatment technology development and
demonstration, 4) Energy and water interdependencies including
technology road mapping and developing a report to congress and, 5)
Engagement with the Office of the State Engineer (OSE) in New Mexico.
Each of these is described in more detail below.
The original funding allowed the creation of the Desalination and
Water Purification Technology Roadmap which was published in
partnership with the Bureau of Reclamation and reviewed by the National
Research Council. A second generation Desalination and Water Reuse
Roadmap is currently being developed with four of five scheduled
workshops completed. This roadmap will be completed in May 2006. An
additional part of the original funding supported Sandia's leadership
in the development and design of the Tularosa Desalination Facility.
The Bureau of Reclamation now has total responsibility for this
project. Groundbreaking for the facility was June 29, 2004 and the
first experiments using the Office of Naval Research system are
underway.
In the desalination program arena, we are pursuing fundamental
desalination research in such areas as biomimetic membrane
nanomaterials, clathrates (``freeze distillation''), and capacitive
deionization here at Sandia. We are working with Los Alamos to develop
subsurface wastewater injection strategies and expect in the next year
to begin working with University of Texas at El Paso researchers to
identify new silica removal strategies (the latter project will be
joint funded by Sandia and the City of El Paso). In the coming year, we
will have ready for pilot-testing new technologies using centrifuges
and electrodialysis to remove salts from inland brines. In addition, we
have several projects underway with universities and industrial
partners.
In the area of arsenic removal, Sandia National Laboratories, in
partnership with the American Water Works Association Research
Foundation (AwwaRF) and WERC: A Consortium for Environmental Education
and Technology Development, have made significant progress in helping
communities deal with the new Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
standard. Sandia has fielded three pilot tests (Soccoro, Desert Sands,
and Rio Rancho) which have begun to yield results. Additional pilots
are planned in New Mexico and at other locations around the country.
While some media performs better than others, all of the commercially
available media that have been tested in the Soccoro pilot have not
performed to expectations. The media were chosen from peer reviews as
part of the Arsenic Vendors Forums, the third such forum was held Nov.
2-4, 2005 in Albuquerque. Sandia has worked with some of the vendors to
help diagnose production issues. Regional workshops have been and are
continuing to be held around the state in order to help New Mexico
communities assess the proper approach that they should take in
addressing compliance with this issue. The research at AwwaRF has
yielded new materials that will be included in the second phase of
pilots at the New Mexico sites. The Sandia developed SANS material will
also be tested in the second phase of the pilots. In addition, Sandia
in partnership with the New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) has
begun an individualized rural outreach program where Sandia will
analyze water quality in local communities and help them decide which
technology or other management approaches may be best for them.
The energy water technology roadmap process is underway. Regional
workshops across the country are scheduled for November, December and
January. The executive board, a collection of key individuals from
government including DOE, academia, and industry, have met and are
helping to guide the road map process. A technical innovation workshop
is scheduled for April 2006 based upon needs from the Regional
workshops and the final roadmap detailing research priorities will be
published in September 2006.
A report to congress, to be published by DOE in February 2006, is
being written under the leadership of Sandia National Laboratories.
Significant engagement with Los Alamos National Laboratory and National
Energy Technology Laboratory as well as advice from the rest of the
multi-lab team supports this effort.
Finally, locally in New Mexico, in collaboration with the Office of
the State Engineer (OSE) and Interstate Stream Commission, we are
currently developing decision support models to assist in water
resources management planning for the Gila River Basin, a critical
basin in southwestern New Mexico. We have worked closely with the OSE
to help train staff in the use of this modeling tool. We have developed
web based tools to allow real-time collaboration with geographically
separated institutions as they jointly develop complex water system
models.
Question 2c. What missions contained in S. 1860 do you believe
Sandia National Laboratories would be best qualified to undertake?
Answer. As noted in the previous two answers, Sandia National
Laboratories extensive and diverse water program qualifies us for a
lead lab role within this new program including the technology transfer
mission and allows us to partner effectively and engage in the grants
portion of this legislation. Specifically, we have demonstrated success
in developing a systems approach to understanding water that enables us
to identify technology needs early and systematically in a prioritized
manner. We have actively and successfully engaged with a broad
community on arsenic. We are actively and successfully engaged with
industry at a very early stage in our desalination research and we are
a DOE complex leader in technology transfer. Our qualifications are
based in our successes in building a national partnership with the
water treatment community; in addressing water needs in conflict-rich
but water poor regions; in undertaking and coordinating fundamental
research taking place at multiple universities, private companies, and
national labs; in moving technologies from bench-scale to pilot-
testing; developing strategies and designs for the Tularosa
Desalination Facility; and, in leading three water technology road map
activities.
Sandia National Laboratories is well qualified to lead and engage
in water treatment areas to reclaim and improve access to previously
unusable and non-traditional water sources. By developing and piloting
technologies that increase the amount of available water for human uses
(e.g. inland desalination and produced water treatment) Sandia National
Laboratories can impact the supply of water. Sandia's record in the
road map arena demonstrates our ability to partner and to lead
activities with multiple organizations, including the coordination and
integration of research. Our leadership in developing water resource
management models to aid decision-making in water-short regions is also
an area where we have outstanding capabilities. Our ability to
effectively model complex systems qualifies us for the systems analysis
role called out in the legislation. This activity, coupled with sensor
development activities, will impact water quality issues. Sandia
National Laboratories has an outstanding track record for technology
transfer creating real-world applications. While we are still at a
relatively early stage, technology transfer and substantial industry
engagement is already under way. A major Cooperative Research and
Development Agreement (CRADA) for commercialization of microchemlab
technology for real-time water monitoring is about to start Phase II
activities. Desalination jump start activities and arsenic treatment
pilot testing both have substantial industry engagement focusing on
bringing new technologies in to application.
Question 3a. A large portion of S. 1860 is dedicated to technology
transfer and commercialization of technologies to ensure that the
technologies can be used in real-world applications.
Do you feel that this bill goes far enough to encourage the
commercialization, technology transfer and dissemination of
information?
Answer. The true measure of success for this activity will be the
technology transfer from the research institutions evidenced in the
deployment of new technology by the end-user community. The bill
addresses key issues which can be barriers to technology transfer.
First, the technology development is guided by an end-user identified,
needs-driven roadmap which is created with a partnership amongst
industry sectors, national labs and universities, and other federal
agencies. Secondly, the identification of a percentage of funds to
support technology transfer and deployment is crucial. In the
accounting of percentages within the bill, there is five percent of the
funding that is not directly allocated and these funds should be
applied to the technology transfer mission. Thirdly, the research from
the grants program must reach the end-users through a technology
transfer process. The identification of lead labs to provide the
connection with the technology transfer mission and our ability to
provide technical integration creates a stable technical maturation
process in this program. Finally, the guidance of the advisory panel,
which can enhance connection to influential market drivers, also
supports the technology transfer mission.
Question 3b. How do you plan to partner with communities to ensure
that technologies developed under S. 1860 address real needs?
Answer. Partnership with communities is essential to understanding
real needs. Our arsenic program has given our scientists and engineers
the ``on the ground'' understanding of the real world needs and
constraints. While individual contact with every community is not
possible in a national program, some amount of direct community
interaction is quite valuable. In order to extend the insights gained
from individual community engagement to a much larger number of
communities, we draw on our relationships with industrial organizations
that serve these communities, such as AwwaRF, WateReuse and the Rural
Water Users Association, to broaden our impact. By involving
organizations such as these in the roadmap development, the real needs
can be identified. This coupled with our working knowledge and
individual experiences will make Sandia National Laboratories effective
in developing the right technology.
Question 3c. How do you plan to coordinate your activities with
water resources research being undertaken by other agencies and
research undertaken by entities that receive grants under S. 1860?
Answer. Partnerships are foundational to the successful development
and deployment of technology in this area. Sandia believes this and it
is shown in our actions as seen in our previously stated response on
the description of the status of the congressionally funded water
projects. We have many partnerships within the water initiative
including work with government agencies, state agencies, national labs,
universities, and industry. For example, in our water treatment program
alone, Sandia National Laboratories is formally partnering with many
research foundations: the American Water Works Association Research
Foundation (AwwaRF), the WateReuse Foundation and National Water
Research Foundation, the Water Environment Research Foundation, and
WERC: A Consortium for Environmental Education and Technology
Development. In addition, we also partner with the Bureau of
Reclamation, the Office of Naval Research, and the Tank Automotive
Research, Development and Engineering Center (TARDEC). Further, we have
further formed partnerships and linkages with the California Energy
Commission, the California Department of Water Resources, and the Texas
Water Development Board. We are working with the Interstate Stream
Commission and the Office of the State Engineer in New Mexico. Our
industry alliances include the General Electric and Dow. Partnerships
with universities include Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
University of New Mexico, Arizona State University and, the University
of Illinois WaterCAMPWS, a consortium of 10 university partners. A
complete list can be found at our website www.sandia.gov/water. Working
closely with the grant recipients, we can enhance the impact of each
organization's effort in this area.
Question 4a. You state in you testimony that the program created by
S. 1860 must engage end-users early to define research priorities.
Do you feel that this can be accomplished by their participation in
the advisory panel created by the bill?
Answer. Yes, provided that the advisory panel has the right people,
has well defined processes for review of the program and effective
communication of the future needs of the program, and is well connected
to the lab research development and the grants portion of the program.
The diversity of opinion, the connectedness to the realities of water
and energy supply, including the constraints of the regulatory
environment, and the continued engagement that can be realized with an
active advisory panel warrants the creation and continuation of this
body. This advisory panel can provide a continued perspective on all
parts of the research to development to demonstration to application
cycle. These perspectives include keen insight to the future direction
of research and early engagement of the market makers, the key leaders
of industry that will be essential in the successful introduction of
high impact technology. While the initial road mapping activities will
provide a basis for the program execution through the identification of
research priorities, the advisory panel will be able to provide a
periodic and continuous feedback and guidance to the DOE to enhance the
probability of success of this effort. Participants in the roadmap
guiding executive councils will likely provide an important source for
advisory panel membership.
Question 4b. Should industry and end-users also be included in the
road mapping called for by S. 1860?
