[Senate Hearing 110-]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2009
----------
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES
[Clerk's note.--At the direction of the subcommittee
chairman, the following statements received by the subcommittee
are made part of the hearing record on the Fiscal Year 2009
Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act.]
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL
Department of the Army
Corps of Engineers--Civil
Prepared Statement of the National Corn Growers Association (NCGA)
The National Corn Growers Association (NCGA) appreciates the
opportunity to share with the subcommittee our Energy and Water
Development Appropriations priorities for fiscal year 2009. In general,
our appropriations priorities include an overall increase in U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers' funding to address the needs of our failing inland
waterways system; securing $50 million in the Fiscal Year 2009 Energy
and Water Development Appropriations bill for the Upper Mississippi
River System (UMRS)--Navigation Ecosystem Sustainability Program (NESP)
authorized by H.R. 1495, the Water Resources Development Act 2007,
title VIII, secs. 8001-8005; and continued support for the Department
of Energy's Biomass Technologies Program.
NCGA's mission is to create and increase opportunities for corn
growers. NCGA represents more than 33,000 members and 48 affiliated
State organizations and hundreds of thousands of growers who contribute
to State checkoff programs.
u.s. army corps of engineers
Our country's inland navigation system plays a critical role in our
Nation's economy, moving more than a billion tons of domestic commerce
valued at more than $300 billion. Each year, more than 1 billion
bushels of grain (over 60 percent of all grain exports) move to export
markets via the inland waterways system. Inland waterways relieve
congestion on our already over-crowded highways and railways that run
through cities. One jumbo barge has the same capacity as 58 trucks or
15 rail cars. A typical 15-barge tow on our Nation's rivers is
equivalent to 870 trucks.
Additionally, navigation offers transportation with unparalleled
environmental benefits. Barges operate at 10 percent of the cost of
trucks and 40 percent of the cost of trains, while releasing 20 times
less nitrous oxide, 9 times less carbon monoxide, 7 times less
hydrocarbons, and burning 10 times less high-price fuel.
Unfortunately, investment in the inland waterways system has not
kept pace with its needs and is deteriorating. In 2006, more than half
of the 240 operational Corps-funded lock chambers in the United
States--which handle over 625 million tons of freight each year--are
over 50 years old and have exceeded their economic design lives. Many
locks currently in use are too small for today's larger tows,
susceptible to closures and long delays for repairs and unable to
effectively deal with lines and wait times that result from their
obsolescence. In recent years, several high-profile closures have
raised reliability concerns among shippers, carriers, the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, and ultimately consumers who pay increased costs
for expensive transportation delays.
Funding (in constant dollars) for Operations and Maintenance (O&M)
on America's inland navigation system has remained flat for more than 2
decades. During this period, an increasing amount of routine
maintenance on waterways infrastructure has been deferred. This
deferred maintenance has become unfunded maintenance, and the aging
waterways infrastructure, combined with the growing O&M backlog, has
created today's average of 30 unscheduled lock shutdowns per year.
Tight O&M funding and the resultant ``fix-as-fail'' policy have led
to a self-defeating cycle where routine maintenance dollars are now
needed for emergency repairs. As critical maintenance needs grow, they
become candidates for major rehabilitation--a trend that is not good
for the waterways industry or for the Nation.
NCGA is appreciative of the successful efforts made by this
subcommittee in recent years to increase the budget for the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers. NCGA strongly supports continuing this trend with a
significant increase over last year's funding levels to address the
critically needed repairs and delayed construction schedules facing the
Corps. It's important to get our inland waterways infrastructure back
on track so we can meet the ever-increasing demands of the global
marketplace.
navigation ecosystem sustainability program (nesp)
The Upper Mississippi River System (UMRS) includes the Upper
Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway and tributary rivers, with 38
lock and dam sites stretching from Minneapolis, Minnesota, and Chicago,
Illinois, to just south of St. Louis, Missouri. The Upper Mississippi
has 29 locks and 858 miles of commercially navigable waterway, and the
Illinois Waterway has 8 locks and is navigable for 291 miles. Also part
of the UMRS is the Missouri River, which has no locks along its 735
navigable miles from Sioux City, Iowa, to St. Louis. There is one lock
along the 26 navigable miles of the Kaskaskia River in southern
Illinois.
In 1986, Congress declared the UMRS ``a nationally significant
ecosystem and a nationally significant commercial navigation system.''
The same waters that transport more than 60 percent of America's corn
and soybeans are home to 25 percent of North America's fish species and
are globally important as a flyway for 60 percent of North America's
bird species. However, both the river transportation system and the
river ecosystem are deteriorating. The locks that help tows to navigate
the river are antiquated--increasing cost, safety risks and lost market
opportunities. And from an ecological perspective, the floodplain is
degraded, islands eroded, backwaters filled in and the river's natural
flows disrupted.
With enactment of the Water Resources Development Act 2007,
Congress created a historic opportunity for the UMRS. Congress
recognized the economic and ecological importance of what truly is
America's River by giving the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers a new, dual-
purpose authority to integrate management of the river's habitats and
navigation system in an unprecedented way. Corn growers are asking
Congress to invest in the future of the UMRS by funding implementation
of this new program.
We request your support in securing $50 million in the Fiscal Year
2009 Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill for the Upper
Mississippi River System (UMRS)--Navigation Ecosystem Sustainability
Program (NESP). Now is the time to build on the promise of the new
authority for NESP by including funding for the program in the Corps'
fiscal year 2009 construction general account. Congress has authorized
NESP at $2.2 billion for navigation improvements; half of which is
funded by the Inland Waterway Trust Fund, and $1.72 billion for
ecosystem restoration, with an additional $10 million per year for
monitoring. This will permit the Corps to begin implementing specific
projects. NESP is a long-term vision, with the current authority
providing for the first increment of that vision.
Over approximately the next 15 years, NESP will improve navigation
efficiency by constructing new 1,200-foot locks at Locks & Dams 20, 21,
22, 24, and 25 on the Upper Mississippi River, and at LaGrange and
Peoria on the Illinois Waterway. The plan also includes small-scale
measures such as mooring facilities and switchboats and mitigation for
the environmental effects of the lock construction and increased river
traffic.
Concurrently, NESP will also work to restore and preserve more than
100,000 acres of habitat in a manner that is entirely compatible with
current navigation practices. Restoration projects will range in size
and complexity but will focus on restoring system-wide natural
processes vital to the river's health. Examples include mimicking
natural flow regimes by drawing down pools in the summer and restoring
floodplain habitat in cooperation with willing landowners. Because the
UMRS is a vast and ecologically complex system, NESP includes an
adaptive management strategy, in which sound science, learning and
monitoring guide the most efficient and effective allocation of
resources.
We appreciate this subcommittee's help in securing Pre-Construction
Engineering and Design in years passed prior to authorization in the
2007 Water Resources Development Act. Congress has provided for $13.5
million in fiscal year 2005, $10 million in fiscal year 2006, $10
million in fiscal year 2007 and $8.85 million in fiscal year 2008.
Capability levels for PED were identified as $24 million for each
fiscal year to achieve a 3-4 year pre-construction engineering and
design phase.
For continued success, U.S. farmers need efficient transportation
networks, which is why we have been long-time advocates for
improvements to our inland waterway system. Meeting future
international demand for corn, soybean, and other grains will be
impossible without a modernized river infrastructure.
You have an opportunity to impact economic growth in our Nation.
Your help in securing funds for NESP will allow the Nation to achieve
the benefits of river infrastructure and ecosystem improvements as soon
as possible.
biomass technologies program
The United States needs to displace imported petroleum with
domestically produced ethanol. Grain ethanol is the only economically
viable solution today to reduce our reliance on foreign sources of
energy. In order to achieve energy independence, the United States must
capitalize on an abundance of domestic resources. Using starch from
corn grain to produce ethanol is a proven, efficient way to reduce oil
imports. Ethanol reduces green house gases, continues to spur economic
development in rural communities, provides for a high-value co-product
and stabilizes farm income. In 2007, strong commodity prices reduced
Government spending by $6 billion. Over the next decade, corn grain
will continue to meet the growing demands from livestock feed, human
food, export sectors, and ethanol fuel.
The current Federal biomass technologies program is focused on
long-term cellulose research. Cellulose research will not have any
meaningful economic impact for a decade or more. A successful research
and development (R&D) portfolio always balances near-, mid- and long-
term goals, and biomass research should use a similar strategy.
In the near term, R&D investments in corn grain ethanol production
technology could have a strongly positive economic impact while
immediately decreasing dependence on imported oil. Examples of R&D
investment opportunities include improving production and utilization
of animal feed (DDGS), co-production of biobased chemicals, utilization
of corn kernel fiber, repowering ethanol facilities with biomass, water
utilization, and decreasing natural gas use in ethanol plants. A
sufficient supply of affordable ethanol will ensure the markets and
infrastructure will be poised for the larger impacts coming in the mid
to long-term.
NCGA recommends the subcommittee commit at least 25 percent of the
fiscal year 2009 allocation for the biomass technologies program
towards near-term research of corn grain. A strong corn ethanol
industry is the foundation for an expanding renewable fuels market.
Agricultural residues, cobs, and fiber will serve as the bridge
technologies to a second generation of renewable fuels.
Thank you for the support and assistance you have provided to corn
growers over the years.
______
Prepared Statement of the Riverside County Flood Control and Water
Conservation District
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PROJECT REQUEST
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MURRIETA CREEK FLOOD CONTROL PROJECT: Construction General. $13,000,000
HEACOCK AND CACTUS CHANNELS: Special Authorization under 28,400,000
WRDA......................................................
FUNDING FOR CERTIFICATION OF CORPS LEVEES: Inspection of 3,000,000
Completed Works...........................................
SAN JACINTO & UPPER SANTA MARGARITA RIVER WATERSHEDS 355,000
SPECIAL AREA MANAGEMENT PLAN (SAMP): General
Investigations............................................
SANTA ANA RIVER--MAINSTEM: Construction General............ 108,600,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
murrieta creek flood control, environmental restoration and recreation
project
Murrieta Creek continues to pose a severe flood threat to the
cities of Murrieta and Temecula. Overflow flooding from the undersized
creek with a tributary watershed area of over 220 square miles
continues to periodically wreak havoc on the communities. The winter
storms in 1993 cost nearly $20 million in damages to the public and
private sectors. Almost on a yearly basis, small to moderate storms
cause localized damages at numerous locations requiring ongoing
repairs. As the area continues to develop, the potential for damages
(direct and indirect) continues to increase.
In 1997 the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers initiated studies on the
Creek. The final outcome of this endeavor was Congressional
authorization in 2000 of the $90 million, multi faceted project known
as the Murrieta Creek Flood Control, Environmental Restoration and
Recreation Project. This project is being designed and will be
constructed in four distinct phases. Phases 1 and 2 include channel
improvements through the city of Temecula. Phase 3 involves the
construction of a 250-acre detention basin, including the establishment
of about 160 acres of new environmental habitat and over 50 acres of
recreational facilities. Phase 4 will include channel improvements
through the city of Murrieta. Equestrian, bicycle and hiking trails, as
well as a continuous vegetated habitat corridor for wildlife are
components of the entire 7.5 mile long project.
The Omnibus Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2003 provided $1
million for a new construction start for this critical public safety
project and construction activities commenced in the Fall of 2003 on
Phase 1. Appropriations for fiscal year 2004 and additional funds
allocated allowed the Corps to continue construction on Phase 1, which
was completed in December 2004. Phase 2 traverses Old Town Temecula,
one of the hardest hit areas during the flooding of 1993. The Corps
anticipates having a Phase 2 construction contract ready to award in
the Winter of 2008. The District, therefore, respectfully requests the
subcommittee's support of a $13 million appropriation in fiscal year
2009 to allow the Corps to complete the Design Documentation Report,
and initiate construction on Phase 2 of the long awaited Murrieta Creek
Flood Control, Environmental Restoration and Recreation Project.
heacock and cactus channels protection of march air reserve base
Heacock and Cactus Channels are undersized, earthen channels that
border the eastern and northern boundary of the March Air Reserve Base
(MARB) located adjacent to the city of Moreno Valley, Riverside County,
California. Substantial vegetation becomes established within both
channels and impedes the conveyance of tributary storm flows to the
existing ultimate outlet located downstream. Storm flows overtop Cactus
Channel and traverse MARB causing major disruption of the Base's
operation, including the fueling of airplanes and the transport of
troops and supplies. The record rainfall of 2004/2005 also caused
extensive erosion along Heacock Avenue jeopardizing existing utilities
within the road right of way and cutting off access to about 700
residences within the city of Moreno Valley.
Under section 205 of the Continuing Authorities Program (CAP), the
Corps received $100,000 in fiscal year 2005 and completed an Initial
Appraisal Report which determined the feasibility of proceeding with a
project to provide flood protection to this sensitive area. With the
$546,000 received in fiscal year 2006 the Corps completed a Project
Management Plan, executed a Feasibility Cost Sharing Agreement and is
nearing completion of the Feasibility Study. However, this study found
that MARB would receive approximately 75 percent of the benefits from
constructing this project making the use of section 205 funds
inappropriate. Therefore, the project will require Special Authorizing
Language to approve and an appropriation of $28.4 million to provide
flood protection to MARB.
The District requests support from the subcommittee for Special
Authorization approving the project and authorizing appropriations of
$28.4 million to complete the design and construct the project
providing this critical military installation flood protection.
certification of corps constructed levees
As part of the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Map
Modernization Program, the District, as well as all other agencies,
cities and counties in the Nation are being required to provide
certification of the reliability of all levee structures providing
flood protection to our citizens. Many of these projects were
constructed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and in these cases,
FEMA is requesting that the certification be provided by the Corps.
Certification involves an extensive amount of geotechnical analysis,
including field and lab material testing, slope stability and seepage
checks, hydrologic and hydraulic verification, and other costly and
time consuming activities, as well as the review of operation and
maintenance records. These projects have an established Federal
interest. Therefore, a National Policy needs to be established
addressing the need for these federally constructed projects to be
certified by the Corps and authorizing the Corps to perform the
required analysis. Furthermore, the Corps should also be authorized to
provide Federal assistance for design and construction costs associated
with any necessary rehabilitation, repair or reconstruction of projects
that are found not to meet the CFR 65.10 FEMA and/or Risk and
Uncertainty analysis criteria. Non-conforming levees put the public at
risk and should be a Federal priority. Within our District, there are
three Corps constructed levees requiring this Federal certification:
Santa Ana River Levees constructed in 1958, Chino Canyon Levee
constructed in 1972 and San Jacinto River Levee constructed in 1982.
The District requests support from the subcommittee for the
establishment of a National Policy addressing this issue and the
authorization and funding needed for the Corps to meet its obligations
to the numerous local sponsors of federally constructed levees
throughout the country. The Los Angeles District needs an appropriation
of $3.0 million for fiscal year 2009 under the Inspection of Completed
Works--CA Operations and Maintenance Appropriation 3123 to accomplish
the needed certification work.
san jacinto and upper santa margarita river watersheds special area
management plan
In 2001 the Corps began development of a Special Area Management
Plan (SAMP) for both the San Jacinto and Upper Santa Margarita
Watersheds to address regional conservation and develop plans that
protect the environment while allowing for compatible economic
development. The final product of the SAMP will be the establishment of
an abbreviated or expedited regulatory permitting process by the Corps
under section 404 of the Clean Water Act to assist Federal, State and
local agencies with their decisionmaking and permitting authority to
protect, restore and enhance aquatic resources, while accommodating
various types of development activities. This process will increase
regulatory efficiency and promote predictability to the regulated
public. The plan will also build on the protection of high value
resource areas, as envisioned in the MSHCP. The District requests
support from the subcommittee for a fiscal year 2009 appropriation of
$355,000 to complete the work on the Nation's largest SAMP for the San
Jacinto and Upper Santa Margarita Watersheds.
santa ana river--mainstem
The Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-662)
authorized the Santa Ana River-All River project that includes
improvements and various mitigation features as set forth in the Chief
of Engineers Report to the Secretary of the Army. The Boards of
Supervisors of Orange and San Bernardino Counties as well as the Board
for the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
continue to support this critical project as stated in past resolutions
to Congress.
For fiscal year 2009, an appropriation of $108.6 million, is
necessary to provide funding for Reach 9 of the Santa Ana River
immediately downstream of Prado Dam, continue the construction of Prado
Dam features and provide mitigation for the construction of Seven Oaks
Dam. The District respectfully requests that the subcommittee support
an overall $108.6 million appropriation of Federal funding for fiscal
year 2009 for the Santa Ana River Mainstem Project.
______
Prepared Statements of the Santa Clara Valley Water District
statement of support--coyote creek watershed study
Background.--Coyote Creek drains Santa Clara County's largest
watershed, an area of more than 320 square miles encompassing most of
the eastern foothills, the city of Milpitas, and portions of the cities
of San Jose and Morgan Hill. It flows northward from Anderson Reservoir
through more than 40 miles of rural and heavily urbanized areas and
empties into south San Francisco Bay.
Prior to construction of Coyote and Anderson Reservoirs, flooding
occurred in 1903, 1906, 1909, 1911, 1917, 1922, 1923, 1926, 1927, 1930
and 1931. Since 1950, the operation of the reservoirs has reduced the
magnitude of flooding, although flooding is still a threat and did
cause damages in 1982, 1983, 1986, 1995, and 1997. Significant areas of
older homes in downtown San Jose and some major transportation
corridors remain susceptible to extensive flooding. The federally-
supported lower Coyote Creek Project (San Francisco Bay to Montague
Expressway), which was completed in 1996, protected homes and
businesses from storms which generated record runoff in the northern
parts of San Jose and Milpitas.
The proposed Reconnaissance Study would evaluate the reaches
upstream of the completed Federal flood protection works on lower
Coyote Creek.
Objective of Study.--The objectives of the Reconnaissance Study are
to investigate flood damages within the Coyote Creek Watershed; to
identify potential alternatives for alleviating those damages which
also minimize impacts on fishery and wildlife resources, provide
opportunities for ecosystem restoration, provide for recreational
opportunities; and to determine whether there is a Federal interest to
proceed into the Feasibility Study Phase.
Study Authorization.--In May 2002, the House of Representatives
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure passed a resolution
directing the Corps to ``. . . review the report of the Chief of
Engineers on Coyote and Berryessa Creeks . . . and other pertinent
reports, to determine whether modifications of the recommendations
contained therein are advisable in the interest of flood damage
reduction, environmental restoration and protection, water conservation
and supply, recreation, and other allied purposes . . .''.
Fiscal Year 2006 Administration Budget Request and Funding.--The
Coyote Watershed Study was one of only three ``new start'' studies
proposed for funding nationwide in the administration fiscal year 2006
budget request. Congress did not include funding for the study in the
final fiscal year 2006 appropriations bill.
Fiscal Year 2008 Funding.--Congress did not appropriate any funding
to the project in fiscal year 2008.
Fiscal Year 2009 Funding Recommendation.--It is requested that the
congressional committee support an appropriation add-on of $100,000 to
initiate a multi-purpose Reconnaissance Study within the Coyote Creek
Watershed.
statement of support--upper penitencia creek flood protection project
Background.--The Upper Penitencia Creek Watershed is located in
northeast Santa Clara County, California, near the southern end of the
San Francisco Bay. In the last two decades, the creek has flooded in
1980, 1982, 1983, 1986, 1995, and 1998. The January 1995 flood damaged
a commercial nursery, a condominium complex, and a business park. The
February 1998 flood also damaged many homes, businesses, and surface
streets.
The proposed project on Upper Penitencia Creek, from the Coyote
Creek confluence to Dorel Drive, will protect portions of the cities of
San Jose and Milpitas. The floodplain is completely urbanized;
undeveloped land is limited to a few scattered agricultural parcels and
a corridor along Upper Penitencia Creek. Based on an August 2004 U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers' (Corps) Economics Analysis, over 5,000 homes
and businesses in the cities of San Jose and Milpitas are located in
the 1 percent or 100-year flood area. Flood damages were estimated at
$455 million. Benefit to cost ratios for the nine project alternatives
range from 2:1 to 3.1:1.
Study Synopsis.--Under authority of the Watershed Protection and
Flood Prevention Act (Public Law 83-566), the Natural Resources
Conservation Service (formerly the Soil Conservation Service) completed
an economic feasibility study (watershed plan) for constructing flood
damage reduction facilities on Upper Penitencia Creek. Following the
1990 U.S. Department of Agriculture Farm bill, the Natural Resources
Conservation Service watershed plan stalled due to the very high ratio
of potential urban development flood damage compared to agricultural
damage in the project area.
In January 1993, the Santa Clara Valley Water District (District)
requested the Corps proceed with a reconnaissance study in the 1994
fiscal year while the Natural Resources Conservation Service plan was
on hold. Funds were appropriated by Congress for fiscal year 1995 and
the Corps started the reconnaissance study in October 1994. The
reconnaissance report was completed in July 1995, with the
recommendation to proceed with the feasibility study phase. The
feasibility study, initiated in February 1998, is currently scheduled
for completion in 2009.
Advance Construction.--To accelerate project implementation, the
District submitted a section 104 application to the Corps for approval
to construct a portion of the project. The application was approved in
December 2000. The advance construction is for a 2,600-foot long
section of bypass channel between Coyote Creek and King Road. However,
due to funding constraints at the District and concerns raised by
regulatory agencies, the design was stopped and turned over to the
Corps to complete.
Fiscal Year 2008 Funding.--Congress appropriated $229,000 to the
project in fiscal year 2008.
Fiscal Year 2009 Funding Recommendation.--It is requested that the
congressional committee support an appropriation add-on of $171,000, in
addition to the $191,000 in the administration's fiscal year 2009
budget request, for a total of $362,000 for the Upper Penitencia Creek
Flood Protection Project to continue the Feasibility Study.
statement of support--san francisquito creek flood damage reduction and
ecosystem restoration project
Background.--The San Francisquito Creek watershed comprises 45
square miles and 70 miles of creek system. The creek mainstem flows
through five cities and two counties, from Searsville Lake, belonging
to Stanford University, to the San Francisco Bay at the boundary of
East Palo Alto and Palo Alto. Here it forms the boundary between Santa
Clara and San Mateo counties, California and separates the cities of
Palo Alto from East Palo Alto and Menlo Park. The upper watershed
tributaries are within the boundaries of Portola Valley and Woodside
townships. The creek flows through residential and commercial
properties, a biological preserve, and Stanford University campus. It
interfaces with regional and State transportation systems by flowing
under two freeways and the regional commuter rail system. San
Francisquito Creek is one of the last natural continuous riparian
corridors on the San Francisco Peninsula and home to one of the last
remaining viable steelhead trout runs. The riparian habitat and urban
setting offer unique opportunities for a multi objective flood
protection and ecosystem restoration project.
Flooding History.--The creeks mainstem has a flooding frequency of
approximately once in 11 years. It is estimated that over $155 million
in damages could occur in Santa Clara and San Mateo counties from a 1-
percent flood, affecting 4,850 home and businesses. Significant areas
of Palo Alto flooded in December 1955, inundating about 1,200 acres of
commercial and residential property and about 70 acres of agricultural
land. April 1958 storms caused a levee failure downstream of Highway
101, flooding Palo Alto Airport, the city landfill, and the golf course
up to 4 feet deep. Overflow in 1982 caused extensive damage to private
and public property. The flood of record occurred on February 3, 1998,
when overflow from numerous locations caused severe, record
consequences with more than $28 million in damages. More than 1,100
homes were flooded in Palo Alto, 500 people were evacuated in East Palo
Alto, and the major commute and transportation artery, Highway 101, was
closed.
Status.--Active citizenry are anxious to avoid a repeat of February
1998 flood. Numerous watershed based studies have been conducted by the
Corps, the Santa Clara Valley Water District, Stanford University, and
the San Mateo County Flood Control District. A grassroots, consensus-
based organization, called the San Francisquito Watershed Council, has
united stakeholders including local and State agencies, citizens, flood
victims, developers, and environmental activists for over 10 years. The
San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority was formed in 1999 to
coordinate creek activities with five member agencies and two associate
members. The Authority Board has agreed to be the local sponsor for a
Corps project and received congressional authorization for a Corps
reconnaissance study in May 2002. The Reconnaissance Study was
completed in March 2005 and the Feasibility Study was initiated in
November 2005.
Fiscal Year 2008 Funding.--Congress did not appropriate any funding
to the project in fiscal year 2008.
Fiscal Year 2009 Funding Recommendation.--It is requested the
congressional committee support an appropriation add-on of $700,000 to
continue the Feasibility Study.
statement of support--coyote/berryessa creek project, berryessa creek
project element
Background.--The Berryessa Creek Watershed is located in northeast
Santa Clara County, California, near the southern end of the San
Francisco Bay. A major tributary of Coyote Creek, Berryessa Creek
drains 22 square miles in the city of Milpitas and a portion of San
Jose.
On average, Berryessa Creek floods once every 4 years. The most
recent flood in 1998 resulted in significant damage to homes and
automobiles. The proposed project on Berryessa Creek, from Calaveras
Boulevard to upstream of Old Piedmont Road, will protect portions of
the cities of San Jose and Milpitas. The flood plain is largely
urbanized with a mix of residential and commercial development. Based
on the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) 2005 report, a 1-percent or
100-year flood could potentially result in damages exceeding $179
million. Benefit-to-cost ratios for the six project alternatives being
evaluated range from 2:1 to 7.3:1.
Study Synopsis.--In January 1981, the Santa Clara Valley Water
District (District) applied for Federal assistance for flood protection
projects under section 205 of the 1948 Flood Control Act. The Water
Resources Development Act of 1990 authorized construction on the
Berryessa Creek Flood Protection Project as part of a combined Coyote/
Berryessa Creek Project to protect portions of the cities of Milpitas
and San Jose.
The Coyote Creek element of the project was completed in 1996. The
Berryessa Creek Project element proposed in the Corps' 1987 feasibility
report consisted primarily of a trapezoidal concrete lining. This was
not acceptable to the local community. The Corps and the District are
currently preparing a General Reevaluation Report which involves
reformulating a project which is more acceptable to the local community
and more environmentally sensitive. Project features will include
setback levees and floodwalls to preserve sensitive areas (minimizing
the use of concrete), appropriate aquatic and riparian habitat
restoration and fish passage, and sediment control structures to limit
turbidity and protect water quality. The project will also accommodate
the city of Milpitas' adopted trail master plan. Estimated total costs
of the General Reevaluation Report work are $6.5 million, and should be
completed in 2009.