Answer. Yes, for two primary reasons. First, a road mapping
activity that includes industry and end-users has the potential for
completely identifying the true needs of the industry. Secondly, the
roadmap activity energizes and creates a new community, from research
institutions to end-user organizations, who are involved in the road
map development. This is particularly important in this diverse area of
the energy and water interdependency. Our experience with the first and
second desalination roadmaps has strongly demonstrated the value of
industry and end-used involvement. The identification of key research
areas and the broad community engagement in the process, including the
formation of key partnerships to address key areas, are some of the
major outcomes of these activities.
Questions From Senator Bingaman
Question 1. Obviously with the existence of a National Laboratory
Energy-Water Nexus team, the Labs have been looking at these water and
related energy issues for some time. Given that, how long will it take
to develop the technology roadmap called for in the bill, which is
intended to establish the framework for investing the resources
provided to the program, is anything currently underway in this area?
If so, does it include representatives from government, the academic
community, and industry?
Answer. Yes, there are currently two roadmap activities underway
addressing energy-water related issues and both have representatives
from government, academia and industry. The first is an updating of the
Desalination and Water Purification Technology Roadmap which we and the
Bureau of Reclamation first issued in 2003. That Road map was favorably
reviewed by the National Research Council in 2004. Sandia, AwwaRF, the
WateReuse Foundation, and the Bureau of Reclamation will issue the
updated Desalination Roadmap in May, 2006. The second roadmap effort is
focused on evaluating the issues surrounding future water availability
for energy production and electric power generation. Like the
Desalination Road map efforts, this roadmap effort includes industry,
university, and federal and state agencies in definition of needs and
technology direction needed. This second roadmap was initiated in
August 2005, with needs definition workshops in November, December and
January. This roadmap will be published September, 2006. Building on
these two roadmap efforts, a third roadmap to address energy-for-water
issues could be developed and completed in 12-18 months, as identified
in the current legislation. Including all stakeholders in problem
identification and recommendations of solutions has been shown to be a
valuable process and should be included and continued in future
efforts.
Question 2. S. 1016 focuses on the need to provide federal
assistance to address the high energy costs associated with
desalination. At the same time, GE's testimony indicates that over the
past 25 years, the cost of seawater desalination has dropped from $20/
1000 gallons to $4/1000 gallons.
Based on the current state of research and development, is there a
significant chance that we will be able to significantly reduce
desalination energy costs further in the next decade?
Answer. Yes. While the science and engineering associated with the
desalination of sea water have made significant advancement over the
past 25 years, the rate of decrease in cost has been approximately 4%
per year. At $4/1000 gallons, the cost of desalinated water is still
too expensive, prompting a need for incentives to cover energy costs.
When published in 2003, the Desalination and Water Purification
Technology Roadmap called for a goal of a 5 times reduction in the cost
of reclaimed waters before 2020. Reduction in energy costs and brine
disposal costs, particularly for inland desalination, are required to
bring the cost of water to competitive levels. The Desalination and
Water Purification Road map highlighted many advanced concept
improvements capable of revolutionizing the science and practice of
desalination. Following the road map principles, we are pursuing those
concepts with the combination of the highest likelihood of success and
highest impact. Examples of potential major breakthroughs in the long
term include the development of nanostructured membranes based on the
same principles used in the human body and the development of a lower
energy intensive, zero liquid discharge system which would greatly
enable inland desalination by reducing or eliminating the brine
disposal problem.
Question 3a. Please briefly explain some of the promising
technologies that are being developed for assisting communities with
arsenic removal.
Answer. During the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) review
of the new arsenic standard, the best available technologies included:
Ion Exchange, Activated Alumina, Reverse Osmosis, Modified Coagulation/
Filtration, Modified Lime Softening and, Electrodialysis Reversal. In
addition to these processes, the EPA identified other emerging
technologies, including conventional iron removal processes, manganese
greensand process, coagulation-assisted microfiltration, and iron-based
media adsorption.
Projected costs associated with these technologies were
prohibitively high, especially for small systems. Reduction of these
costs requires improvements in treatment processes including 1) fixed
bed adsorbent media with higher selectivity and greater capacity and
durability 2) batch systems with superior coagulation/flocculation or
membrane filtration efficiencies, or 3) electrochemical systems with
increased efficiencies and lower power requirements.
Question 3b. Will any of those technologies be deployable on a
commercial basis within the next 5 years?
Answer. Yes, but the issue is about cost and the appropriateness of
the treatment technology for each water system. New EPA regulations go
into effect on January 1, 2006, with a provision for approved delays in
implementation for cases where improved technology will be available at
a later date. This regulation provides the market driver and
commercially available technologies are available now to address this
market. However, the issue is not commercial availability. The issue is
cost. Sandia National Laboratories continues to develop technology-
specific improvements, primarily using fixed bed absorbent media,
targeting cost reduction in this area through the arsenic partnership
with WERC and AwwaRF and our rural outreach program.
Question 3c. Are the issues faced with affordable arsenic removal
systems similar to the issues being faced in the area of desalination?
For example, are energy costs and concentrate disposal prominent issues
in developing arsenic removal systems?
Answer. While the issues facing arsenic removal and desalination
are similar, there are striking differences in the relative importance
of the various factors. Energy consumption is a major factor in current
desalination technologies (ranging from 40% for seawater desalination
to 5 to 10% for the total cost for inland desalination). Energy
consumption is a smaller concern for current arsenic removal
technologies (ranging from 2 to 4% of the total cost for arsenic
adsorptive technologies). Disposal costs profiles are also very
different for arsenic and desalination technologies. Disposal costs for
desalination vary from 5 to 50% of the total depending on regulatory
barriers and accounts for 10 to 20% of the total for arsenic adsorptive
technologies. The key target research areas to reduce cost in treatment
of water involve reduction of energy use, reduction of disposal costs
and cost effective material development for the treatment methods.
______
Awwa Research Foundation,
Denver, CO, November 8, 2005.
Hon. Pete Domenici,
Chairman, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Domenici: Attached please find the responses of AwwaRF
to the questions submitted by you and Senator Bingaman in follow-up to
the public hearing held you held on October 20th with regard to S.
1860.
We believe that S. 1860 is a visionary legislation that will help
the water community, along with local, state and federal governments to
address the water supply challenges of the 21st century. New and energy
efficient water technologies that can be adopted for daily use at water
agencies and approved by state regulatory agencies hold the potential
for us to make use of previously unusable sources of water including
brackish groundwater and our oceans.
This will not be an easy task, either in identifying the most
promising new technologies or in making sure that they are actually
installed and made operational at the local level. S. 1860 is one of
the most exciting developments in the water supply community for many
years. Its potential impact ranks with the introduction of treated
drinking water in the early 20th century and other milestones that have
had such a positive impact on the life of our nation.
We believe that AwwaRF's experience in managing over a third of a
billion dollars in drinking water research and over 900 projects will
be a useful support in this process and we look forward to putting this
expertise at the service of the goals of your legislation. It our hope
that our answers to your questions will help to support the S. 1860
process and move it towards becoming law. Thank you again for the
introduction of this bill and for the opportunity to share our ideas
with you.
Sincerely,
Robert Renner, P.E.,
Executive Director.
[Enclosure.]
Awwa Research Foundation Responses to Questions From Senator Domenici
and Senator Bingaman
On October 20, 2005, the Awwa Research Foundation (AwwaRF) provided
testimony, through Dr. Pankaj Parekh, Los Angeles Department of Water
and Power, to the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
chaired by the Honorable Pete Domenici.
Following this testimony, Chairman Domenici provided additional
questions to Dr. Parekh to supplement AwwaRF's testimony regarding
Senate Bill 1860.
To better understand AwwaRF's response to the Chairman's questions,
it is essential to first be aware of the important and unique
capabilities of AwwaRF, which would ensure that the energy-water
objectives of S. 1860 are achieved. AwwaRF's long-term success in the
direct application and commercialization of promising technologies by
water utilities in a timely manner is particularly relevant.
AwwaRF has a 40-year history of conducting research for the water
supply community. AwwaRF has worked in partnership with all
stakeholders associated with drinking water, including water utilities,
consultants, academic researchers, manufacturers, national
laboratories, industry associations, and regulatory agencies. To
achieve the objectives of this bill, all of these stakeholders must be
involved. Because of the good working relationships AwwaRF has already
forged with each of these stakeholder groups, it is at the center of a
wide stakeholder network.
AwwaRF has communication mechanisms in place to reach decision
makers throughout the water supply community. We also work
cooperatively with trade and professional societies that help establish
the best practices and standards for the industry. AwwaRF is considered
a reliable source of credible scientific information by water
utilities, consultants, state regulatory agencies, EPA, and
international groups.
Through AwwaRF research, emerging technologies such as ozone,
membranes, and ultraviolet treatment were proven to be reliable and
affordable drinking water treatment processes. These technologies are
now widely accepted by utilities. AwwaRF not only supported the
groundbreaking research on these technologies, but also performed the
necessary research to prove efficacy and reliability so that water
utilities, regulators, consultants, and equipment manufacturers had the
confidence to implement them. AwwaRF's comprehensive research addressed
not only the technical aspects of these technologies, but also how they
work with existing processes, potential secondary impacts (waste
products, etc.), and other implementation barriers that are apparent
only by being intimately aware of the needs of the user community. The
rapid commercialization and deployment of membranes and ultraviolet
treatment processes was a direct result of AwwaRF's comprehensive
research and the unique relationship that AwwaRF has with the various
stakeholders and organizations.
AwwaRF's experience has determined that successful deployment and
commercialization of new technologies require three components: 1)
developing a viable, tested technology, 2) gaining acceptance by
stakeholders (users, consultants, and regulatory agencies), and 3)
rewards or other incentives for trying an innovative technology.
Deploying a new technology vs. using a ``tried and true'' proven
technology entails substantial risk. Therefore, all three components
are necessary to minimizing the risk. Working with a trusted
organization that has strong ties to the user community is essential.
AwwaRF's 40-year history of conducting scientifically credible research
in partnership with key stakeholders is essential for success of this
program.