Fiscal Year 2008 Funding.--Congress appropriated $1.147 million to
the project in fiscal year 2008.
Fiscal Year 2009 Funding Recommendation.--Based on the continuing
threat of significant flood damage from Berryessa Creek and the need to
continue with the General Reevaluation Report, it is requested that the
congressional committee support an appropriation add-on of $650,000, in
addition to the $950,000 in the administration's fiscal year 2009
budget request, for a total of $1.6 million for the Berryessa Creek
Flood Protection Project element of the Coyote/Berryessa Creek Project.
statement of support--south san francisco bay shoreline study
Background.--Congressional passage of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1976, originally authorized the San Francisco Bay
Shoreline Study, and Santa Clara Valley Water District (District) was
one of the project sponsors. In 1990, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(Corps) concluded that levee failure potential was low because the
existing non-Federal, non-engineered levees, which were routinely
maintained by Leslie Salt Company (subsequently Cargill Salt) to
protect their industrial interests, had historically withstood
overtopping without failure. As a result, the project was suspended
until adequate economic benefits could be demonstrated.
Since the project's suspension in 1990, many changes have occurred
in the South Bay. The State and Federal acquisition of approximately
15,000 acres of South Bay salt ponds was completed in early March 2003.
The proposed restoration of these ponds to tidal marsh will
significantly alter the hydrologic regime and levee maintenance
activities, which were assumed to be constant in the Corps' 1990 study.
In addition to the proposed restoration project, considerable
development has occurred in the project area. Many major corporations
are now located within Silicon Valley's Golden Triangle, lying within
and adjacent to the tidal flood zone. Damages from a 1-percent high
tide are anticipated to far exceed the $34.5 million estimated in 1981,
disrupting business operations, infrastructure, and residences. Also,
historical land subsidence of up to 6 feet near Alviso, as well as the
structural uncertainty of existing salt pond levees, increases the
potential for tidal flooding in Santa Clara County.
In July 2002, Congress authorized a review of the Final 1992 Letter
Report for the San Francisco Bay Shoreline Study. The final fiscal year
2004 appropriation for the Corps included funding for a new start
Reconnaissance Study.
Project Synopsis.--At present, large areas of Santa Clara, Alameda
and San Mateo Counties would be impacted by flooding during a 1-percent
high tide. The proposed restoration of the South San Francisco Bay salt
ponds will result in the largest restored wetland on the west coast of
the United States, and also significantly alter the hydrologic regime
adjacent to South Bay urban areas. The success of the proposed
restoration is therefore dependent upon adequate tidal flood
protection, and so this project provides an opportunity for multi-
objective watershed planning in partnership with the California Coastal
Conservancy, the lead agency on the restoration project. Project
objectives include: restoration and enhancement of a diverse array of
habitats, especially several special status species; tidal flood
protection; and provision of wildlife-oriented public access. A Corps
Reconnaissance Study was completed in September 2004 and the
Feasibility Study was initiated in September 2005.
Fiscal Year 2008 Funding.--Congress appropriated $785,000 to the
project in fiscal year 2008.
Fiscal Year 2009 Funding Request.--It is requested that the
congressional committee support an appropriation add-on of $2.8 million
to continue the Feasibility Study to evaluate integrated flood
protection and environmental restoration.
statement of support--llagas creek project
Background.--The Llagas Creek Watershed is located in southern
Santa Clara County, California, serving the communities of Gilroy,
Morgan Hill and San Martin. Historically, Llagas Creek has flooded in
1937, 1955, 1958, 1962, 1963, 1969, 1982, 1986, 1996, 1997, 1998, 2002,
and 2008. The 1997, 1998, and 2002 floods damaged many homes,
businesses, and a recreational vehicle park located in areas of Morgan
Hill and San Martin. These are areas where flood protection is
proposed. Overall, the proposed project will protect the floodplain
from a 1 percent flood affecting more than 1,100 residential buildings,
500 commercial buildings, and 1,300 acres of agricultural land.
Project Synopsis.--Under authority of the Watershed Protection and
Flood Prevention Act (Public Law 566), the Natural Resources
Conservation Service completed an economic feasibility study in 1982
for constructing flood damage reduction facilities on Llagas Creek. The
Natural Resources Conservation Service completed construction of the
last segment of the channel for Lower Llagas Creek in 1994, providing
protection to the project area in Gilroy. The U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (Corps) is currently updating the 1982 environmental
assessment work and the engineering design for the project areas in
Morgan Hill and San Martin. The engineering design is being updated to
protect and improve creek water quality and to preserve and enhance the
creek's habitat, fish, and wildlife while satisfying current
environmental and regulatory requirement. Significant issues include
the presence of additional endangered species including red-legged frog
and steelhead, listing of the area as probable critical habitat for
steelhead, and more extensive riparian habitat than were considered in
1982.
Until 1996, the Llagas Creek Project was funded through the
traditional Public Law 566 Federal project funding agreement with the
Natural Resources Conservation Service paying for channel improvements
and the District paying local costs including utility relocation,
bridge construction, and right of way acquisition. Due to the steady
decrease in annual appropriations for the Public Law 566 construction
program since 1990, the Llagas Creek Project had not received adequate
funding to complete the Public Law 566 project. To remedy this
situation, the District worked with congressional representatives to
transfer the construction authority from the Department of Agriculture
to the Corps under the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (section
501). Since the transfer of responsibility to the Corps, the District
has been working with the Corps to complete the project. In November
2007, Congress passed the Water Resources Development Act of 2007
(Public Law 110-114, section 3022) revising the estimated total project
cost for the remaining reaches of the project to $105 million with a
Federal share of $65 million and a local share of $40 million. The bill
language also directs the Corps to complete the construction of the
project.
Fiscal Year 2008 Funding.--Congress did not appropriate any funding
to the project in fiscal year 2008.
Fiscal Year 2009 Funding Recommendation.--Based upon the high risk
of flood damage from Llagas Creek, it is requested that the
congressional committee support an appropriation add-on of $1.8 million
in fiscal year 2009 for planning, design, and environmental updates for
the Llagas Creek Project.
statement of support--guadalupe river project
Background.--The Guadalupe River is a major waterway flowing
through a highly developed area of San Jose, in Santa Clara County,
California. A major flood would damage homes and businesses in the
heart of Silicon Valley. Historically, the river has flooded downtown
San Jose and the community of Alviso. According to the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers (Corps) 2000 Final General Reevaluation & Environmental
Report for Proposed Project Modifications, estimated damages from a 1
percent flood in the urban center of San Jose are over $576 million.
The Guadalupe River overflowed in February 1986, January 1995, and
March 1995, damaging homes and businesses in the St. John and Pleasant
Street areas of downtown San Jose. In March 1995, heavy rains resulted
in breakouts along the river that flooded approximately 300 homes and
business.
Project Synopsis.--In 1971, the local community requested that the
Corps reactivate its earlier study. Since 1972, substantial technical
and financial assistance have been provided by the local community
through the Santa Clara Valley Water District in an effort to
accelerate the project's completion. To date, more than $85.8 million
in local funds have been spent on planning, design, land purchases, and
construction in the Corps' project reach.
The Guadalupe River Project received authorization for construction
under the Water Resources Development Act of 1986; the General Design
Memorandum was completed in 1992, the local cooperative agreement was
executed in March 1992, the General Design Memorandum was revised in
1993, construction of the first phase of the project was completed in
August 1994, construction of the second phase was completed in August
1996. Project construction was temporarily halted due to environmental
concerns.
To achieve a successful, long-term resolution to the issues of
flood protection, environmental mitigation, avoidance of environmental
effects, and project monitoring and maintenance costs, a multi-agency
``Guadalupe Flood Control Project Collaborative'' was created in 1997.
A key outcome of the collaborative process was the signing of the
Dispute Resolution Memorandum in 1998, which modified the project to
resolve major mitigation issues and allowed the project to proceed. The
Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act of 2002 was signed into
law on November 12, 2001. This authorized the modified Guadalupe River
Project at a total cost of $226.8 million. Subsequent to the
authorization, the project cost has been raised to $251 million.
Construction of the last phase of flood protection was completed
December 2004 and a completion celebration held in January 2005. The
remaining construction consists of railroad bridge replacements and
mitigation plantings. The overall construction of the project including
the river park and the recreation elements is scheduled for completion
in 2008.
Fiscal Year 2008 Funding.--Congress appropriated $1.783 million for
the project in fiscal year 2008.
Fiscal Year 2009 Funding Recommendation.--It is requested that the
congressional committee support an appropriation add-on of $10 million
to continue construction of the final phase of the Guadalupe River
Flood Protection Project.
statement of support--upper guadalupe river project
Background.--The Guadalupe River is one of two major waterways
flowing through a highly urbanized area of Santa Clara County,
California, the heart of Silicon Valley. Historically, the river has
flooded the central district and southern areas of San Jose. According
to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) 1998 feasibility study,
severe flooding would result from a 100-year flooding event and
potentially cause $280 million in damages.
The probability of a large flood occurring before implementation of
flood prevention measures is high. The upper Guadalupe River overflowed
in March 1982, January 1983, February 1986, January 1995, March 1995,
and February 1998, causing damage to several residences and businesses
in the Alma Avenue and Willow Street areas. The 1995 floods in January
and March, as well as in February 1998, closed Highway 87 and the
parallel light-rail line, a major commute artery.
Project Synopsis.--In 1971, the Santa Clara Valley Water District
(District) requested the Corps reactivate an earlier study of the
Guadalupe River. From 1971 to 1980, the Corps established the economic
feasibility and Federal interest in the Guadalupe River only between
Interstate 880 and Interstate 280. Following the 1982 and 1983 floods,
the District requested that the Corps reopen its study of the upper
Guadalupe River upstream of Interstate 280. The Corps completed a
reconnaissance study in November 1989, which established an
economically justifiable solution for flood protection in this reach.
The report recommended proceeding to the feasibility study phase, which
began in 1990 and was completed in 1998. Preconstruction Engineering
and Design commenced in 1999 and currently several reaches are ready
for construction.
The Upper Guadalupe River Flood Protection Project was first
authorized for Federal construction in the Water Resources Development
Act of 1999 (section 101). This authorization was for a project cost of
$140 million with an unfavorable cost-sharing formula. In November
2007, Congress passed the Water Resources Development Act of 2007
(Public Law 110-114, section 3037) for an estimated revised project
cost of $256 million with a Federal share of $136.7 million and local
share of $119.3 million.
The project cooperation agreement was signed on July 21, 2007, and
construction is planned to commence in July 2008.
Fiscal Year 2008 Funding.--Congress appropriated $439,000 to the
project in the fiscal year 2008.
Fiscal Year 2009 Funding Recommendation.--It is requested that the
congressional committee support an appropriation add-on of $12.5
million in fiscal year 2009 to continue construction on the Upper
Guadalupe River Flood Protection Project.
______
Prepared Statement of the City of Los Angeles Board of Harbor
Commissioners
Chairman Dorgan and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to submit testimony in support of full funding of the
Channel Deepening Project at the Port of Los Angeles/Los Angeles
Harbor, the largest and busiest container seaport in the United States
and tenth largest in the world. Our testimony speaks in support of an
fiscal year 2009 appropriation of $1.33 million for the final Federal
share that will complete construction of the Channel Deepening Project.
Proposed funding for the Channel Deepening Project was not included in
the President's fiscal year 2009 budget. Construction of our Federal
deep-draft navigation channels and ship berths is approximately 85
percent complete. Your full appropriation of the requested $1.33
million will enable the Army Corps of Engineers to finish construction
of the remainder of the Project; the Corps has stated that it has the
capability to fully obligate and spend this amount in fiscal year 2009.
Dredging for the project began in early 2003 with construction
originally scheduled for completion in 2006.
The Port of Los Angeles is America's busiest seaport with record
volumes of cargo moving through the 7,500-acre harbor. Its strong
performance is attributed to a solid U.S. economy and the recovering
Asian economies with a renewed manufacturing demand for American
exports. The Port itself is a major reason for the remarkable cargo
volumes. Its world-class facilities and infrastructure maximize the
``one-stop shopping'' concept of cargo transportation and delivery
favored by most shipping lines. Ocean carriers can send the majority of
their west coast-bound cargo to Los Angeles with full confidence in the
Port's modern cargo terminals and efficient train/truck intermodal
network. The Channel Deepening Project is a critical Federal navigation
improvement project, and is the underpinning of the ongoing confidence
that shipping lines have in the Port of Los Angeles.
In the fiscal year 2006 Energy and Water Development Appropriations
Act, Congress authorized an increase in the total project cost to $222
million from $194 million, representing a Federal share of $60.7
million and a local share of $161.3 million in accordance with the Army
Corps of Engineers' revision. This revision accounts for credits for
in-kind services provided by the Port and other required project
modifications, including adjustments for construction contract changes,
adjustments to the disposal costs for the dredged material, and project
administration costs. The cost-share amounts for the Channel Deepening
Project is currently under review, as well as a Supplemental EIS/EIR
that will evaluate and determine the best alternative for increased
disposal capacity. Under consideration for placement of the remaining
dredge material are the formation of additional lands for future Port
development and environmental enhancements through the creation of
improved submerged marine habitats. Upon completion of both reviews,
the new cost-sharing amounts and the additional costs for disposal at
the recommended site(s) will be established. The need for a
Supplemental EIS/EIR has moved project completion to fiscal year 2009.
port navigation demands
The evolving international shipping industry prompted a
collaborative effort by the Port of Los Angeles and the Corps of
Engineers to implement the Channel Deepening Project in the early
1980s. With this project, the Port will deepen its main Federal channel
and tributary channels by 8 feet, from -45 to -53 feet Mean Lower Low
Water (MLLW), to accommodate the industry's shift to larger container
vessels. The first of these deeper-draft ships began calling at the
Port of Los Angeles in August of 2004, carrying 8,000 20-foot
equivalent units of containers (TEUs) and drafting at -50 feet.
Carriers are continuing to order these larger, post-Panamax vessels
that range in size from 7,500 TEUs to 10,000 TEUs. These vessels are
now in service in the international shipping trade and will continue to
be delivered to shipping lines at a steady pace for the foreseeable
future, which means that ports unable to accommodate the bigger ships
will be left out of the surge in trade if they are unable to
accommodate these vessels.
As we have testified before, cargo throughput for the San Pedro Bay
port complex, comprising the Ports of Los Angels and Long Beach--and
the Port of Los Angeles in particular--has a tremendous impact on the
U.S. economy. We at the Port of Los Angeles cannot overemphasize this
fact. The ability of the Port to meet the spiraling demands of the
steady growth in international trade is dependent upon the speedy
construction of sufficiently deep navigation channels to accommodate
the new containerships. These new ships provide greater efficiencies in
cargo transportation, carrying one-third more cargo than most of the
current fleet, and making more product inventory of imported goods
available to American consumers at lower prices. In addition, exports
from the United States have become more competitive in foreign markets.
However, for American seaports to keep up, they must immediately make
the necessary infrastructure improvements that will enable them to
participate in this rapidly changing global trading arena.
Mr. Chairman, as we have said before, these state-of-the-art
container ships represent the new competitive requirements for
international container shipping efficiencies in the 21st century, as
evidenced by the increased volume of international commerce. As such,
we ask your subcommittee to fully appropriate the $1.33 million for
fiscal year 2009 that will enable the Army Corps of Engineers to
complete construction of the Channel Deepening Project in fiscal year
2009.
economic benefits
The Port of Los Angeles is one of the world's largest trade
gateways, and the scope of its economic contributions to the Southern
California regional economy--and to the U.S. economy--is critically
important. Currently, nearly 45 percent of containerized cargo entering
the United States is handled at the San Pedro Bay port complex with the
Port of Los Angeles, alone, handling a record 8.5 million TEUs just
last year. This represents significant continued growth for any
American seaport. The national economics of trade through the Port of
Los Angeles is significant, touching every Congressional district in
the country. Some 190 million metric revenue tons of cargo, valued at
more than $238 billion, were handled at the Port in 2007, with $223
billion in trade benefiting the national economy based on the $5.1
billion it generated in State and local tax revenues.
Locally, the Port is connected, directly or indirectly, with tens
of billions of dollars in industry sales each year in Southern
California. Those sales translate into hundreds of thousands of local
jobs representing billions in wages, salaries, and tax revenues.
Regional benefits from Port of Los Angeles trade include:
--1.1 million jobs in California;
--3.3 million permanent, well-paying jobs in the United States;
--$89.2 billion in California trade value;
--$223 billion in U.S. trade value;
--$5.1 billion in State tax revenue; and
--$21.5 billion in Federal tax revenue.
This economic impact is a direct result of international waterborne
trade flowing through the Port of Los Angeles. Clearly, the Channel
Deepening Project is a commercial, Federal navigation project of
tremendous national economic significance, and one that will yield
exponential economic and environmental returns to the United States
annually. Furthermore, the U.S. Customs Service reports that more than
$12 million a day in customs duties are taken from the Port. The Los
Angeles Customs District leads the Nation in total duties collected for
maritime activities, collecting more than $6 billion in 2005 alone. The
return on the Federal investment at the Port of Los Angeles is real and
quantifiable, and we expect it to continue to surpass the cost-benefit
ratio--as determined by the Army Corps of Engineers' project
Feasibility Study--many times over.
In closing, Federal investment in the Channel Deepening Project
will ensure that the Port of Los Angeles, the Nation's busiest
container seaport, remains at the forefront of the new international
trade network well into this century. The Channel Deepening Project
marks the second phase of the 2020 Infrastructure Development Plan that
began with the Pier 400 Deep-Draft Navigation and Landfill Project. The
Port of Los Angeles is moving forward with the 2020 Plan designed to
meet the extraordinary infrastructure demands placed on it in the face
of the continued high volume of international trade.
Chairman Dorgan, the Port of Los Angeles respectfully urges your
subcommittee to appropriate the full $1.33 million request for fiscal
year 2009 that will enable the Army Corps of Engineers to complete
construction of the Channel Deepening Project in fiscal year 2009.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to submit this
testimony for continued Congressional support of the Channel Deepening
Project at the Port of Los Angeles. The Port has long valued the
support of your subcommittee and its appreciation of the role the Port
of Los Angeles plays in this country's economic strength and vitality.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
______
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Reclamation
Prepared Statement of the Garrison Diversion Conservancy District
Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, my name is Dave Koland;
I serve as the general manager of the Garrison Diversion Conservancy
District. This is a request for a $102 million appropriation for the
Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program/Garrison Diversion Unit, Bureau of
Reclamation, Water and Related Resources, Department of the Interior.
The mission of Garrison Diversion is to provide a reliable, high
quality and affordable water supply to the areas of need in North
Dakota. Over 77 percent of our State residents live within the
boundaries of the district.
The President's fiscal year 2009 budget request was pitifully
inadequate in meeting the commitments the Federal Government has made
to North Dakota. In return for accepting a permanent flood on 500,000
acres of prime North Dakota river valley, the Federal Government
promised the State and tribes that they would be compensated as the
dams were built. The dams were completed over 50 years ago and still we
wait for the promised compensation. At the rate of payment the
President's budget proposes, the Federal Government will not even stay
current with the indexing applied by law on their commitment to North
Dakota.
The Municipal Rural & Industrial (MR&I) program was started in 1986
after the Garrison Diversion Unit (GDU) was reformulated from a
million-acre irrigation project into a multipurpose project with
emphasis on the development and delivery of municipal and rural water
supplies. The statewide MR&I program has focused on providing grant
funds for water systems that provide water service to previously
unserved areas of the State. The State has followed a policy of
developing a network of regional water systems throughout the State.
north dakota's success story
Rural water systems are being constructed using a unique blend of
local expertise, State financing, rural development loans and MR&I
grant funds to provide an affordable rate structure; and the expertise
of the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) to deal with design and
environmental issues. The projects are successful because they are
driven by a local need to solve a water quantity or quality problem.
The solution to the local problem is devised by the community being
affected by the problem. The early, local buy-in helps propel the
project through the tortuous pre-construction stages.
The desperate need for clean, safe water is evidenced by the
willingness of North Dakota's rural residents to pay water rates well
above the rates EPA considers affordable. The EPA Economic Guidance
Workbook states that rates greater than 1.5 percent of the median
household income (MHI) are not only unaffordable, but also ``may be
unreasonable''.
The average monthly bill on a rural water system for 6,000 gallons
of water is currently $59.21. The water rates in rural North Dakota
would soar to astronomical levels without the 75 percent grant dollars
provided by the MR&I program. For instance, current rates would have to
average a truly unaffordable $134.19/month or a whopping 3.8 percent of
the MHI. Rates would have ranged as high as $190.80/month or a
prohibitive 5.3 percent of MHI without the assistance of the MR&I
program.
budget impacts on garrison diversion unit
Let me begin by reviewing the various elements within the current
budget request and then discuss the impacts that the current level of
funding will have on the program.
The President's budget request for fiscal year 2009 is $22.11
million. This year, Garrison Diversion Conservancy District is asking
Congress to appropriate a total of $102 million for the GDU. Attachment
1 is a breakdown of the elements in Garrison Diversion's request. To
discuss this in more detail, I must first explain that the GDU budget
consists of several different program items. For ease of discussion, I
would like to simplify the breakdown into three major categories. The
first I would call the base operations portion of the budget request.
This amount is nominally $18 million annually. However, as more Indian
MR&I projects are completed, the operation and maintenance costs for
these projects will increase and create a need that will need to be
addressed.
The second category of the budget is the MR&I program. This
consists of both Indian and non-Indian funding. The Dakota Water
Resources Act of 2000 authorized an additional $200 million for each of
these MR&I programs. It is our intent that each program reaches the
conclusion of the funding authorization at the same time. We believe
this is only fair and have worked with the tribes toward this goal.
The MR&I program consists of a number of projects that are
independent of one another. They are generally in the $20 million
category. Some are, of course, smaller and others somewhat larger; one
that is considerably larger at $150 million is the Northwest Area Water
Supply Project (NAWS). The first phase of that project is under
construction. Several other projects have been approved for future
funding and numerous projects on the reservations are ready to begin
construction. These requests will all compete with one another for
funding. It will be a delicate challenge to balance these projects.
Nevertheless, we believe that once a project is started, it needs to be
pursued vigorously to completion. If it is not, we simply run the cost
up and increase the risk of incompatibility among the working parts.
The third category of the budget is the Red River Valley Water
Supply Project (RRVWSP) construction phase. The Dakota Water Resources
Act of 2000 authorized $200 million for the construction of facilities
to meet the water quality and quantity needs of the Red River Valley
communities. Over 42 percent of North Dakota's citizens rely on the
drought-prone Red River of the North as their primary or sole source of
water. It is my belief that the final plans and authorizations could be
expected in approximately 2 to 3 years. This will create a need for
greater construction funding.
This major project, once started, should also be pursued vigorously
to completion. The reasons are the same as for the NAWS project and
relate to good engineering and construction management. Although
difficult to predict at this time, it is reasonable to plan that the
RRVWSP features, once started, should be completed in approximately 3
years. This creates the need for additional funding of $30 million/year
starting in fiscal year 2011.
Using these two projects as examples frames the argument for a
steadily increasing budget. There is a need to accelerate the MR&I
program now to assure the timely completion of the NAWS project and
then to accommodate the need for additional construction funds when the
RRVWSP construction is underway.
It is simply good management to blend these needs to avoid drastic
hills and valleys in the budget requests. By accelerating the
construction of NAWS and tribal projects which are ready for
construction during the next few years, some of the pressure will be
off when the RRVWSP construction funding is needed. A smoother, more
efficient construction funding program over time will be the result.
It began with a $67 million budget in fiscal year 2008 and needs to
gradually build to about $200 million when the RRVWSP construction
could be in full swing (fiscal year 2011). Mr. Chairman, this is why we
have supported a budget resolution that recognizes that a robust
increase in the budget allocation is needed for the Bureau of
Reclamation, Water and Related Resources Account in fiscal year 2009.
The Bureau of Reclamation, Rural Development, Garrison Diversion
Conservancy District, North Dakota State Water Commission and local
rural water districts have formed a formidable alliance to deal with
the lack of a high quality, reliable water source throughout much of
North Dakota. This cost-effective partnership of local control, state-
wide guidance and Federal support has provided safe, clean, potable
water to hundreds of communities and thousands of homes across North
Dakota.
attachment 1.--garrison diversion unit (gdu)
Justification for $102 million appropriation fiscal year 2009
North Dakota's Municipal, Rural and Industrial (MR&I) water supply
program funds construction projects State-wide under the joint
administration of the Garrison Diversion Conservancy District (GDCD)
and the State Water Commission (SWC).
Northwest Area Water Supply Project (NAWS) is under construction
after 18 years of study and diplomatic delay. Construction costs are
estimated to be $150 million.
Indian MR&I programs on four reservations are also under
construction. Tribal and State leaders have agreed to split the MR&I
allocation on a 50/50 basis.
The SWC has advanced the MR&I program $21 million to allow
construction to continue on several critical projects. One project is
the $85 million South Central Regional Water District system currently
under construction.
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF INDIAN MR&I SYSTEMS AND JAMESTOWN 5.61
DAM (Provides for the O&M of the Tribal water systems and the
Jamestown Dam.)...............................................
BREAKDOWN OF $96.39 MILLION CONSTRUCTION REQUEST:
Operation and Maintenance of existing GDU system (Provides 5.24
for the O&M of the Snake Creek Pumping Plant, McClusky and
New Rockford Canals.).....................................
Wildlife Mitigation & Natural Resources Trust (Provides for 3.96
O&M of Arrowwood, Audubon, Kraft Slough, Lonetree and
Canalside Lands.).........................................
Red River Valley Water Supply (Provides for the work on the 0.22
RRVWSP.)..................................................
Indian and non-Indian MR&I (Provides funding for the State 84.00
and tribal MR&I programs. Funding is split 50/50 between
the two programs.)........................................
Oakes Test Area and Miscellaneous (Provides for the O&M of 1.09
the Oakes Test Area, Recreation Facilities, work for 28K
unidentified acres.)......................................
Standing Rock Irrigation (Provides for development on 1.88
Standing Rock Reservation.)...............................
--------
Total for Construction................................... 96.39
Grand Total.......................................... 102.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------
______
Prepared Statement of the Irrigation and Electrical Districts
Association of Arizona
The Irrigation and Electrical Districts Association of Arizona
(IEDA) is pleased to present written testimony regarding the fiscal
year 2009 proposed budgets for the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation)
and the Western Area Power Administration (Western).