While it is important to identify and fund research on promising
treatment technologies, it is equally important to address real-world
issues of implementation and operations so that developed technologies
will indeed operate as envisioned for end users. Such real-world
research validates the actual performance of technologies, their energy
requirements, operation and maintenance issues, and any unforeseen
problems. The ability to understand the user community's needs in all
aspects of the research--from concept identification through
commercialization--is required.
AwwaRF has established a much-emulated model for managing and
administering research projects. Stakeholders are involved from the
planning phase through to project completion. AwwaRF has a proven peer
review process that obtains stakeholder input throughout a project's
course. This allows for any corrections or adjustments to be made
during the course of the research, not after the research is complete.
AwwaRF has deployed an innovative approach for obtaining in-kind
contributions to research projects that ensures end-user involvement
while increasing the resources available to conduct the research.
AwwaRF would bring the critical component of active stakeholder
involvement to S. 1860 by identifying the needs of the user community,
funding and managing research that addresses the ``real-world'' issues
of the water supply community, and communicating the results of the
research findings to the water supply community and other key
stakeholders. AwwaRF would ensure a robust synergy between the national
laboratories and the end users of new energy-efficient, environmentally
sound technologies.
RESPONSES TO THE QUESTIONS ARE PROVIDED BELOW
Question 1. How will your experience partnering with water
suppliers be brought to bear in carrying out S. 1860?
Answer. AwwaRF has a long history of working with stakeholders in
addressing barriers that can prevent or delay new technologies from
reaching the market place. AwwaRF would provide a trusted link with the
research and water supply community. In addition, AwwaRF can attract
national experts and organizations that can bring expertise to bear
because of first-hand experience working with them.
An important factor in the successful application of new
technologies is the confidence of water suppliers that a new technology
will solve their specific problems. An example is cost-effective
compliance with meeting the new Maximum Contaminant Level for arsenic.
Confidence in a new technology is based on case studies that
demonstrate how the technology performs under the various stages of
real-world conditions: treating the actual source water, monitoring the
process, assessing the level of operation and maintenance needed to
ensure the technology is working, ``de-bugging'' equipment, determining
maximum and sustainable water production to meet water quality goals
and community needs, waste products and projected disposal cost, the
pilot and full-scale evaluations necessary to generate data needed,
etc. AwwaRF understands the need to develop this real-world knowledge
so that utilities, consultants, regulators, and manufactures will
accept new technologies. For the past two decades, AwwaRF has involved
these stakeholders in demonstration/field studies.
AwwaRF's proven expertise in partnering with the water supply
community on new technologies is a vital element in ensuring the
success of S. 1860.
Question 2. Based on your experience, does this bill go far enough
to encourage relationships with water suppliers?
Answer. AwwaRF does not believe that S. 1860, as introduced,
guarantees that the drinking water community's critical involvement
will occur in the desired manner. Without the early inclusion of the
major drinking water stakeholders, there is little chance that
technologies identified by the national laboratories will rapidly move
from the concept stage to commercialization. The national laboratories
acknowledge that they currently have limited experience working with
the water supply community and have approached AwwaRF in the past to
help them forge that link.
AwwaRF's multi-staged research program has resulted in
commercialization, wide-spread use, and world-wide acceptance of
technologies as evidenced by the rapid deployment of membrane and
ultraviolet technologies by the water supply community. For both these
technologies, AwwaRF developed a long-term research strategy with key
stakeholders to identify essential research before these technologies
could be implemented by water suppliers. Using ultraviolet (UV)
treatment as an example, the AwwaRF research strategy included: 1)
proof that UV was effective in killing protozoans (Cryptosporidium,
Giardia), 2) evaluation of UV lamps that were best suited for
disinfection, 3) evaluation of on-line UV sensors to ensure the
prescribed UV dose needed to achieve disinfection, 4) assessment of UV
reactor design, 5) operation and maintenance of UV systems, and 6)
development of a guidance manual to assist in the decision on use of UV
to meet utility water quality requirements and compliance with EPA. In
all stages of the research, the stakeholders (researchers, public
health agencies, water utilities, regulators, manufactures, and other
research organizations) were involved to help ensure that UV treatment
for drinking water would become a reality.
To best ensure that the objectives of S. 1860 are realized, AwwaRF
should be specifically identified as an integral partner in the
research effort with the national laboratories.
Question 3. Do you believe that a provision requiring outreach
should be contained in S. 1860 or can this be accomplished by the
advisory panel?
Answer. S. 1860 should include a provision requiring outreach in
all aspects of program development. As described above, effective
outreach is necessary for new technology to gain acceptance.
In this area, AwwaRF can greatly assist in meeting the objectives
of S. 1860. AwwaRF has a long track history of communicating with water
utility decision makers and other stakeholders and working in
partnership with industry trade and professional associations. AwwaRF
has proven mechanisms in place to obtain stakeholder feedback and has
developed outreach projects based on this feedback.
Question 4. S. 1806 is intended to result in the development of
economically viable products that are ultimately adopted by the water
community. S. 1860 has a significant focus on technology transfer and
commercialization of technologies.
Do you feel that S. 1860 goes far enough in this respect?
Answer. AwwaRF believes that additional attention should be given
to the issue of technology transfer and commercialization. As currently
introduced, S. 1860 describes the technology roadmap but not a
commercialization roadmap. The terms for commercialization are not
clear. Will the private sector or the national laboratories be
responsible?
The commercialization of economically viable products or
technologies is determined by a number of variables: 1) sufficient
pilot-and full-scale utility-based experience that a technology is
proven to justify commercialization, 2) a sufficient potential long-
term market (i.e., public water suppliers) that could and would
purchase a new treatment technology, 3) the technology is affordable
and can be used with confidence by the expected user community, and 4)
there are no unreasonable regulatory or other barriers in states where
this technology would be best suited. AwwaRF understands these
variables can significantly impact commercialization of technologies.
The publication of reports or holding workshops on promising
technologies is not adequate for the private sector to consider the
commercialization of a new technology. S. 1860 should earmark
appropriate resources to develop sufficient real-world knowledge on
promising technologies so that the private sector can adequately
determine economic feasibility.
Question 5. Based on your partnerships with communities, how would
you bridge the gap between research and commercialization of
technologies?
Answer. AwwaRF has been intimately involved in bridging the gap
between research and the implementation of research findings by the
water supply community. In 1994, AwwaRF launched an innovative research
applications program to ensure that research on promising technologies
will lead to adoption and commercialization of these technologies.
AwwaRF has also established the trust of key stakeholders in providing
credible, scientifically defensive, and practical research findings.
Other keys to closing the research/commercialization gap are as
follows:
1) Know the audience and make sure the research addresses
their needs. AwwaRF has analyzed the barriers to the
implementation of new technologies. AwwaRF also has in place
two-way communications mechanisms for gaining water community
input through all aspects of the research program, from idea
conceptualization to outreach.
2) Involve stakeholders in all aspects of the research
program. It is critical to identify key stakeholders and then
involve them in all aspects of the research program.
3). Use communication and outreach through multiple channels.
In today's internet age, it is essential to provide information
in user friendly formats. AwwaRF has developed ``user friendly
communications tools using with stakeholder feedback.
4) Work with trade groups, professional societies, and
regulatory agencies to establish standards and industry ``best
practices'' that promote the use of innovative technologies.
5) Work with different organizations through different phases
of development and implementation. For example, most pioneering
theoretical research is conducted in academia. Design and
operations research is often lead by consultants or water
utilities. AwwaRF's network of researchers covers all phases of
development.
To restate, the drinking water stakeholders, including water
suppliers, regulators, and consultants, need unequivocal proof and
confidence that a new technology will perform as expected. For this
reason, AwwaRF has historically funded pilot and full-scale projects on
emerging technologies to provide stakeholders with the assurance they
need to purchase, install, and operate new treatment technologies.
Question 6. Do you believe that more money appropriated to S. 1860
should be dedicated to competitive grants?
Answer. Yes. The evolution from research to commercialization
requires many different skill sets, and no single organization can have
the expertise on hand to address all aspects of the development cycle.
Competitive grants provide the opportunity to involve the best and
brightest experts and organizations. Also, because one of the most
expensive aspects of research is capital equipment, the competitive
process can bring in organizations that already have pre-existing
capital equipment, staff, and facilities to perform the research on
energy-efficient technologies. Competitive grants can optimize multiple
resources.
AwwaRF has a much-emulated project management and competitive
research program that complies with all government requirements. We
have been contracting out research for over 25 years with major
universities, consulting firms, and utilities.
Given the need for end users to field-validate promising energy-
efficient technologies to better ensure future commercialization,
AwwaRF believes that sufficient competitive grants are necessary. While
the national laboratories, in concert with AwwaRF, can identify and
manage projects on promising energy-efficient technologies, they may
not have the long-term expertise that AwwaRF has in managing real-world
demonstration projects that involve water supplies, consultants, state
regulators, and manufacturers. AwwaRF has track record of bringing
these stakeholders to develop, manage, and publish the results of both
pilot and full-scale technology evaluations. AwwaRF recommends that S.
1860 stipulate that appropriate funds--$4-5 million annually--be
allocated for competitive grants for the purpose of evaluating
promising technologies in the field.
More may be necessary if the technical panel agrees it is needed to
adequately evaluate promising technologies.
Question 7. In what areas should the federal government focus it
research?
Answer. S. 1860 established an Energy-Water Efficiency and Supply
Technical Advisory Panel to identify and recommend research priorities.
AwwaRF believes that this panel would be best qualified to determine
the research focus, with the following consideration.
The language of S. 1860 is not clear as to whether the AwwaRF is to
be specifically included on this panel. Given AwwaRF credentials as the
world's largest drinking water research organization and the
inclusiveness of the drinking water community (utilities, consultants,
researchers, health agencies, manufactures, water supply professionals)
in AwwaRF research programs, We believe that AwwaRF should be named as
a standing organization on this advisory panel.
Question 8. Do you believe that the scope of research authorized by
S. 1860 is broad enough or should it include additional research areas?
Answer. AwwaRF believes that the scope of research authorized by S.
1860 should be broad given that the advisory panel, with appropriate
representatives for the drinking water community, will provide the
research focus and direction. The recent hearing, however, made it
clear that S. 1860 should focus on new treatment technologies for ocean
and brackish water desalination and also on energy technologies that
will reduce the amount of power needed for treatment of these waters.
Question 9. Do you believe that the peer review required by the
bill is adequate?
Answer. AwwaRF believes that the technical panel should be charged
with ensuring that there is appropriate peer review of projects,
whether conducted by the national laboratories or organizations
receiving grants under this bill. The technical panel should have the
authority to seek outside experts to provide peer review during project
scope of work development, periodic review of project progress, and
technical review of final reports. AwwaRF has had great success with
building ongoing peer review processes that include both technical
expertise and stakeholders. AwwaRF strongly recommends that
stakeholders be included in the peer review process.
Question 10. In your testimony, you mentioned legal and regulatory
barriers to using new technologies in real-world applications. S. 1860
directs an advisory panel to identify these barriers.
Do you believe that this bill goes far enough in addressing this
issue? What additional steps would you suggest?
Answer. AwwaRF agrees that the panel should be charged with
identifying promising technologies and addressing barriers to
implementation. AwwaRF has investigated the barriers to new
technologies and could bring this expertise to the technical panel.
Since AwwaRF has been involved in the development of emerging water
treatment technologies and is fully aware of the difficult and lengthy
road to acceptance and commercialization of these technologies, AwwaRF
understands the many barriers that need to be overcome. In general,
barriers include: 1) cultural barriers--water suppliers and regulators
are cautious about new technologies, 2) lack of rewards for
innovation--there is little incentive for water suppliers, consultants,
or regulators to champion new technologies, 3) disconnect between
organizations involved in technology development--a justification why
AwwaRF is an integral component to the success of S. 1860, 4) market
barriers--minimum venture capital and low return on investment, 5)
regulatory barrier--states independently approve new technologies for
drinking water, and 6) information explosion--multiple new technologies
to address different and sometimes conflicting drinking water
regulations.
It is recommended that S. 1860 consider approaches for eliminating
some of these barriers, e.g., a national certification of new
technologies that will enable states to more quickly approve these new
technologies or possible economic incentives to the private sector for
commercialization of new technologies where the potential market is
unknown or uncertain.
Question 11. There are many utilities or local governments serving
low-income communities that are facing significant water supply
challenges in the future.
Does AwwaRF currently have a program in place to reach-out to these
communities to help the water suppliers serving them take advantage of
new and cost-effective technologies that are developed as a result of
AwwaRF's research?
Answer. AwwaRF's membership consists of approximately 900 water
utilities that serve approximately 80% of the U.S. population. AwwaRF
also works closely with other water industry associations such as the
American Water Works Association (and its local sections), National
Association of Water Companies, and Association of Metropolitan Water
Agencies to widely disseminate the results from its research efforts.
AwwaRF and its utility subscribers are keenly aware of the need to
provide safe, affordable, and reliable drinking water to all citizens.
The results of a large number of AwwaRF projects enable water utilities
to improve water quality, optimize operations, and provide better
customer service while maintaining affordable water rates. While AwwaRF
does not have a research program specifically related to low-income
communities, a report entitled Water Affordability Programs describes
affordability/rates programs offered in the U.S. as well as case
studies and criteria for establishing water rates.
In addition, many AwwaRF projects provide direct benefits to small
and rural communities. Examples include the suitability of affordable
membrane and ultraviolet technologies to treat drinking water for small
communities, regionalization strategies, and innovative water
distribution rehabilitation techniques. AwwaRF also provides copies of
reports to all state drinking water agencies so that all public water
systems can benefit from AwwaRF research.
______
Responses of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory to Questions From
Senator Domenici
Question 1a. Oak Ridge National Laboratory has been very successful
in producing products that have great commercial value.
Do you believe that you will have similar successes in the
commercialization of products with the authority provided by S. 1860?
Answer. If the proposed Water Technology Program is established, it
will bring new programmatic direction from the U.S. Department of
Energy (DOE) that will allow ORNL researchers to focus their efforts on
important energy-water topics. Given the emphasis on technology
transfer defined in the proposed Act, we would expect significant
success in commercial end-products. ORNL is the nation's most
successful multi-disciplinary science laboratory relative to partnering
with industry to achieve commercialization of new technology and
providing general technical assistance. Currently ORNL maintains 990
separate industrial partnerships where industry provides direct
support, industry support is leveraged with federal support, or ORNL
and an industry compete successfully together for sponsor support for
technology development work. ORNL is second only to General Electric in
the number of R&D 100 awards it has won--this ``Oscar of Invention''
recognizes both technical innovation and future value to the
marketplace. Commercialization of technology for public benefit is an
integral part of the corporate philosophy of Battelle, one of the
managing partners of ORNL. Our commitment to this philosophy will be
important to the success of this new Program.
Question 1b. Based on your experience, which would be the best
office within DOE to foster the application of new technologies for use
in real-world applications?
Answer. There are several DOE Offices that need to be involved in
the new Program, each of which has its own unique responsibilities and
capabilities. The relevant offices include Science, Energy Efficiency
and Renewable Energy, Fossil Energy, and Nuclear Energy. Because
multiple offices are involved, coordination across several Assistant
Secretaries will be essential to success. The current roadmapping
exercise will better define the scope of the program and should be used
to determine the appropriate lead DOE office for the program.
Question 1c. Which of the missions contained in S. 1860 do you
believe Oak Ridge National Laboratory is best qualified to undertake?
Answer. We assume the missions are those listed under Section (b)
Establishment. Although ORNL is well prepared for all of the missions,
we are best qualified for: 1) R&D to promote the sustainable use of
water for energy production activities, and 2) commercialization of
newly developed energy-water efficiency and supply technologies. Our
qualifications in the water-for-energy mission are based on our
existing programs in Basic Energy Sciences for DOE's Office of Science
and Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, as well as on related work
for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, and DOE's Fossil Energy and Nuclear Energy offices. ORNL is
DOE's largest energy R&D laboratory, and our staff has excellent
credentials in sustainable water research. ORNL is DOE's leading
laboratory for energy efficiency R&D, which is interrelated to water-
use efficiency. For example, in support of DOE's Industrial
Technologies Program, ORNL has developed Best Practices tools,
training, and information resources for energy efficiencies in
industrial pumping, steam, process heating, fan, and motor systems.
This expertise, combined with other water management experience at the
Laboratory, is directly applicable to technological improvements in
water-use efficiencies in many parts of the energy sector. In addition,
ORNL is one of DOE's leading laboratories for hydropower R&D, where we
are completing a state-of-science review on water-use efficiencies. In
three decades of work for DOE, FERC, and EPRI on hydropower and
thermoelectric cooling issues, ORNL staff have developed a unique
understanding of the multiple-use challenges of water resource
management in the U.S.
ORNL's qualifications for commercialization end-points stem from
our strong commitment, experience, and performance in technology
transfer, as well as our existing capabilities and experience in
program evaluation, performance measurement for government programs,
economic and policy analysis, and technology assessment. For example,
ORNL has long and continuing experience in assessing economic, social,
institutional, legal, and regulatory factors relating to the
introduction and adoption of a variety of technologies. Much of that
work has focused on energy-efficiency and supply technologies,
primarily for DOE's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
Moreover, that work currently involves analysis of the limits to the
penetration of a suite of energy-efficiency technologies that are, or
are anticipated to be, in the market over the next 100 years. In
addition, ORNL had developed and implemented models and metrics for
ascertaining the benefits of varied DOE energy efficiency programs and
initiatives. ORNL also has experience in a variety of natural resource
assessment topics that includes analysis of fuels and renewable
resources and tools to address related issues of public policy. Water
policy studies that would impact commercialization activities would
follow directly from this experience.
Question 1d. What research capabilities does Oak Ridge National
Laboratory have that are not available in the private sector?
Answer. ORNL has research and development capabilities for
inorganic membranes that exists nowhere else, advanced computational
science capabilities for applications ranging from modeling
nanostructures and microfluidics to regional forecasting of water and
energy supplies and demands, multidisciplinary staff that can be
directed to mission-critical activities that are long-term and high-
risk, and unique strengths in separations R&D, neutron science,
nanomaterials design, manufacturing and testing facilities, and
experience running large multidisciplinary programs.
Compared to the private sector, ORNL offers a number of unique
research facilities that would be very valuable in developing new water
technology R&D. Our advanced user facilities are the most obvious of
these, but not the only relevant ones. The official DOE-designated User
Facilities applicable here include the Buildings Technology Center; the
Center for Nanophase Materials Sciences; the Cooling, Heating and Power
Integration Laboratory; the High Temperature Materials Laboratory; the
Physical Properties Research Facility; the Power Electronics and
Electrical Machinery Research Laboratory; the Shared Research Equipment
Collaborative Research Center; the National Center for Computational
Sciences and its subsidiary parts, such as the Computational Center for
Industrial Innovation and the Material Research Institute; and the new
Spallation Neutron Source. We also have other, non-designated
facilities that are applicable to water technology research, such our
Seaflow Process Simulator, where we are studying gas hydrate formation
at depths up to 2000 m, processes which can used to separate salts from
freshwater. Each of these facilities contains the latest analytical and
testing equipment to support cutting edge research. ORNL's uniqueness
goes well beyond our physical facilities to the multi-disciplinary
staff that we have working on the most challenging problems. We have a
solid track record for successfully managing large, interdisciplinary
research programs, and we have scientists experienced in solving water
resource problems. Because our staff is relatively free from market-or
profit-driven pressures, we can provide long-term continuity needed for
success in high-risk research missions. ORNL's most important asset is
the combination of outstanding facilities and highly qualified research
staff.
Question 2a. S. 1860 emphasizes coordinating water resources
research among federal agencies.
How do you plan to coordinate your activities with water resources
research being undertaken by other agencies and research undertaken by
entities that receive grants under S. 1860?
Answer. The specific means of coordination would depend on DOE
direction and the organization of the new Program. However, we can
speculate on several possible mechanisms, based on proven approaches
from successful programs at ORNL. Different approaches would be needed
for coordination among agencies, especially above the working level,
and for coordination among other entities (e.g., academic institutions)
and active researchers. In the case of agencies, an Interagency Working
Group consisting of federal employees should be set up with DOE in the
lead, to develop and implement something like a five-year coordination
plan. The CENR Subcommittee on Water Availability and Quality (SWAQ)
already appears to be headed in this direction on the broader topic of
Grand Challenges in water information and research. Water technology
development should be one of the SWAQ Grand Challenges.