IEDA is an Arizona nonprofit association whose 25 members and
associate members receive water from the Colorado River directly or
through the facilities of the Central Arizona Project (CAP) and
purchase hydropower from Federal facilities on the Colorado River
either directly from Western or, in the case of the Boulder Canyon
Project, from the Arizona Power Authority, the State agency that
markets Arizona's share of power from Hoover Dam. IEDA was founded in
1962 and continues to represent water and power interests of Arizona
political subdivisions and their consumers.
bureau of reclamation
IEDA has reviewed the testimony submitted by Susan Bitter Smith,
the President of the Board of Directors of the Central Arizona Water
Conservation District (CAWCD), the Arizona three-county special
district charged with operation of the CAP. We support that testimony
and urge the subcommittee to actively consider the suggestions made by
President Smith. We are especially mindful that the Yuma Desalting
Plant continues to remain underfunded and therefore not able to conduct
the water conservation, water quality and water supply mission for
which it was designed. The Yuma Desalting Plant is an integral element
of the problem solving mechanisms being put in place for the Colorado
River and especially the Lower Colorado River. Problem solving on the
Lower Colorado River will be substantially impaired as long as the
plant remains idle.
We also wish to call to the subcommittee's attention the issue
concerning increased security costs at Reclamation facilities post-9/
11. Legislation is pending before Congress addressing that issue and a
budget approved for Reclamation for fiscal year 2009 should reflect the
possibility that this legislation will become law and affect
Reclamation operations in the next fiscal year.
western area power administration
IEDA has reviewed the testimony submitted by Western's
administrator, Tim Meeks. We note that both this subcommittee and the
Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Water and Power
Subcommittee have a concern, as did Administrator Meeks, over the $74
million shortfall in construction funding proposed for fiscal year
2009. We believe this shortfall is irresponsible. Western has over
15,000 miles of transmission line for which it is responsible. It has
on the order of 14,000 megawatts of generation being considered for
construction that would depend on that Federal network. The existing
transmission facilities cannot handle all of these proposals yet the
region is projected, by all utilities operating in the region, to be
short of available generation in the 10-year planning window utilities,
including Western, use.
Moreover, the $1,881,000 proposed for appropriation in this
category cannot come even close to keeping existing transmission
construction going. Repairs and replacements will have to be postponed
and, considerable hardships to local utilities that depend on the
Federal network are bound to occur. In Western's Desert Southwest
Region, our region, over $20 million in work necessary just to maintain
system reliability will have to be postponed.
We would be the first to support additional customer financing of
Federal facilities and expenses through the Contributed Funds Act
authority under Reclamation law that is available to Western. However,
programs utilizing non-Federal capital formation require years to
develop. One such program being proposed by the Arizona Power Authority
in a partnership with Western has been stuck in bureaucratic red tape
at the Department of Energy for over 2 years. There is no way that
Western customers can develop contracts, have them reviewed, gain
approval of these contracts from Western and their governing bodies,
find financing on Wall Street and have monies available for the next
fiscal year. It is just impossible.
There are impediments to using existing Federal laws in
facilitating non-Federal financing of Federal facilities and repairs to
Federal facilities and Congress should examine them. But dropping this
bomb on us 9 months before the beginning of the fiscal year, when there
just is not the time necessary to develop alternative capital
formation, is bad public policy and should not be countenanced. We urge
the subcommittee to restore a reasonable amount of construction funding
to Western so it can continue to do its job in keeping its transmission
systems functioning and completing the tasks that it has in the
pipeline that are critical to its customers throughout the West.
conclusion
Thank you for the opportunity to submit this written testimony. If
we can provide any additional information or be of any other service to
the subcommittee, please do not hesitate to get in touch with us.
______
Prepared Statement of the Oglala Sioux Rural Water Supply System, West
River/Lyman Jones Rural Water System, Rosebud Rural Water System, and
the Lower Brule Rural Water System
mni wiconi project
Fiscal Year 2009 Request
The Mni Wiconi Project beneficiaries respectfully request
appropriations of $38.378 million for construction ($28.196 million)
and operation and maintenance (OMR) activities ($10.182 million) for
fiscal year 2009:
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year
2009 Request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Construction............................................ 28.196
OMR..................................................... 10.182
---------------
Total............................................. 38.378
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Construction Funds
Construction funds would be utilized as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project Area Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oglala Sioux Rural Water Supply System:
Core................................................ $1,115,000
Distribution........................................ 14,775,000
West River/Lyman-Jones RWS.............................. 5,133,000
Rosebud RWS............................................. 7,173,000
---------------
Total............................................. 28,196,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
As shown in the table below, the project will be 81 percent
complete at the end of fiscal year 2008. Construction funds remaining
to be spent after fiscal year 2008 will total $87.691 million within
the current authorization (in October 2007 dollars). Extension of the
project authorization from fiscal year 2008 through fiscal year 2013
was accomplished by Public Law 110-161. Additional administrative and
overhead costs of extending the project, additional construction costs,
and accelerated inflation over the next 5 years are expected to
increase project costs to $137.167 million after fiscal year 2008.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Federal Construction Funding (Oct. 2007 dollars).. $451,707,000
Estimated Federal Spent Through Fiscal Year 2008........ $364,016,000
Percent Spent through Fiscal Year 2008.................. 80.59
Amount Remaining After 2008:
Total Authorized (Oct. 2007 dollars)................ $87,691,000
Overhead Adjustment for Extension to Fiscal Year $109,851,000
2013 and Other.....................................
Adjustment for Annual Inflation..................... $137,167,000
Completion Fiscal Year (Statutory Fiscal Year 2013; 2013
Public Law 110-161)....................................
Years to Complete....................................... 5
Average Annual Required for Finish...................... $27,433,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost indexing over the last 5 years has averaged 7.89 percent for
pipelines. Pipelines are the principal components yet to be completed
(see chart below). Assuming an average 7.89 percent inflation in
construction costs in the remaining 5 years to complete the project,
average funding of $27.433 million is required. The President's budget
of $16.24 million is grossly inadequate, departs significantly from
recent budgets and threatens an undetermined delay in completing the
project by 2013, the new date established by Congress in Public Law
110-161 last year.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Oglala Sioux Rural Water Supply System (OSRWSS)
Core System
The funding request will provide $1,115,000 for the OSRWSS core
system. These funds will complete the project's transmission system
that serves all sub-projects managed by separate entities, including
the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation, Rosebud Indian Reservation, Lower
Brule Indian Reservation and the 8-county service area of West River/
Lyman-Jones. Funds will be used to connect the northern portion with
the southern portion of the transmission system and permit water
delivery in either direction to accommodate a shutdown in the western
part of the water transmission system.
The completion of the OSRWSS core system is an historic milestone
and permits greater focus in the remaining years of the project
authorization on completion of the distribution systems.
Distribution System
The Pine Ridge Indian Reservation has not received water from the
OSRWSS core system prior to fiscal year 2008. Over 40 percent of the
project's population resides on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation. The
Reservation public has awaited delivery of project water from the
Missouri River since 1994. Project funds in fiscal year 2009 will
permit the completion of the on-Reservation transmission system between
the connection with the OSRWSS core system (see discussion above) and
the community of Kyle in the central portion of the Pine Ridge Indian
Reservation. Delivery of Missouri River water at this location will
allow distribution to OSRWSS project pipelines built earlier that serve
the communities of Kyle, Sharps Corner, Rocky Ford, Red Shirt,
Manderson, Evergreen and Porcupine and the large number of rural homes
between the communities along these pipelines.
The fiscal year 2009 request also funds additional on-Reservation
transmission system that will advance the delivery of Missouri River
water toward the largest community on the Reservation, Pine Ridge
Village. Connection to Pine Ridge Village is scheduled in fiscal year
2010. The request will connect the transmission system from Porcupine
Butte to the community of Wounded Knee and serve rural homes south of
Manderson. The request will fund an additional transmission system
beyond Pine Ridge Village toward the community of Oglala and will
connect with OSRWSS pipelines built in the early years of the project.
As set forth above, the focus on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation
in fiscal year 2009 is to construct the transmission system that serves
as the ``backbone'' of the project on the Reservation. This
distribution system is now reliant upon groundwater exclusively.
Groundwater will be retained where adequate and safe. Missouri River
water will serve as a backup to groundwater supplies and as the sole
supply in areas where groundwater is deficient.
The Oglala Sioux Tribe is supportive of the funding request of
other sponsors.
West River/Lyman-Jones Rural Water System
Priority projects for the WR/LJ system include the Powell Area
Project, service to new members within the system and distribution
system storage. The Powell area, from Midland to Philip and from the
Bad River to the Elbon service area, continues to be impacted by
drought conditions that have persisted since 2001. Powell area users
have patiently waited as the OSRWSS North Core pipeline was constructed
through their area. With its completion their project area has a supply
source from which distribution lines can be constructed.
Projects in the Reliance area and Eastern Mellette County were
constructed with emphasis on pipeline. Needed storage structures were
deferred until additional funds were made available. Water use has
increased each year since completion of these projects. Providing
storage within those service areas increases system capability to meet
peak demands and improves system reliability.
The WR/LJ system receives new requests for service in completed
project areas as stock ponds and wells go dry and as people move into
those areas. Further additions are required as existing members request
added connections to serve livestock in other locations. These
additions are a demonstration of the need for this important project.
Rosebud Rural Water System (Sicangu Mni Wiconi)
In fiscal year 2009 the Rosebud Sioux Tribe will complete the
necessary infrastructure to supply surface water to portions of Todd
County, which will reduce the need for summertime water restrictions
that have resulted from overextending the interim groundwater supply.
Work began on this series of projects in the summer of 2007 and the
primary pipeline and pump stations will be completed in the summer of
2008. The receiving reservoir at the end of this pipeline is partially
funded with fiscal year 2008 funds as is the large diameter pipeline
that will connect the town of Mission and eastern Todd County to the
surface water supply. However, both of these projects require fiscal
year 2009 funding for completion.
Two additional projects are also scheduled for 2009. Phase I of the
Old Rosebud project will replace corroded iron pipelines in the older
portion of the Rosebud community with modern plastic pipe. This project
is designed and ready to bid; however, to reduce costs and improve
effectiveness, it is being bid and managed in conjunction with a Bureau
of Indian Affairs street replacement project and an Indian Health
Service sewer replacement project. Rural Development is also assisting
with funding for the sewer work. By completing water, sewer and street
improvements at the same time, the cost of excavation and reclamation
for the water portion of the work is significantly reduced. Upgrading
water and sewer lines concurrently with the paving project also
prolongs the useful life of the new streets because the new pavement
will not need to be disturbed (and then patched) to repair water main
breaks.
The other major project scheduled for 2009 will serve the rapidly
growing Sicangu Village area. The existing wells and aquifer in this
area are not capable of supplying the growing demands. A pipeline will
connect the community to the existing well field several miles south of
the town of Mission. Adequate capacity will be available in that well
field after the Mission area is connected to the surface water supply.
Other projects include a new well for the well field near St.
Francis and the ongoing service line and connections installed by the
tribal construction crew. The new well near St. Francis is needed
because two of the existing wells currently run 24 hours a day during
periods of peak demand in summer months. The third existing well does
not have sufficient capacity to allow either of the two primary wells
to recover. The St. Francis well field also supplies the Spring Creek
and Grass Mountain areas.
Operation, Maintenance and Replacement Budget
The sponsors have and will continue to work with Reclamation to
ensure that their budgets are adequate to properly operate, maintain
and replace (OMR) respective portions of the core and distribution
systems. The sponsors will also continue to manage OMR expenses in a
manner ensuring that the limited funds can best be balanced between
construction and OMR. The project has been treating and delivering more
water each year from the OSRWSS Water Treatment Plant near Fort Pierre.
Completion of significant core and distribution pipelines has resulted
in more deliveries to more communities and rural users. The need for
sufficient funds to properly operate and maintain the functioning
system throughout the project has grown as the project has now reached
73 percent completion. The OMR budget must be adequate to keep pace
with the system that is placed in operation. The administration's
request for fiscal year 2009 is $9.374 million less than the
administration's fiscal year 2008 request of $9.526 million despite the
acknowledged increasing need for OMR funds.
The supporting documentation for the Great Plains Region budget
request prioritizes the OMR of the Tribal features of Mni Wiconi.
However, it should be noted that the tribal features of Mni Wiconi do
not participate in Reclamation's Replacement, Additions and
Extraordinary (RAX) program for which $9.8 million has been requested
by Reclamation for their non-tribal projects in the Great Plains
Region. The tribal systems also have RAX needs.
The Mni Wiconi Project tribal beneficiaries (as listed below)
respectfully request appropriations for OMR in fiscal year 2009 in the
amount of $10,182,000:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project Area OMR Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oglala Sioux Rural Water Supply System:
Core................................................ $2,376,000
Distribution........................................ 2,808,000
Lower Brule............................................. 1,485,000
Rosebud RWS............................................. 2,121,000
Reclamation............................................. 1,392,000
---------------
Total............................................. 10,182,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
______
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Prepared Statement of the National Congress of American Indians
On behalf of the National Congress of American Indians, we are
pleased to present testimony on the administration's fiscal year 2009
budget request for transportation energy and water development
programs. We look forward to working with this subcommittee to ensure
that the critical programs and initiatives are funded at levels that
will ensure their long term effectiveness.
tribal energy access and production
The lack of access to energy resources and to participation in the
energy market is still a persistent problem among Indian communities.
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, 14.2 percent of reservation homes
lack access to electricity, compared to the national average of less
than 2 percent.\1\ When provided with innovative energy solutions,
tribes are embracing them. For example, 350 Navajo Nation members
recently began renting renewable energy units, which provide them with
energy for the first time. Using wind technologies, members can power
their televisions and a few lights. These improvements, while humble,
can drastically improve the quality of life for Indian people.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Energy Information Administration, Energy Use and Renewable
Energy Development Potential on Indian Lands, 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
tribal water access and rights
Water resources are, perhaps, the single most important natural
resource that is at risk for tribes. Climate change and population
growth forecasts place a large burden on rivers and reservoirs,
especially in the west, and tribes play a key role in future management
of these bodies of water. Tribes usually have priority water rights,
but typically have not exercised their full rights. As water demands
grow, more tribes will need to exercise their rights and work on
developing water infrastructure for their communities. The current
posture of requiring offsets in other Department of Interior programs
to fund water settlements and projects is potentially harmful to tribal
programs, and other sources must be utilized.
Specific Tribal Appropriations Requests; Energy & Water--Department of
Energy
Title V--Indian Tribal Energy Development and Self-Determination
Act Grants.--The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-058)
included Title V--Indian Tribal Energy Development and Self-
Determination Act of 2005, which authorized a competitive grant in the
amount of $20 million from fiscal year 2006 to 2016 to assist Indian
tribes in energy education, research and development, planning and
management needs; and to provide a loan guarantee program to any Indian
tribes for energy development. These initiatives have yet to be funded
and again are not included in the President's request budget for the
Department of Energy's fiscal year 2009.
--NCAI recommends that the title V grants to Indian tribes be fully
funded in the amount of $20 million.
Weatherization Assistance Programs.--The President proposed a
significant decrease in funding for Indian programs in the Department
of Energy. The administration proposes the elimination of the
Weatherization Assistance Programs that provides weatherization
assistance grants to Indian tribes for low-income and rural homes, and
the training and technical assistance.
--NCAI recommends that $22.7 million be made available in fiscal year
2009 for the Weatherization Assistance Programs, the same
amount appropriated for fiscal year 2008.
Office of Indian Energy Policy and Programs.--The President
requested a substantial decrease for tribal energy activities for
fiscal year 2009, which would be funded at $1 million compared with
$5.9 million in fiscal year 2008. The President also proposes no
resources for the Office of Indian Energy Policy and Programs, which
was authorized under the Energy Policy Act of 2005 but has never been
funded. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 authorized this office to
implement tribal energy initiatives and funding opportunities for
Indian energy development and tribes have been fighting for even the
most basic funding each year.
--NCAI recommends that level funding of $5.9 million be made
available for fiscal year 2009 for the Office of Indian Energy
Policy and Programs (OIEPP).
Renewable Energy Production Incentives.--Another program proposed
for termination in the fiscal year 2009 President's budget is the
Renewable Energy Production Incentive (REPI), which provides financial
incentive payments to publicly owned utilities, not-for-profit electric
cooperatives, and tribal governments and native corporations that own
and operate qualifying facilities generating renewable energy. The
justification for the elimination of REPI by the administration is the
importance of this program has diminished over time due to reduced cost
and competitiveness of renewable energy technology.
--NCAI recommends that $8.5 million be made available for the
renewable energy and conservation programs and activities for
fiscal year 2009.
Bureau of Reclamation (Department of Interior)
General--Tribal Water Projects and Settlements.--The Bureau of
Reclamation (BOR) has a significant role in shaping the future of
tribal water resources. Water rights settlements are often funded
through BOR, as well as negotiated and implemented. However, the
process is cumbersome and very tenuous as funding is often difficult to
obtain. There are nearly 25 settlements nearing implementation that
will need funding, and the current position of pushing it further down
the timeline only increases the price. The budget committee needs to
raise the ceiling.
--NCAI recommends that the Bureau of Reclamation prioritize funds for
Indian water projects and water rights settlements.
Reclamation Fund.--Tribes passed a resolution at the 2007 Annual
NCAI Conference (No. DEN 07-069) that identifies the Reclamation Fund
(Fund) as an appropriate vehicle for funding tribal water rights
settlements. The Fund could be utilized as the primary source for
funding settlements, which is desperately needed. The Fund was
established in 1902 to fund water projects in the 17 western States,
including on tribal lands. The Fund continues to have a growing
balance, over $7 billion estimated in fiscal year 2007, with mineral
development providing most of the increase.
--NCAI recommends that the BOR Reclamation Fund be utilized as a
substantial source for tribal water projects and settlements.
Army Corps of Engineers (Department of Defense)
Army Corps of Engineer projects can provide substantial
opportunities for water infrastructure development in Indian Country.
Specifically, the Water Resources Development Act authorizes municipal
water supply and wastewater treatment projects. These projects are
crucial for tribes, and funding needs to be increased to tribal
projects. In the earlier part of this century when Congress invested
heavily in Corps projects and WPA projects, Indian Country was often
overlooked. Therefore, our infrastructure, particularly water
infrastructure has usually never had even the most basic investment.
--NCAI recommends a minimum of 10 percent of the civil works projects
that provide environmental infrastructure be set aside for
tribal specific projects.
______
Prepared Statement of the Consortium for Fossil Fuel Science (CFFS)
production of transportation fuels from coal plus biomass with reduced
carbon dioxide emissions
Chairman Dorgan and members of the subcommittee, we request
$2,000,000 in funding for a congressionally directed project in the
budget of the Department of Energy in the Fuels Program of the Office
of Fossil Energy, to continue a program of research to produce
transportation fuels from coal plus biomass. This program, which was
recently initiated with a $750,000 contract from the U.S. Department of
Energy in fiscal year 2008, will focus on the conversion of coal plus
waste biomass into ultra-clean transportation fuels by gasification and
Fischer-Tropsch synthesis. This approach has the potential to minimize
the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by the fuel conversion process to
less than that produced by the production of similar transportation
fuels from petroleum. Additionally, combustion of the biomass component
of the carbon during fuel utilization in vehicles or planes will be
carbon dioxide neutral.
Overview
Traditional petroleum-derived fuels will continue to dominate
transportation by vehicles and planes for at least the next 20 years.
The United States currently imports over 10 million barrels of oil per
day at a cost exceeding $470 billion/year, most of it from unstable
regions of the world. Not only is this the biggest item in the U.S.
trade deficit, it is also a serious threat to our national security.
Increasing global demand, coupled with an expected peaking in the world
oil supply, will undoubtedly cause shortages and markedly increased
prices, possibly deepening the current economic recession and leading
to more severe recessions in the future.
It is therefore essential that we begin to produce transportation
fuels from our own national resources, particularly our most abundant
energy resource, coal. It is equally essential, however, that we do so
without harming the environment. The Consortium for Fossil Fuel Science
(CFFS), a research center of the University of Kentucky, has formed an
integrated team of fossil fuel scientists from five universities
(University of Kentucky, West Virginia University, Auburn University,
University of Utah, and University of Pittsburgh) to conduct a basic
research program focused on producing Fischer-Tropsch fuels using
mixtures of coal and biomass as the feedstock. We believe that costs
can be reduced, a superior transportation fuel can be produced, and
carbon dioxide emissions can be minimized through such research.
The CFFS has extensive experience and broad expertise in research
on the conversion of coal into clean liquid transportation fuels and
the conversion of coal into hydrogen. We have made significant
breakthroughs in such areas as:
--Catalysis of coal conversion reactions.
--C1 chemistry processes, including Fischer-Tropsch (F-T) synthesis,
to produce transportation fuels from coal-derived syngas.
--Conversion of coal and waste materials, including plastic, rubber,
and cellulose (biomass) into high value oil products.
--Development of novel processes to produce hydrogen from fossil
fuels.
--Environmental research focused on a number of pollutants derived
from coal (fine particulate matter (PM), toxic trace metals
(arsenic, chromium, mercury, etc.) and SOX).
We are now focusing on a research program to develop processes that
use biomass as a co-feed with coal for the production of clean
transportation fuels with reduced carbon emissions. In this program,
lignocellulosic waste materials will be used because they are not food
feedstocks. Wood wastes and agricultural wastes (sawdust, bark, corn
stover, etc.) will be emphasized because they reflect the lumber,
paper, and farming industries in the CFFS States.
Goals
Some of the research goals of the CFFS coal + biomass program are
summarized below.
--A pilot scale (3-30 lbs/hr) gasifier is under construction that
will be used to gasify coal + biomass feeds. It will be coupled
with a supercritical fluid (SCF) F-T synthesis reactor.
--Biomass feedstocks (lignin, cellulose, hemicellulose, etc.) will be
reformed in supercritical water (SCW) to produce hydrogen for
F-T synthesis and fuel upgrading with no net carbon dioxide
emissions.
--Iron-alloy nanoparticle catalysts will be used to dehydrogenate
gaseous alkanes produced by F-T synthesis, yielding pure
hydrogen to recycle to the coal + biomass syngas stream,
raising its hydrogen content to avoid carbon dioxide emissions
from the water-gas shift reaction.
--A laboratory-scale fluid-bed gasifier will be designed and built to
convert coal + biomass into syngas with an adjustable
composition. Potassium and calcium will be tested as catalysts.
--Novel catalysts (dual function catalysts, metallic nanoparticles on
carbon nanotube supports, xerogels, etc.) will be developed for
F-T synthesis using syngas typical of coal + biomass.
--Systems engineering modeling will be used to optimize fuels
production from coal + biomass with regard to both economics
and carbon dioxide emissions.
Summary
We request your support for $2,000,000 in funding for this program
from the Fossil Energy budget for fiscal year 2009. This funding will
be shared between the CFFS universities to support the second year of a
3-year research program for the production of liquid transportation
fuels from coal and biomass. The CFFS will provide $500,000 in cost-
sharing to support this important research on a topic that is critical
to both our States and our Nation.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Research Center for Coal and Energy,
West Virginia University
fossil energy research and development programs
Summary
The National Research Center for Coal and Energy submits this
testimony in support of the Fossil Energy program and recommends the
following modifications to the administration's budget request:
--Carbon Capture and Storage (+$6 million for the Focus Area for
Carbon Sequestration Science)
--Fuels Program (+$20 million for continuation of the coal, synthetic
natural gas, and coal-biomass liquid fuels programs)
--Advanced Research (+$10 million to initiate a Focus Area for
Materials Science and +$5 million for the Focus Area for
Computational Energy Science)
--Innovations for Existing Plants (+$10 million for criteria
pollutants and water programs)
--Oil and Natural Gas Programs (+$30 million to restore programs for
small producers)
We recommend a dual program strategy to Congress which includes
supporting fundamental research for developing new concepts and also
supporting larger scale projects to prove out and hasten the deployment
of advanced technologies. A robust coal, oil, and natural gas research
program is necessary if we are to meet our national energy needs.
Introduction
Coal will continue to play a leading role in electrical power
generation in the United States well into the future. Transforming coal
into liquid fuels, synthetic natural gas, and/or chemicals can help to
reduce petroleum imports, bring associated positive effects on our
international balance of payments, and preserve jobs in this country.
Concerns about the effect of greenhouse gases on global climate will
require reducing emissions of CO2 from all fossil fuel use.
The successful deployment of cost-effective carbon capture and storage
(CCS) technologies will ensure that America can continue to use its
abundant domestic fossil fuel resources into the future. Given the
projected global use of coal and other fossil fuels, leadership by the
United States to implement low carbon emission technologies will set a
positive example for the rest of the world. Deployment of U.S. owned
low-carbon technologies would be an economic stimulus for developing
new products that can be sold in global markets.
Advanced low carbon fossil energy technologies will enable the
world community to meet pressing environmental challenges driven by
growing economies as both established and emerging nations are faced
with diminishing resources. We recommend strong congressional support
for fossil energy research, development, and technology deployment. We
also call the subcommittee's attention to the critical shortage of
energy technologists at all levels. We urge your support in particular
for basic research in fossil energy that supports academic programs
under which we can both develop breakthrough discoveries and also
educate our future workforce of scientists and engineers to meet the
challenges which face the energy sector.
Carbon Capture and Storage
We recommend strong support for carbon storage research for
injecting CO2 into geologic formations. Given the variety of
potential sinks, multiple projects are needed to prove out technologies
such as injection into saline aquifers, depleted oil and natural gas
reservoirs, and coal seams. States like West Virginia offer
possibilities for demonstrating and deploying capture and storage
technologies while offering opportunities for our State's coal
resources to help meet electrical demands of the East Coast. We
recommend congressional support for a diverse portfolio of investments
in the National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) as the national
center for carbon management research. NETL should also expand its
programs on developing pre-and post-combustion CO2 capture
technology. Continued support for the collaborative research program
with NETL and the Zero Emissions Technology Center is also recommended.
Another promising area of research is to explore ways to utilize
CO2 in processes which do not require storage but result in
useful products. In addition to supporting the base administration
request, we recommend restoring the Focus Area for Carbon Sequestration
Science to its fiscal year 2007 level of $13 million (+$6 million to
administration request).
Fuels Program
The administration request for fuels research includes only $10
million for the development of hydrogen from coal. This program
contributes to developing a national hydrogen economy. However, the
administration program should also support projects which address the
deployment of hydrogen technologies and the associated critical
infrastructure issues. We need to demonstrate to the general public
that hydrogen (from coal) is both economically viable and safe.