To coordinate among active researchers, including the other
entities to be funded, we recommend following successful models that we
have participated in or led. One example is the current Environmental
Remediation Sciences Division (ERSD) Field Research Center, supported
DOE's Office of Science at ORNL. The ERSD FRC conducts subsurface
science studies in the field or in the laboratory with field-collected
samples. The ERSD holds annual Principal Investigator workshops to
bring laboratory and academic researchers together with agency
personnel to discuss progress. We also form topical working groups that
meet semiannually to coordinate specific research. Another good example
of research coordination was the DOE Environmental Management's (EM)
Science and Technology Program that studied critical R&D needs for
clean up of DOE facilities and sites. The equivalent of ``roadmapping''
was accomplished with DOE, Labs, Industry, and university
participation. Various ``lead labs'' were selected for topical areas
(robotics, subsurface science, separations, characterization/
monitoring, etc.). Integrated demonstrations of new technologies were
implemented with teams of several Labs and universities. The methods
were tested and evaluated to determine the best practices. The safe and
effective removal of radioactive tanks and residual contaminants at
ORNL directly benefited from a robotic effort across several Labs,
universities, and industries. Basic science on chemical separations at
ORNL resulted in new methods implemented at the Savannah River Plant to
process high-level waste in storage tanks for ultimate disposal.
Question 2b. Please describe the nature of the memorandum of
understanding you recently entered into with the Corps of Engineers.
How has this agreement promoted ORNL's relationships with other
agencies?
Answer. The MOU is between ORNL and the two main Corps of Engineers
laboratories: the Engineering Research and Design Center (ERDC) in
Vicksburg, MS, and the Institute for Water Resources (IWR) at Fort
Belvoir, VA. The MOU covers mutual interests in water resources, energy
security, and environmental sustainability. It was signed on September
12, 2005, in Oak Ridge,. The first step in its implementation is to
develop a white paper that will describe research opportunities in
analysis, assessment, prediction and decision support, basic science,
and technology innovation, all relevant to the energy-water nexus. A
joint business plan will be completed over the next several months. We
expect that ORNL will add scientific value to the engineering and
environmental services that ERDC and IWR now provide and that ORNL's
role in successful joint projects will be evident to other agencies
associated with Corps activities. ORNL has already earned a strong
reputation for science-based problem-solving with the Corps and other
agencies, including NRC, FERC, EPA, and environmental NGO's. We hope to
bring this positive reputation to bear on future joint projects with
the Corps.
Question 3. In your testimony, you state that technology that would
be developed as a result of S. 1860 would ``have many important
benefits beyond providing for water and energy needs.''
What broader application would these technologies have?
Answer. Providing for the water and energy needs of citizens and
industry is a critical part of national economic security and Homeland
Security, including disaster response/recovery. One example of how new
technology could help improve national security comes from the recent
hurricane disasters on the Gulf Coast, where water and power were lost
in large areas. Portable, low-power water treatment packages that could
include new separations methods and new filtering materials from this
Program would improve the response to these types of disasters by
restoring critical services to disaster victims. On the international
front, new cost-effective solutions for clean water are likely to come
from this program, for example using inorganic membranes. New water
sources in resource stressed regions of the developing world can
improve public health, reduce political tensions, and ultimately help
stabilize governments. New energy-water technology could also help
Department of Defense facilities be more operationally secure and
sustainable, both inside the U.S. and in other countries. These
technologies would be applicable to military bases, reducing local
competition over scare water resources, reducing the environmental
footprint of bases, and ensuring dependable water resources.
Question 4a. Oak Ridge National Laboratory would contribute a
different regional perspective than the other lead laboratories.
How would you bring your past and present partnerships to bear in
solving regional water problems?
Answer. ORNL has well-established working relations with key
organizations in the Eastern U.S. that will be critical in developing
new water technologies. For example, in September of this year, ORNL
signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers' Laboratories for cooperative work on energy, water, and
environmental sustainability. An integral part of UT-Battelle's
management structure for ORNL is a set of Core Universities that
include Duke University, Florida State University, Georgia Tech, North
Carolina State, Vanderbilt, the University of Virginia, and Virginia
Tech, as well as the University of Tennessee and Oak Ridge Associated
Universities. This established university network will be an important
mechanism to bring the skills of academic institutions to bear on water
problems. We have already begun to identify key researchers at these
institutions and to involve them in the EWN Roadmapping to stimulate
their interest in water technology.
ORNL has collaborative water-related research activities with many
other entities, such as TVA, EPRI, USGS, NOAA, DOD and its Office of
Naval Research, FERC, and others. ORNL also has a proven track record
of cooperation with other DOE laboratories, as well as with the
university-based Water Resources Research Centers in Tennessee,
Georgia, and elsewhere in the southeast. We would take advantage of
these relations in implementing any new water technology program.
Question 4b. What do you offer that the other laboratories do not?
Answer. Some of the answers to this question were provided in our
response to Questions 1(c) and 1(d) above. ORNL is DOE's largest Office
of Science Laboratory and one of the two leading Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy labs (along with NREL). ORNL has a unique combination
of expertise in materials science and separations science that is well
aligned with the R&D needs for energy-water technology. ORNL is among
the world's largest materials science laboratories, and our inorganic
membrane technology does not exist anywhere else. Separations science
has long been an ORNL leadership area, and our separations technology
is being deployed on an industrial scale. With our private-sector
partners, we recently completed a strategic planning report on
``Materials Research for Separations Technologies: Energy and Emission
Reduction Opportunities'' that is very relevant to new water technology
development. ORNL also has considerable expertise and experience in
``closing the loop'' between technology deployment and its effective
use within social and institutional settings. We have been developing
decision support tools, providing continuing decision support training
and information, and meshing science and technology with users' needs
for many water-related projects, including work for the Army National
Guard, Department of Education, Department of Homeland Security,
Department of Energy, and the multi-agency Strategic Environmental
Research and Development Program. We are unique in having the full
range of water-relevant capabilities together with strong regional and
national partnerships to advance the Water Technology Program.
Responses of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory to Questions From
Senator Bingaman
Question 1a. Obviously with the existence of a National Laboratory
Energy-Water Nexus team, the Labs have been looking at these water and
related energy issues for some time.
Given that, how long will it take to develop the technology roadmap
called for in the bill, which is intended to establish the framework
for investing the resources provided to the program?
Answer. Work has already started on an Energy-Water Technology
Roadmap, coordinated by Sandia National Lab, by an independent
Executive Committee with representatives from industry, academia, and
other agencies (see: www.sandia.gov/energy-water/). The roadmapping
process will produce an initial roadmap by the end of September 2006.
We expect that this roadmap will define technical directions for new
R&D relevant to at least the ``water for energy'' part of the Energy-
Water Nexus. Vetting of these recommendations is expected by DOE
offices and perhaps the National Academies. A technology roadmap
suitable for guiding R&D investments of a new Water Technology Program
should be achievable by mid-2007. That plan should be re-examined
annually.
Question 1b. Is anything currently underway in this area? If so,
does it include representatives from government, the academic
community, and industry?
Answer. As stated above, roadmapping is underway. Representatives
from other state and federal government agencies, academia, and
industry have strong roles on the Executive Committee that will provide
guidance and oversight to the roadmapping process and as participants
in the regional Needs Assessment and Technology Innovation workshops
that are part of the process. The federal agency representatives on the
Executive Committee were chosen to provide continuity and coordination
with the multi-agency planning that is happening in parallel within the
Council on Environmental and Natural Resources' Subcommittee on Water
Availability and Quality. ORNL staff serve on the roadmapping Advisory
Panel of DOE national laboratory representatives, to provide planning
and review support on all aspects of the needs assessment and technical
innovation workshops.
Question 2. S. 1016 focuses on the need to provide federal
assistance to address the high energy costs associated with
desalination. At the same time, GE's testimony indicates that over the
past 25 years, the cost of seawater desalination has dropped from $20/
1000 gallons to $4/1000 gallons.
Based on the current state of research and development, is there a
significant chance that we will be able to significantly reduce
desalination energy costs further in the next decade?
Answer. There are significant opportunities to reduce desalination
energy costs. In addition to reduced dollar cost of desalination, the
benefits of new water technology R&D will also include reduced carbon
emissions and reduced energy use in the water treatment sector. ORNL
staff recently participated in a Task Force on Joint Water Reuse and
Desalination. The consensus of that meeting was consistent with the GE
testimony: current best practices in desalination yield costs of $4-5/
1000 gallons. Near-term incremental improvements with currently
available technology and no additional R&D investment will likely
reduce costs further to about $2.5-3/1000 gallons. Challenging, but
realistic, goals for future R&D are to reduce costs to $1/1000 gallons,
to reduce energy use to 5 kwh/1000 gallons of water, and to reduce
associated carbon emissions to 40% of current levels. It is noteworthy
that brackish waters could become potable resources with even less
energy input and lower cost, given new R&D investments. To achieve
these ambitious goals, we need to apply substantial intellectual
capital, including fundamental research and collaborative government-
industry demonstration and testing. Advances beyond current technology
are needed in: 1) control of biofouling and scaling, 2) treatment of
mixed-quality waters, 3) new membrane design and construction, 4) new
techniques for membrane regeneration, 5) reduced energy consumption and
O&M costs, and other areas. An integrated, long-term, coordinated R&D
program such as the new Water Technology Act is needed to meet these
challenging goals.
______
Responses of Edmund Archuleta to Questions From Senator Domenici
Question 1a. The two bills we are considering today take two
different approaches to meeting water supply challenges. It is my
understanding that the City of El Paso recently began construction of a
desalination facility which is expected to cost $87 million.
Do you believe the federal government should focus its investment
on subsidies or water technology research and development?
Answer. The El Paso Water Utilities (EPWU) believes that federal
investment in desalination should be in research and technology
development because that is the most beneficial way to bring down the
cost of ocean and inland desalination. It will also provide benefits to
other communities by allowing such stakeholders to rely on effective
research results.
Question 1b. Assuming that S. 1016 is passed before the El Paso
facility begins producing desalinated water, how much help would S.
1016 provide?
Answer. Obviously, any subsidies would help, but because the energy
costs of inland desalination are lower than ocean desalination, I do
not believe that S. 1016 would have a substantial impact on the EPWU/
Fort Bliss operation. The estimated capital plus operating costs of
approximately $500 per acre-foot ($1.53/1000 gallons) is affordable to
the consumer. Also, subsidies would send the wrong energy use signal.
Question 2a. S. 1860 provides that 40 percent of the funding made
available for the bill would be for competitive research and
demonstration grants while 30 percent of the funding would be made
available for national laboratory research.
Do you believe that this allocation of money is correct?
Answer. Although there is substantial and unique expertise in the
national laboratories, there is also a significant amount of existing
and focused experience and expertise that can be utilized in non-profit
water research foundations (e.g., the WateReuse Foundation and the Awwa
Research Foundation), universities, and in local water/wastewater
agencies. The WateReuse Association thus suggests that the allocation
for competitive research and demonstration grants be increased
slightly, perhaps to as much as 50%.
Question 2b. What technologies are the most promising to accomplish
the objectives of S. 1860?
Answer. The Joint Water Reuse & Desalination Task Force (JWR&DTF),
comprised of Sandia National Laboratories, the U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation, the WateReuse Foundation, and the Awwa Research
Foundation, recently convened three technical workshops on desalination
technologies. The workshops focused on both membrane technologies
(e.g., reverse osmosis) and alternative technologies (i.e., next
generation technologies.
According to numerous experts from both the public and private
sectors, membrane technologies will continue to be the most efficient,
effective, and affordable technologies for many years. Many
improvements can be made in the current generation of membranes to
improve efficiency. The Task Force agreed, however, that work should
begin now on identifying next generation ``alternative technologies.''
Dr. Tom Mayer of Sandia prepared an excellent state-of-the-science
paper on alternative technologies for use at the workshops. The Task
Force would be pleased to make a copy of this report available to the
Committee.
Question 2c. What has been your experience in your past
partnerships with the national laboratories?
Answer. EPWU, along with CHIWAWA partners (New Mexico State, Texas
A&M, UTEP and the City of Alomogordo) are currently developing three
research programs related to inland concentrate disposal: deep hole
injection, silica removal and salt tolerant plants. Initially, the
CHIWAWA partners had hoped to gain some research funding through Sandia
National Laboratories. Without an increase in Sandia's research account
for this specific purpose, this will not happen in this initial phase
of our collaboration.
As the past chair of the Awwa Research Foundation, I (Ed Archuleta)
have worked with Sandia National Laboratories on cost-effective methods
for arsenic treatment. This has been a great and positive partnership.
The WateReuse Foundation has partnered with Sandia National
Laboratories as members of the Joint Water Reuse & Desalination Task
Force (JWR&DTF) for about the past two years. The working relationship
with the scientists and engineers at Sandia has been extremely
positive. Members of the Foundation Board and staff also worked with
Sandia on the development of the Desalination and Water Purification
Technologies Roadmap. The working relationship with Sandia was
excellent; they listened to input and suggestions and reacted
positively.
Recently, Wade Miller, Executive Director of the WateReuse
Foundation, was invited to serve on the Executive Committee of the
Water-Energy Roadmap being developed by Sandia. The Foundation is
pleased to be a part of this important effort to develop a roadmap that
will define and characterize the energy-water nexus.
Question 2d. What research capabilities do the national
laboratories have that are not available elsewhere?
Answer. Perhaps the greatest asset of the national laboratories is
the collection of top scientists in fields ranging from geochemistry,
physics, engineering, microbiology and other physical and biological
sciences. These scientists possess in-depth expertise in basic and
applied research and the breadth and depth of their collective
capabilities is virtually unparalleled in the U.S. Examples of the
``cutting edge'' technologies in which the national laboratories have
good expertise include nanotechnology and the computational chemistry
needed for making designer materials. In aggregate, the national
laboratories are an extremely valuable asset to the nation, both in
terms of human capital and their ability to solve complex scientific
and engineering problems.
Question 3. You state in your testimony that you have partnered
with local entities to help them meet their water supplies. This
relationship is very important to the success of S. 1860.
How would you recommend ensuring that the research undertaken
pursuant to S. 1860 address real-world problems?
Answer. In the El Paso region, both El Paso and Alamogordo are
building large desalination plants (El Paso's is under construction and
Alamogordo's is under design), the biggest area that we want to cut
costs and find a better approach is in concentrate disposal. Finding
better, cheaper, perhaps more useful methods, will not only conserve
water, but also save energy and better protect our environment.
With the Tularosa Desalination Research Facility under construction
and with El Paso's TecH20 Center under design, we are the perfect model
to advance the science of concentrate management in an inland area.
Technical advances in this area would be of great value to cities in
this country and around the world.
With the technical capabilities of national labs and universities,
plus the practical needs of cities, we believe our consortium (CHIWAWA)
is a good model to begin this work where the need is the greatest and
the talent/human resources are there.
From the WateReuse Association and Foundation's perspective, S.
1860 should be modified to develop a mechanism to ensure that
technologies are transferred to the entities that will utilize them,
namely water agencies, wastewater agencies, and water management
districts. Involving these organizational entities in the research and
technology demonstrations envisioned in S. 1860 will help to promote
``ownership'' and acceptance by water/wastewater agencies. An emphasis
should be placed on public-private partnerships; involving large
stakeholders such as GE and Dow who have substantial expertise in
membranes and membrane technology systems will ensure that whatever is
developed will truly be ``cutting edge'' and applicable in local water/
wastewater systems.
Question 4a. Constructing desalination plants is out of reach for
many communities. The capital outlays required are too expensive for
many small communities.
What are the major costs associated with in-land desalination?
Answer. The two major costs associated with inland desalination are
concentrate disposal and energy. Capital costs account for
approximately 50% while operating costs account for the remaining 50%
of total costs. In southern California, total costs of a brackish
groundwater desalting facility range from $650 to $800 per acre-foot
(approximately $1.99-2.45/1000 gallons).
Question 4b. What breakthroughs in desalination technology would be
required to allow more communities to adopt the technology?
Answer. Desalination is currently more expensive than other
available sources of water. In terms of actual costs to produce and
deliver, it may amount to as much as $1/1000 gallons. One of the
initiatives of the Joint Water Reuse & Desalination Task Force
(JWR&DTF) is to develop and implement a long-term integrated
desalination research program that will ultimately result in
substantially lower costs for desalination. At the recent workshops in
San Diego, various desalination experts postulated that ``step
function'' decreases in the costs of desalination are possible.
Estimates of what can be achieved in cost reduction through research
ranged from 20% to as much as 50% decreases. The working hypothesis of
most water experts is that a significant decrease in desalination costs
would result in more widespread use by communities.
With respect to impediments related to the advancement of
desalination and reuse, one avenue of research involves the federal
definition of concentrates otherwise known as brine residue produced
through membrane dependent processes. These by-products must be
disposed of in an environmentally protective manner. However, federal
regulations have classified these waste products as industrial wastes.
This regulatory designation requires disposal options that are more
commonly applied to hazardous waste management and disposal. The
disposal options under this scenario represent some of the most costly
technologies to contain the disposed of wastes. The issue for
desalination and reuse water production is that a project sponsor must
design and manage a disposal facility where the costs of disposal far
exceed the environmental threats posed by the disposed waste or
concentrate. This situation raises the cost of producing alternative
water supplies because the costs of disposal must be imputed into the
produced water price. We recommend that any final legislation should
provide for an explicit statement that among the top priorities for
research and technology demonstrations (and subsequent
commercialization assistance) are efforts to develop processes and
technologies that would either minimize or neutralize the production of
concentrates. This kind of priority would hopefully lead to reduced
concentrate production. This advancement would then reduce the costs of
disposal and result in a reduction in the cost of alternative water
supplies. It should also be noted that such advances in this area would
enhance efforts to reduce arsenic removal costs because of the
production of salts in this activity.
Responses of Edmund Archuleta to Questions From Senator Bingaman
Question 1. Both the WateReuse and AwwaRF testimony seem to
indicate that the bill could do better job of integrating the private
sector or water user community into the RD&D program? S. 1860 tries to
do this through representation on the Advisory Panel, as well as
eligibility for the competitive grant program.
Are there additional areas where you think that changes need to be
made to address your respective concerns?
Answer. As noted in a response to a similar question by Senator
Domenici, WateReuse would recommend the involvement of water agencies,
wastewater agencies, and water management districts in the conduct of
the actual research and technology demonstrations. The WateReuse
Foundation, in its research program with the U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation, requires a 25% cost-share by the successful research team.
This requirement ensures participation by local water agencies since
consulting engineering firms and universities have difficulty in
providing this large a match. The cost-sharing requirement has the
benefit of promoting collaboration between and among water agencies,
the university community, consulting engineers, and even private
manufacturers.
WateReuse very strongly supports the concept of public-private
partnerships. In both of the coalitions in which our Foundation
participates (JWR&DTF and the Global Water Research Coalition), we
involve manufacturers such as GE and Dow Chemical to assure the public
sector entities that the research being advocated is indeed ``cutting
edge'' and will have a practical application. On the global front,
Veolia Water and Suez Environment (both of France) are active
participants and contributors to our Global Water Research Coalition.
Question 2a. Your testimony refers to a new desalination facility
in Tampa, FL that produces water at an estimated cost of $2.54/1000
gallons, and compares that to the wholesale cost of water in California
which is $1.50/1000 gallons. If the average household uses somewhere in
the neighborhood of 12,000 gallons per month, it appears that
desalination adds only about $12/month to the average household bill.
Is this correct (i.e. comparing apples to apples)? If it is
correct, the desalination rate appears to be fairly reasonable given
the long-term security of the supply--do you agree?
Answer. The comparison of $2.54/1000 gallons for desalinated Tampa
Bay Water to the Metropolitan Water District's (MWD) wholesale price of
$1.50/1000 gallons is really not a very good apples-to-apples
comparison since one is a wholesale price and the other is a cost of
production. What we were trying to illustrate in the testimony is that
desalination costs would have to decrease by approximately $1.00/1000
gallons in order to be competitive with MWD wholesale water.