We are also concerned that little attention is paid to developing
transportation fuels, synthetic natural gas, and/or chemicals from
alternative energy sources such as coal and coal-biomass blends. We
recommend adding $20 million for continuation of the fuels programs
added by Congress in fiscal year 2008. These funds would permit
investments in fuels research to support programs such as the
Consortium for Fossil Fuel Science and the Center for Advanced
Separation Technology. These fundamental research programs educate coal
chemistry and coal materials technologists who will be needed in the
energy industry of the future as our aging scientists and engineers
from the Synfuels Corporation era complete their careers. Other
worthwhile investments which should be supported from these funds
include the program conducted by the United States and China under
Annex II of the Fossil Energy Collaborative Research Protocol to study
the development of large scale coal liquefaction/carbon sequestration
plants in China. Of the increased funding recommended, $1 million
should be designated to continue the China program. Modest investments
in the China program pay back big dividends in access to commercial-
scale results at a fraction of the cost of building such plants in the
United States.
We support the position that CCS must be integrated with the fuel
production aspects of coal conversion technologies. Fundamental
programs of research conducted with the additional funds recommended
would develop new technologies that are cost effective with respect to
both fuels production and CO2 capture. Computational
modeling, especially for polygeneration systems, should be an integral
part of the work conducted under these programs.
Advanced Research
Materials Research.--Advanced materials are needed in a variety of
applications such as ultra supercritical power plants, high temperature
gas-fired and hydrogen-fired turbines, sensor technology, catalysts for
fuel conversion, high temperature materials for fuel cells, and new
processes for carbon capture. We recommend the addition of $10 million
to the Advanced Research account for the creation of a Focus Area for
Materials Research at NETL to develop advanced materials for energy
applications.
Focus Area for Computational Energy Sciences.--Advanced computing
capability enabled by newer, high speed computers and developments in
computing science permit modeling of energy systems in scale ranges
from molecular interactions to integrated operation of complex power
plants. Given the high cost of testing and building large scale energy
systems, computational modeling offers inexpensive advantages to design
energy systems which will/must be deployed in the future. We are
disappointed that the administration has again neglected this important
area of research and recommend additional funding of $5 million for
this account for fiscal year 2009.
Innovations for Existing Plants Program
We support the request of the administration to provide increased
funding to the Innovations for Existing Plants (IEP) program for CCS
technologies. We are concerned however, that the administration request
neglects other important areas such as particulate control, air toxics,
combustion byproduct utilization, and research in technologies which
minimize the use of water in energy systems. Continued research is
needed in these areas in view of the new CAMR ruling calling for more
stringent studies on mercury emissions. National concerns have arisen
about the scarcity of water in many regions where electric power
demands are increasing. We recommend an additional $10 million for the
IEP program for these applications.
Oil and Natural Gas Programs
The administration request zeros out funding for both the Oil and
Natural Gas programs again this year. The core oil and natural gas
programs under Fossil Energy are specifically authorized in Public Law
109-58 (EPAct 2005). This authorization includes programs such as the
Stripper Well Consortium, the Petroleum Technology Transfer Council,
and the Enhanced Oil Recovery in Marginal Fields programs. All three of
these programs are of major interest to areas such as Appalachia where
small producers do not have sufficient funding or expertise to conduct
research to recover the valuable resources remaining in the ground.
These programs also support research which educates our geologists and
petroleum engineers needed in the future to produce our existing
resources and to manage our carbon storage programs for CO2.
We recommend restoration of the Oil and Natural Gas program at NETL to
a level of $30 million, which is considerably less than Congress
provided in earlier times when we were not facing national economic
challenges such as $118 per barrel oil and $4 dollar per gallon
gasoline.
Thank you for considering our testimony.
Note.--Specific recommendations for the Consortium for Fossil Fuel
Science ($2 million) were made in testimony submitted by Gerald
Huffman. Roe-Hoan Yoon submitted testimony requesting support for the
Center for Advanced Separations Technology ($3 million).
______
Prepared Statement of the American Council for an Energy-Efficient
Economy (ACEEE)
The American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy is an
independent, non-profit organization dedicated to advancing energy
efficiency to increase economic prosperity, enhance national security,
and improve environmental quality. Founded in 1980, we are a leading
source of unbiased information and policy analysis on energy
efficiency.
DOE's fiscal year 2009 budget request reflects a continuing decline
in support for important energy efficiency programs at a time when
expanded support for energy efficiency is needed more than ever to
protect national energy security, save American jobs, control rising
consumer bills, and stem air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.
For fiscal year 2009, the administration proposes to cut $204 million
(29 percent) relative to the fiscal year 2008 appropriation. In order
to better address many of America's energy needs, we recommend that the
subcommittee increase funding for 11 especially high-priority programs
for a total of $302 million above the administration's request but only
$71 million above the fiscal year 2008 appropriation. These programs
include several of DOE's most successful programs as well as a few new
programs authorized in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007
(EISA). Specific recommendations are described in the sections below.
buildings technologies
Commercial Building Initiative.--CBI is a major new initiative
established in EISA. The goal of the initiative is for all new
commercial buildings to use zero energy on net by 2030 (i.e. they
produce as much energy as they use) and all existing buildings to meet
the same goal by 2050. These are very large savings that can have many
positive impacts on the U.S. economy and environment. CBI combines
research, development, and deployment, and will be run by DOE with
input from an industry consortium. We recommend that funding of at
least $20 million be appropriated for this important new program, an
increase of $7 million relative to the Commercial Buildings Integration
budget in DOE's request.
Lighting and Appliance Standards.--DOE standards produce the
greatest energy savings of any DOE program. DOE's analysis estimates
that 12 standards to date have saved consumers about $25 billion, from
a Federal investment of less than $10 million a year. DOE is under
court order to complete many rulemakings that are years behind
schedule, and also needs additional funding to address requirements
added by EISA. The DOE request does not appear to address the new EISA
requirements which include several new rulemakings, as well as new
mandates to review and update existing test procedures and standards
every 6 to 8 years. In order to address both old and new requirements,
we recommend funding of $24 million for the standards program, an
increase of $4 million relative to the fiscal year 2009 budget request
but an increase of only $2 million relative to the fiscal year 2008
appropriation. DOE should be permitted to spend a portion of this
increase on staffing, as more DOE staff are needed to supervise
increased contractor budgets made possible by the fiscal year 2008
budget.
Building Codes, Energy Star, and Residential Building
Integration.--These are three of the most important programs at DOE and
all three received significant funding increases in the fiscal year
2009 request. We support these increases.
--Many States are interested in revising their building codes as part
of efforts to save energy and address climate change. The DOE
codes program is an important source of funding for these
efforts. DOE is also supporting efforts by ASHRAE to reduce
permitted energy use in its model commercial building code by
30 percent.
--The Energy Star program is probably the administration's most
effective climate change response program. Increased funding
will allow DOE to update existing specifications, expand the
program to several new products, and actively promote these
specifications in regions without significant State or utility
programs.
--The Residential Building Integration program is the home of the
Building America program, a successful partnership with private
firms that is developing and promoting cost-effective design
approaches for reducing energy use of new homes by 40 percent
or more.
industrial technologies
The 2009 request would cut the Industrial Technologies Program by
$2.3 million, relative to fiscal year 2008, but much larger cuts in
several very important programs are hidden in the budget details as is
discussed below. The overall program activities are divided into two
broad groupings: industry specific and cross cutting. We have
identified several priorities in each of these areas.
Industrial Assessment Centers.--The IAC is part of the cross-
cutting program budget. The IAC program helps small and medium
industries identify and implement energy saving measures, while also
helping to train the next generation of industrial energy engineers.
The program operates centers at 31 universities nationwide and produces
several hundred trained engineers annually while helping to reduce
industrial energy use in small- and medium-sized facilities. This is
one of DOE's most effective programs, and is presently saving more than
$1 billion per year (including measures implemented in earlier years).
The program should be substantially expanded in order to meet future
needs for trained energy engineers--there is presently a shortage of
skilled energy efficiency engineers. We recommend that the program be
restored to fiscal year 2006 funding levels of $6.435 million in fiscal
year 2009.
Industries of the Future (Specific).--This program does cost-shared
research with industry at major research institutions. The program
focuses on key, energy-intensive manufacturing industries such as
steel, aluminum, wood products, glass and metal casting. The most
recent National Academy review found this to be among the most
successful of Federal R&D efforts.\1\ In spite of this success, the
program has seen its budget drop from $63 million in fiscal year 2002
to $11 million in fiscal year 2008. DOE is proposing $11.4 million in
fiscal year 2009, which may appear to be level funding, but in reality
represents a further cut since most of the research funding is multi-
year, and funding from earlier years is now no longer being replaced
and the pipeline is running dry. In EISA, Congress authorized an
expanded Energy-Intensive Industries program (sec. 452), with an
emphasis on industry-specific research in energy-intensive industries.
This provision specifically authorized the successful industry-focused
program format that has proven effective because it responds to the
targeted needs of individual industries rather than to the more general
and less focused topics covered under the cross-cutting program. To
start implementing this new provision, we recommend fiscal year 2009
funding of at least $24.2 million (which was the appropriation in
fiscal year 2006), an increase of $12.8 million relative to the budget
request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In 2005 the National Research Council reviewed DOE's Industrial
Technology Program in their report Decreasing Energy Intensity in
Manufacturing. The study characterized the program (at that point) as
being ``well-managed and effective.'' In particular they indicated that
the ``program's scope and depth of analysis and reporting are
impressive. The ITP significantly leverages its resources through a
large and growing number of partnerships with industry, industry
associations, and academic institutions.'' Unfortunately, funding has
been dramatically reduced since this evaluation, and a subsequent
National Research Council report on DOE R&D, Prospective Evaluation of
Applied Energy Research and Development at DOE (Phase Two) (2007),
noted with respect to Chemical Industry research activities ``the
budget decreased to $9 million in fiscal year 2005 and $7 million in
fiscal year 2006. There is a clearly apparent contradiction between the
ambitious goals of the program and the dwindling resources available to
pursue them.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Distributed Energy (DE).--Over the past decade these efforts have
played a key role in the development of high-efficiency clean
technologies like combined heat and power (CHP) and technologies to
recycle waste energy. Over the past few years these efforts have been
shuffled between EERE and the Office of Electricity, and the program
has received no funding for the past year. For fiscal year 2008,
Congress provided $14.5 million, but DOE's fiscal year 2009 request is
for only $1.5 million. The program is now part of the cross-cutting
effort in the Industry program. We recommend the DE activities be
funded at an overall level of no less than $20 million, an increase of
$5.5 million relative to the fiscal year 2008 appropriation.
Industries of the Future (Cross-Cutting).--The remainder of the
industrial program budget request falls within the category of cross-
cutting programs. This includes the Industrial Assessment Centers and
the Distributed Generation program discussed above. In addition, this
program includes Best Practices and cross-cutting R&D, each of which we
discus below.
--Best Practices.--The OMB request proposes to increase the best
practices area from $8.8 to $15.5 million, though this
represents only a partial restoration of funding that was $19.8
million in fiscal year 2007. This increased funding will allow
the expansion of the successful Save Energy Now program, one of
the most successful energy savings programs undertaken at the
Federal level (e.g. savings underway of approximately $288
million since program inception in 2006). We recommend that the
program be funded at the requested level of $15.5 million.
--Cross Cutting RD&D.--These activities are primarily for R&D on
technologies that benefit many industrial sectors, such as work
on sensors and controls. In addition, DOE is now proposing a
number of new efforts in energy-intensive process R&D, feed
stock flexibility and nanomanufacturing, and expanding the
industry focus to include datacenters and food processing.
While these are potentially worthy areas of efforts, DOE is
essentially proposing to fund these efforts by further cuts to
the successful industry-specific IOF efforts. In addition, EPA
has already been running a datacenter program for several
years, and a new DOE effort is potentially duplicative. If
budgets are tight, funding for these cross-cutting RD&D can be
reduced to fiscal year 2008 levels in order to free up funds
for our higher priorities discussed above.
vehicle technologies
Despite the nominal increase of $8 million in the Vehicle
Technologies Program budget, proposed funding for this work has
actually declined because elements of the Hydrogen Technology budget
have been moved into Vehicle Technologies. In fiscal year 2008, Vehicle
and Hydrogen Technologies together received $424.1 million. The fiscal
year 2009 request cuts these combined budgets by $56.7 million. The
proposed transferal, elimination or postponement of certain activities
in the Hydrogen Technology Program appears reasonable in many cases,
and in particular begins to rectify disproportionate allocations in
prior years to hydrogen and fuel cells relative to other vehicle and
fuel technologies. However, given the great opportunities and needs at
present in the area of vehicle efficiency and greenhouse gas reduction,
it is imprudent to simply eliminate funds from this program, rather
than transferring some of the funds to underfunded areas in Vehicle
Technologies. In the fiscal year 2009, DOE proposes to cut a variety of
important vehicle programs: Hybrid Electric Systems declines by $5.8
million (6 percent, net of the Technology Validation activity
transferred from the Hydrogen Technology Program), Technology
Integration by $2.2 million (13 percent), Advanced Combustion loses $11
million (25 percent), Materials Technology loses $2.7 million (7
percent), and Fuels Technology loses $1.7 million (10 percent),
relative to fiscal year 2008 appropriations. Also, funding for the 21st
Century Truck Partnership declines in the budget proposal, for a total
40 percent reduction since fiscal year 2007. We recommend that some of
these cuts be restored by adding $37 million to the fiscal year 2009
request, which is still a cut of about $20 million relative to the
combined fiscal year 2008 Vehicle and Hydrogen budgets.