The average household generally consists of an average of 2.8
people and each person uses 125 per day. Thus, the 12,000 gallons per
month per household number cited above is accurate. While $12/month
seems palatable when one considers that 16 ounces of bottled water
costs about $1.50, neither water utilities nor local politicians have
done a good job of convincing the public of the value of water. In
fact, water utilities deliver safe water of a very high quality on a
24/7 basis and the consuming public takes this valuable service for
granted. In pricing water, economists often talk about the economic
concepts of ``ability to pay'' and ``willingness to pay.'' Consumers
obviously have the ability to pay more for water, but do not have the
willingness until and unless the water industry is able to demonstrate
the value.
Question 2b. What type of monthly increase do you anticipate will
have to be borne by the local ratepayers in El Paso as a result of the
desalination facility you are bringing online?
Answer. El Paso Water Utilities increased water rates in 2004 to
pay the anticipated debt service on the bonds plus expected operating
costs. The average residential water bill increased by $4.01 from
$20.57 to $24.58, or 19.5%.
______
Responses of Jim Reynolds to Questions From Senator Domenici
Question 1a. As communities run out of readily accessible fresh
water, in many instances, desalination is the only option. S. 1016
would make payments to qualified entities for energy consumption
associated with desalinating water.
Would the Authority be able to afford the construction and
operation and maintenance costs of a desalination facility without the
subsidy that S. 1016 would provide?
Answer. The rate payers living in the Florida Keys will ultimately
be forced to shoulder the cost of desalinated water without the help of
the federal government, due to the fact that the islands have no other
means of providing water to meet their growing demands.
Question 1b. Would construction assistance be of greater assistance
than an operational subsidy?
Answer. While we are not opposed to construction assistance grants
from the federal government, we acknowledge the risk the taxpayers take
when providing up-front costs for infrastructure improvement projects.
S. 1016 provides assistance to facilities that have assumed the burden
of such costs, as well as met all permitting guidelines and are
actually producing water for public consumption.
Question 1c. If the Authority were to construct a facility in
reliance on the subsidy provided by S. 1016 and funds were not
available, would the authority be able to afford the operation and
maintenance of the facility?
Answer. Again, the unfortunate truth is that the citizens of the
Florida Keys will be forced to shoulder the cost of desalinated water
whether we like to our not. As a utility, we have no other alternative
due to the need to balance fresh water supplies in the fragile south
Florida ecosystem with our demands, and the geological location and
make up of the Florida Keys. That is, the islands of the Keys are
remains of a once vibrant coral reef. Because of its extremely porous
nature, the islands themselves are unable to retain fresh water.
Question 1d. What are the main costs of desalination?
Answer. The main difference in producing desalinated water opposed
to drawing from fresh water sources is the high cost of electricity
involved in the reverse osmosis process used to remove the saline and
other minerals from the water. These costs can run as high as 40% of
the overall cost of producing the water.
Question 1e. What breakthroughs in desalination technology would be
required to allow more communities to adopt desalination technology?
Answer. The research and development of more efficient membranes
and energy recovery systems have advanced the technology and lowered
the cost significantly over the last twenty years. The ability to
partner with corporations such as GE in the development, design and
construction of working plants today, will go a long way in advancing
the technology and lowering the cost of producing desalinated water in
the future.
Question 2a. S. 1860 provide grants for projects demonstrating new
technologies in real-world applications.
Would the development of cheaper desalination benefit the
Authority? If so, how?
Answer. As I mentioned before, the Authority is limited by the
amount of fresh water that is available for public consumption and
because of our need to adopt alternative water supplies to meet our
growing needs, advances in membrane technology and energy recovery
would provide the most cost effective returns to the overall cost of
producing desalinated water.
Question 2b. How would the Authority benefit from the grants
provided in S. 1860?
Answer. We do not believe that the Authority would be eligible to
receive the grants provided in S. 1860. The Authority is not an entity
``with expertise in conduct of energy-water efficiency and supply
technology research, development, and demonstration projects.''
Question 2c. What has been the greatest difficulty in operating the
Authority's two desalination plants?
Answer. The greatest difficulty in operating the plant is the cost
of maintenance and our ability to hire skilled tradesmen such as
mechanics and electricians to keep the plants operational in such a
corrosive environment.
Question 3a. In your testimony, you state that an operational
subsidy is favorable to a construction subsidy. This is different than
traditional federal support.
Why is an operational subsidy preferable in providing Federal
assistance for desalination?
Answer. While the availability of energy assistance grants will
encourage the development of desalination projects, these grants will
be performance based. In other words, the Federal government will bear
none of the risk of project permitting and construction as it does
under the construction grant approach. Only those projects that are
technically, environmentally and economically sound, and have actually
been constructed will be eligible to apply for the grants.
Responses of Jim Reynolds to Questions From Senator Bingaman
Question 1a. Is it your view that valuable desalination projects
will not be able to go forward in the near future if federal assistance
is not provided to help pay for Project operating costs?
Answer. We believe the grants in S. 1016 will provide communities
with the much needed financial assistance to compensate for the
exorbitant costs currently associated with producing desalinated water,
and in turn provide minimal rate increases to consumers while further
research and development is taking place.
Question 1b. How was the $0.62/14 kilowatt-hour payment figure
derived?
Answer. It takes approximately 14 kilowatt hours of electricity to
desalinate 1000 gallons of seawater. We would recommend that the
legislation be amended to correspond with H.R. 1071 to make the formula
$0.62 per 1000 gallons. This would translate to $200 per acre-foot.
Question 1c. What happens after 10 years? Will the desalination
plants developed pursuant to S. 1016 be able to operate without
significant cost increases to local water users at the end of the
incentive payment period?
Answer. The technological advances over the next decade in
conjunction with the invaluable opportunities that lie with studying
and refining actual production aspects of multiple working facilities
throughout the U.S. will ultimately lower the cost of producing
desalinated water.
______
Department of Energy,
Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs,
Washington, DC, February 16, 2005.
Hon. Pete V. Domenici,
Chairman, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: On October 20, 2005, Douglas L. Faulkner, Acting
Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, testified
regarding S. 1016, to direct the Secretary of Energy to make incentive
payments to the owners or operators of qualified desalination
facilities to partially offset the cost of electrical energy required
to operate the facilities, and for other purposes; and S. 1860, to
amend the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to improve energy production and
reduce energy demand through improved use of reclaimed waters, and for
other purposes.
Enclosed are the answers to 26 questions that were submitted by you
and Senator Bingaman to complete the hearing record.
If we can be of further assistance, please have your staff contact
our Congressional Hearing Coordinator, Lillian Owen, at (202) 586-2031.
Sincerely,
Jill L. Sigal,
Assistant Secretary.
[Enclosure.]
Questions From Senator Domenici
Question 1. You state in your testimony that S. 1860 places the
National Laboratories in the ``inappropriate roles for assessing
Federal funding and activities across agencies.
Why are these roles ``inappropriate'' in your view?
Answer. The National Laboratories are engaged most effectively as
centers of research excellence, integrating cross-cutting technologies,
and coordinating with universities and industry. It is the
responsibility of senior Administration officials to provide broader
oversight and to assess Federal funding and research across agencies.
With the exception of the National Energy Technology Lab, national lab
directors and staff are contractors, not Federal officials.
Question 2. You state in your testimony that S. 1860 places the
National Laboratories in the ``inappropriate roles for assessing
Federal funding and activities across agencies.
Do you not believe that the technical and research expertise
contained in our National Laboratories should be brought to bear in
assessing the research being performed in other Federal Agencies?
Answer. Although we recognize the breadth of the expertise offered
by our National Laboratories, it would nonetheless be inappropriate to
place the assessment of research at Federal Agencies under their
purview. Cross-Agency assessments are most effectively conducted under
the purview of such organizations as the OSTP and OMB. It is the
responsibility of senior Administration officials to provide broader
oversight and to assess Federal funding and research across agencies.
With the exception of the National Energy Technology Lab, national lab
directors and staff are contractors, not Federal officials.
Question 3. You state in your testimony that the Secretary of
Energy should have sole discretion in determining funding levels, roles
and responsibilities for the laboratories, universities and private
sector.
How can we ensure that the private sector would receive any role or
funding under the arrangement you suggest?
Answer. We would collaborate with industry, universities, and
laboratories in a manner that would give us the best opportunity to
achieve program goals. Utilizing competitive solicitations, we are best
able to identify those partners that are most able to make valuable
contributions. Cost-shared research and development partnerships with
the private sector are an essential part of this effort. By partnering
with the private sector, there is a greater chance that water
technologies--sufficiently developed in the research effort--will be
carried on to commercialization in the market. We have long
successfully pursued this strategy across a broad spectrum of
industries, carrying out the requirements of the Energy Policy Act of
1992, and we have used it for new national efforts such as the
President's Hydrogen Fuel Initiative.
Question 4. Much of the DOE water resources research has been done
within the Office of Science, which focuses on basic research. It is my
belief that we need to promote more applied research.
What other offices within the DOE should be brought to bear in
carrying out S. 1860?
Answer. The Secretary would make that determination should funds be
appropriated to carry out S. 1860.
Question 5. Much of the DOE water resources research has been done
within the Office of Science, which focuses on basic research. It is my
belief that we need to promote more applied research.
Do you believe that the Secretary should be given discretion to
determine which office within DOE should administer S. 1860 or should
this be legislated?
Answer. The Secretary should be given the discretion.
Question 6. Much of the DOE water resources research has been done
within the Office of Science, which focuses on basic research. It is my
belief that we need to promote more applied research.
How would you ensure that the research carried out under S. 1860
would meet a practical need?
Answer. The Department has a track record in developing
technologies that are effectively commercialized and meet practical
needs. The most important elements of achieving this are to involve the
key stakeholders in developing the technology roadmap for the R&D to be
undertaken; and establish partnerships between the national labs,
universities, and industry through open competition to develop the
technologies. Full participation by the private sector is particularly
important to enable effective commercialization.
Question 7. Many offices within the Department have talents and
missions that could contribute to the success of S. 1860, including the
commercialization of technologies developed under the authority
provided by S. 1860.
Do you think that S. 1860 goes far enough in promoting the
commercialization of technologies?
Answer. S. 1860 should allow greater flexibility and provide
authority to the Secretary to conduct competitive solicitations with
the private sector to develop technologies that can be commercialized.
Question 8. Many offices within the Department have talents and
missions that could contribute to the success of S. 1860, including the
commercialization of technologies developed under the authority
provided by S. 1860.
How would you attract industry in order to encourage the
commercialization of technologies developed under the authority
provided by S. 1860?
Answer. We would attract industry by well-developed competitive
solicitations based on needs and market opportunities identified by the
broad community of stakeholders.
Question 9. Many offices within the Department have talents and
missions that could contribute to the success of S. 1860, including the
commercialization of technologies developed under the authority
provided by S. 1860.
Do you believe that the laboratories should select a industry
partner in addition to a university partner?
Answer. The appropriate industry partner will depend on the
particular technology being developed, and even on the particular
component in many cases. The best way to select the most capable
performer in such cases is through competitive solicitations. If a
laboratory determines that it needs an industry partner to put forward
the best possible proposal, the lab should be given the flexibility to
do so.
Question 10. Many offices within the Department have talents and
missions that could contribute to the success of S. 1860, including the
commercialization of technologies developed under the authority
provided by S. 1860.
Do you believe that EERE's successful partnerships with industry
and academia could be applied to promote the commercialization of
technologies that would be produced under the authority provided by S.
1860?
Answer. EERE has developed a track record in developing successful
partnerships with industry and academia that is now widely recognized.
Similarly, FE, NE, and OE have demonstrated capabilities in forging
such successful partnerships. Because of the many different
technologies involved and the many industries that would be involved,
coordination of this work at the Secretarial level will be necessary.
Question 11. Many offices within the Department have talents and
missions that could contribute to the success of S. 1860, including the
commercialization of technologies developed under the authority
provided by S. 1860.
What activities is EERE currently undertaking that would fall under
the authority of S. 1860?
Answer. EERE has modest activities on using water more efficiently
in industry and in Federal and commercial buildings, and in using
renewable energy to desalinate or otherwise clean up and supply water.
Question 12. Many offices within the Department have talents and
missions that could contribute to the success of S. 1860, including the
commercialization of technologies developed under the authority
provided by S. 1860.
What other offices with the Department of Energy, if any, should be
added to carry out S. 1860?
Answer. The Secretary should be provided broad authority to ensure
appropriate coordination of this work across DOE offices as
appropriate.
Question 13. A 2004 report by the National Research Council stated
that the federal government will have to coordinate water resource
research in order to meet our water problems. There are activities
underway within the DOE and national laboratories that would fall under
the authority provided by S. 1960, including an energy-water roadmap
begun last month.
How will the Department coordinate the authority provided under
Section 979 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and the authority provided
by S. 1860?
Answer. The Department effectively coordinates work across multiple
offices on a routine basis. For example, the work of the Hydrogen
Program is coordinated across EERE, FE, NE, SC, and the Department of
Transportation. The coordination of work under Section 979 of EPACT
2005 and under S. 1860 should not pose any problems that the Department
does not regularly address, but to do this effectively requires that
the Secretary have the necessary flexibility to allocate resources
where they will be most productive.
Question 14. A 2004 report by the National Research Council stated
that the federal government will have to coordinate water resource
research in order to meet our water problems. There are activities
underway within the DOE and national laboratories that would fall under
the authority provided by S. 1960, including an energy-water roadmap
begun last month.
How will the energy-water roadmap that is currently being drafted
be coordinated with the roadmap called for by S. 1860?
Answer. DOE regularly develops a wide range of technology roadmaps
across its various Offices and Programs. This frequently requires that
new roadmaps build on, update, supplement, or fill gaps in existing
roadmaps. This is done quite effectively by simply ensuring that the
key managers are involved in the process and that all participants are
aware of the work that has already been done so that unnecessary
duplication is avoided.
Question 15. A 2004 report by the National Research Council stated
that the federal government will have to coordinate water resource
research in order to meet our water problems. There are activities
underway within the DOE and national laboratories that would fall under
the authority provided by S. 1960, including an energy-water roadmap
begun last month.
How do you believe inter-agency coordination can best be achieved?
Answer. The Administration began an extensive process of inter-
agency coordination last year, forming a Subcommittee on Water
Availability and Quality under the National Science and Technology
Council Committee on Environment and Natural Resources. About 20
Federal Departments and Agencies are involved in this effort. A first
report was put out in November 2004 and a second is in draft.
Question 16. A 2004 report by the National Research Council stated
that the federal government will have to coordinate water resource
research in order to meet our water problems. There are activities
underway within the DOE and national laboratories that would fall under
the authority provided by S. 1960, including an energy-water roadmap
begun last month.
Do you believe that the inter-agency coordination required by S.
1860 will help achieve federal coordination of water resources
research?
Answer. The Administration has already established an extensive
program of coordination for its water-related research that is quite
effective. Directing the appropriate agencies to collaborate through
legislation like S. 1860 may be helpful.
Question 17. S. 1860 establishes an advisory panel consisting of
industry, academia, non-governmental organizations and federal agencies
to advise the Secretary on activities carried out under S. 1860.
How do you plan to solicit the opinions and recommendations of the
advisory panel?
Answer. The Department has established many Federal Advisory
Committee Act panels consisting of experts and representatives of
industry, academia, non-governmental organizations, agencies, and
others. Such panels are commonly formed by identifying the leading
experts in the relevant field and the broad range of stakeholder
interests and organizations. Regular meetings are held with the key
managers overseeing relevant RD&D, following the terms and process of
the Federal Advisory Committee Act.
Question 18. S. 1860 establishes an advisory panel consisting of
industry, academia, non-governmental organizations and federal agencies
to advise the Secretary on activities carried out under S. 1860.
Do you believe that the National Academy of Sciences and advisory
panel peer review is adequate or should the bill require peer review
from additional organizations as well?
Answer. Yes, the authorized reviews would be adequate.
Question 19. S. 1016 names Lawrence Livermore, Oak Ridge, and
Sandia National laboratories as the lead laboratories to carry out the
program established by the bill.
Do you believe that we should leave open the possibility of adding
additional lead laboratories?
Answer. The contributions by any particular lab should be based on
the merit of their particular capabilities. The Secretary should have
the flexibility and authority to make this determination.
Question 20. S. 1016 names Lawrence Livermore, Oak Ridge, and
Sandia National Laboratories as the lead laboratories to carry out the
program established by the bill.
Do you believe that these laboratories are capable of undertaking
the activities called for by S. 1860?
Answer. By themselves, these three labs do not have sufficient
expertise to undertake the full range of activities identified in S.
1860 at the present. Other labs may have important capabilities to
offer. More importantly, universities and the private sector also have
very important capabilities and should be substantially involved
Question 21. S. 1016 creates a subsidy program within the DOE for
energy consumption associated with desalinating water.
Do you believe that this bill would advance water resources
technology research?
Answer. S. 1016 would subsidize energy consumption for desalinating
water and thus would reduce the private sector incentive and possibly
reduce the public sector resources to conduct the R&D needed for
improving desalination technologies.
Question 22. S. 1016 creates a subsidy program within the DOE for
energy consumption associated with desalinating water.
Do you believe that this bill promotes energy efficiency in the
desalination of water?
Answer. S. 1016 would subsidize energy consumption for desalinating
water and thus would reduce the private sector incentive to improve the
energy efficiency of desalination.
Questions From Senator Bingaman
Question 1. Your testimony is not clear on the fundamental question
of whether the Administration supports the creation of a comprehensive
research, development, and demonstration (RD&D) program related to
energy and water efficiency.
Notwithstanding your concerns with the current language of S. 1860,
is the concept one that the Administration can support? If so, will DOE
staff be available to help re-draft certain aspects of the bill to
address some of your concerns?
Answer. The Department recognizes that research, development, and
demonstration of energy-water-related technologies may be important. As
with any bill, the Department would be pleased to provide input on S.
1860 if requested.
Question 2. One of the concerns you expressed is that the bill
leaves the private sector out of the RD&D and commercialization aspects
of the program. As I read it, the water utility and products industry
is integrated into the program through representation on the Advisory
Group and eligibility for competitive grants. I also believe that
Section 988 of the recently-enacted Energy Policy Act applies as to
cost-share requirements, thereby ensuring that industry is a partner in
this program.
What is the basis for the concern expressed in the testimony and
what further suggestions do you have to better integrate the private
sector into the program? Do you agree that Section 988 of the Energy
Policy Act of 2005 would apply to the competitive grant program created
by S. 1860?
Answer. The Department is concerned that the allocation of funds
within S. 1860 is too restrictive. The Secretary should have the
flexibility to allocate these funds as appropriate for the particular
technology and research area, and to do so through competitive
solicitations, grants, or other financial instruments.
Yes, section 988 of the new EPAct would seem to apply.
Question 3. You mentioned that the White House Office of Science
and Technology was working on a comprehensive research plan to support
fresh water availability in the United States.
When is that plan due out?
S. 1860 is intended to develop a comprehensive research plan for
water technology RD&D. Don't you think that the bill will help further
the goals of the White House Office of Science & Technology?
Answer. A definitive time has not been set, but a draft should be
available in mid-2006. Work on water-related issues is a focus of the
White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) purview.
OSTP staff and the co-chairs and several other members of the NSTC
Subcommittee on Water Availability and Quality have also been invited,
and have joined the Executive Steering Committee for the current water-
for-energy technology roadmap work being conducted by Sandia National
Laboratory.
Question 4. The November 2004 report by the Office of Science &
Technology indicates that we need ``improved tools to predict the
future of our water resources to enable us to better plan for the more
efficient operation of our water infrastructure.'' Obviously global
climate change has the potential to result in significant change to
historical precipitation patterns, and thus water supply.
Do you know if aggressive research into the implications of climate
change on water supply will be integrated into the comprehensive
research plan you mentioned?
Answer. The implications of climate change on water supply is an
important issue that is being considered as part of the research plan
being developed by the Office of Science and Technology Policy/National
Science and Technology Council Subcommittee on Water Availability and
Quality.