Hybrid Electric Systems.--The proposed reduction in the Vehicle and
Systems Simulation and Testing activity relates in part to heavy
vehicle systems optimization R&D, which warrants greater attention. We
recommend that $7.1 million be restored to Vehicle and Systems
Simulation and Testing, bringing funding for this activity back to
$28.2 million. Furthermore, energy storage efforts need to be
accelerated. We recommend that the Energy Storage R&D activity be
funded at $59.5 million, an increase of $10 million above the proposed
budget.
Advanced Combustion Engine R&D.--The explanation offered for the
proposed cut, namely that resources should go to ``R&D that has a
higher potential for oil savings'' is not persuasive given the
considerable remaining opportunities in this area for both light- and
heavy-duty engines. We recommend that Combustion and Emissions Control
be funded at $38.8 million, restoring $10 million to this activity.
Materials Technology.--Reaching DOE's stated goal of a 50 percent
reduction in the weight of body and chassis for a passenger vehicle
will require a sustained effort, including continued exploration of
``high-risk concepts'', as referenced in DOE's budget explanation. We
recommend funding of $30 million for Lightweight Materials Technology,
which restores $2.9 million cut in the budget and adds a further $7.7
million.
other priorities
Weatherization Assistance Program.--This program has steadily
improved, and according to the last nationwide evaluation of the
program, is reducing energy use in participating homes by about 20
percent. DOE has proposed to eliminate this program, in order to save
money. With the economy heading into a recession, this is a
particularly bad time to cut our country's safety net. We recommend
funding this program at least at the fiscal year 2008 level of $227
million.
Energy Information Administration Energy Consumption Surveys.--
EIA's Energy Consumption surveys are an important resource for energy
analysis and energy program planning. These three surveys (residential,
commercial and manufacturing) are widely used and provide important
information for accurate forecasting and planning. Unfortunately, due
to declining funding, sample sizes are smaller (making regional data
less precise) and the surveys are now every 4 years, instead of the
every 3 years called for in the Energy Policy Act of 1992. In fiscal
year 2008, the consumption surveys have a $3.6 million budget. We
recommend that $2 million be added to the EIA request in order to
return to the every 3 year schedule, increase sample sizes and speed up
processing of surveys so they can be released more quickly.
______
Prepared Statement of the Next Generation Nuclear Plant Working Group
The United States must successfully compete in today's global
marketplace to provide opportunities for all of its citizens and future
generations. Two of the major issues affecting our competitiveness are
the lack of energy security and our major contributions to the global
greenhouse gas (GHG) inventory. The first issue is economic and costs
the U.S. taxpayers several billion USD daily. Additionally, innumerable
jobs in industries that depend on reasonably priced and abundant fossil
feedstock continue to move offshore. The second is more subtle. Our GHG
emissions cost us in terms of international reputation and accelerate
the adverse effects of global climate change. We must become much more
efficient in our use of energy, but this step is not sufficient to
address the critical issues to keep our economy strong. We must
aggressively pursue technological solutions that provide energy for all
sectors of our economy in an environmentally responsible manner. One of
the technologies that can address both of these critical issues
utilizes a proven energy source, nuclear fission, for a broad range of
applications beyond its traditional role of generating electricity.
The Next Generation Nuclear Plant (NGNP) Project provides the basis
for the commercialization of this technology in the form of a new
generation of advanced, passively safe, modular nuclear plants that use
High Temperature Gas-Cooled Reactor (HTGR) technology. This technology
offers enhanced safety plus improved reliability, higher efficiency
(requiring less fuel and cooling water), proliferation resistance,
security and waste management capabilities. Further, at current and
projected natural gas prices and costs for CO2 management,
the HTGR will be competitive for a broad range of applications,
including:
--High efficiency electricity generation for small to medium markets,
particularly if suitable for cogeneration with water
desalination or dry cooling;
--High quality steam for use in heavy oil recovery, including tar
sands, or the broad range of process steam/cogeneration based
industries;
--High temperature process heat for industrial chemical and
petrochemical facilities, preserving natural gas for feedstock;
and
--High temperature process heat for hydrogen production and
cogeneration for the petrochemical and refinery industries plus
the clean conversion of coal to liquid and gaseous fuels or the
direct use of hydrogen transportation fuel in the future.
Advanced HTGR plants can help improve U.S. industrial
competitiveness, promote the utilization of indigenous coal and
uranium, and eventually, our oil shale resources. Their use will extend
domestic oil and gas resources and preserve them for feedstock for
products that would otherwise be unattainable, thereby reducing costs
and risks associated with imported oil and natural gas.
The NGNP Project is essential to demonstrate the commercial
potential of the HTGR and support timely NRC Design Certification and
commercialization. An industry based Consortium is being created to
support the public/private partnership with the Department of Energy to
focus the development and deployment of the NGNP and help provide the
infrastructure for follow-on commercialization. A cost/risk sharing
model between the U.S. Government and industry will assure a new
commercialization phase for nuclear energy for production of process
heat and cogeneration without carbon emissions--at the lowest costs and
risks for the U.S. taxpayers.
With a balanced approach to risk management and timeliness to
attract end-user support, the recommended NGNP Project schedule targets
startup of the demonstration plant in the 2018-2019 timeframe. Near-
term priorities in support of this date follow:
--Establish reference design and baseline costs
--Advance licensing strategy and pre-application program with the NRC
--Advance critical-path enabling technology development and testing
--Establish Public-Private Partnership and costs/risks sharing
concept
--Establish Project plan, vendor team and international cooperation
frameworks
During the past year significant technical progress and milestones
have been achieved in the following key areas of the NGNP Project:
preliminary design evaluations for the competing concepts, including
trade-off studies to resolve critical issues and establish technology
development needs; licensing strategy development, technology
development including fuel manufacturing process development and
testing; and, bounding cost estimates.
For fiscal year 2009, the NGNP Alliance recommends a NGNP Project
budget of $210 million (versus the DOE budget of $59.5 million) plus a
$28 million budget for the related Nuclear Hydrogen Initiative (versus
the DOE budget of $16 million). The working group also recommends a
budget of $10 million for NRC licensing and required R&D activities
related to the NGNP Project. A licensing framework and a process
appropriate for the enhanced safety features of the HTGR is essential
and is a critical path to the deployment of the NGNP Project.
______
Prepared Statement of the New York State Energy Research and
Development Authority and the New York State Division of Housing and
Community Renewal
The New York State Energy Research and Development Authority
(NYSERDA) and the New York State Division of Housing and Community
Renewal (NYSDHCR) welcome the opportunity to present this testimony to
the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, and look forward to
working with the subcommittee to ensure the most appropriate and
effective Federal funding of essential programs and operations. This
testimony will address proposed funding of two Department of Energy
programs which are issues of concern to NYSERDA, namely funding for the
West Valley Demonstration Project (West Valley, Project), identified
for funding from the Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup Program at $57
million, and the State Energy Program (SEP), identified for funding at
$59 million. In addition, this testimony addresses one program of
particular importance to NYSDHCR, the Weatherization Assistance Program
(WAP), funding for which was cut completely in the President's proposed
fiscal year 2009 budget proposal. NYSDHCR asks that funding for this
program be restored to at least fiscal year 2008 levels of $243
million.
west valley
The State of New York and NYSERDA are extremely concerned about the
proposed cut in Federal funding to the West Valley Demonstration
Project, a radioactive waste cleanup project located near Buffalo, New
York. The President's budget for fiscal year 2009 would provide only
$57 million for activities of the Department of Energy at West Valley.
The State strongly urges full funding of the West Valley Demonstration
Project at the level of $95 million.
Federal funding had been more than $100 million as recently as
2004, but had been reduced to $75 million in recent years. The proposed
cuts will result in lengthening the term of the cleanup and ultimately
only increase the total project costs. Moreover, as will be discussed
below, important risk reduction work that has been agreed upon between
the State and Federal governments will not be funded in 2009 and as
many as 50 trained workers will have to be laid off.
The Federal funding responsibility for this project was established
in 1980, when Congress passed the West Valley Demonstration Project
Act, Public Law 96-368. The West Valley Demonstration Project Act
directed the U.S. Department of Energy to carry out a high-level
radioactive waste (HLW) management demonstration project at the Western
New York Nuclear Service Center in West Valley, New York. The WVDP Act
directs the Department of Energy to:
--Solidify the 600,000+ gallons of liquid high-level radioactive
waste.
--Develop containers for permanent disposal of the solidified HLW.
--Transport the solidified HLW to a Federal repository for permanent
disposal.
--Decontaminate and decommission:
--the tanks and other facilities in which the HLW were stored,
--the facilities used in carrying out solidification, and
--the material and hardware used in connection with the Project.
--Dispose of the low-level radioactive waste and transuranic waste
produced in conducting the Project.
The West Valley Demonstration Project Act requires the Secretary of
Energy to enter into an agreement with New York State for carrying out
the Project. Under the requirements of the act, New York State pays 10
percent of the Project costs and the Federal Government pays 90
percent, making New York the only State that has contributed to the
cleanup of HLW. New York State has provided approximately $242 million
toward completion of the Project to date.
Decontamination and decommissioning of the West Valley site is
necessary to protect public health and safety. The Department of Energy
has solidified the bulk of the liquid high-level nuclear waste that was
stored in underground tanks. A total of 275 HLW glass-filled canisters
are in storage at West Valley awaiting disposal at the Federal
repository. However, much cleanup work remains to be done on the site's
contaminated facilities and property, including the decommissioning of
the four underground HLW storage tanks, the Main Plant Process
Building, an unlined lagoon system, a radioactive groundwater
contamination plume, and a radioactive waste disposal area. The
Department of Energy must also dispose of the low-level waste, the
transuranic waste, and the vitrified High-Level Waste.
Until recently, progress on significant aspects of the West Valley
cleanup had stalled. The Department of Energy ceased efforts to contain
a radioactive groundwater plume and refused to take steps to halt the
spread of liquids leaking from a radioactive waste disposal area under
its control. The Environmental Impact Statement that is essential for
decisions on the future of the cleanup was also stalled. In the past
year, there have been some substantial and encouraging changes at West
Valley. Agreements have been reached on steps to control the
groundwater plume and disposal area leaks, and the involved Federal and
State agencies have agreed on an approach to complete the Environmental
Impact Statement.
Unfortunately, this progress is threatened by the lack of adequate
funding. For fiscal year 2009, Federal funding at about $95 million is
necessary to continue decontamination work on the highly radioactive
Main Plant Process Building, remove liquid from the underground high-
level radioactive waste tanks, mitigate radioactive groundwater
contamination that is spreading toward the Project boundary, and ship
waste for offsite disposal. In the absence of this level of funding,
important work to reduce risk from radioactive materials at the site
will not get done this year and up to 50 members of the highly trained
workforce at the site will have to be laid off. For each year that work
is delayed, the time until completion and the total cost of the Project
are increased.
For the reasons stated above, New York State and NYSERDA request a
restoration of funding for West Valley to $95 million to permit the
important work at the Project to continue at an optimal pace.
state energy program
The State of New York and NYSERDA are concerned about the proposed
level of Federal funding for the State Energy Program, at $59 million,
and request that a funding level of $75 million for fiscal year 2009 is
provided to support this essential program. This funding level request
is made in support of the request of the Coalition of Northeastern
Governors (CONEG), which is also submitted to the subcommittee. The $75
million level will help to restore a funding level for SEP which has
experienced significant cuts in program budgets in the past. As noted
in both the CONEG testimony, and by the Department of Energy itself,
every Federal dollar invested by the SEP returns $7.23 in energy cost
savings. In addition, every Federal dollar invested by the SEP also
leverages $10.71 in State, local and private resources, providing
significant additional economic benefit.
In New York, SEP program dollars are used by NYSERDA to support the
deployment of various energy efficiency programs and services. NYSERDA
leverages SEP funds with the State ratepayer-supported System Benefits
Charge and other private sector funds. Most importantly, SEP provides
essential funding for programs which reach across the spectrum of fuel
sectors, helps to fill program gaps, and expands the reach of critical
energy efficiency activities to customer sectors which may otherwise be
limited from full program participation. In addition to reducing
overall energy use in New York, the SEP supports activities that
improve productivity, stimulate private investment, retain and create
jobs, displace petroleum use, reduce electric peak load, and improve
air quality, among other benefits.
Activities supported by SEP dollars include:
--NYSERDA's award-winning Flexible Technical Assistance Program,
which provides onsite energy engineering services through
competitively retained energy service providers.
--Multifamily Residential energy efficiency program which provides
energy audits, evaluations and access to loan fund dollars
which reduces the cost to building owners to implement energy
efficient technologies.
--Agricultural Initiatives.
--Green Building Projects.
--Alternative Fuel Vehicles and Alternative Fuel Infrastructure.
--Industrial Improvements.
--Expansion of the Home Energy Assistance Program heating oil
purchasing program, providing participating low-income energy
consumers with discounts on heating oil purchases.
Obtaining an optimal level of SEP funding will help to ensure the
continuation of these critical program activities.
For the reasons stated above, New York State and NYSERDA request a
restoration of funding for SEP to $75 million to permit the important
energy efficiency programs in New York to continue and expand at a pace
needed to meet energy consumer needs.
weatherization assistance program
The Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP) improves the energy
efficiency of low-income homes every year, helping to reduce the home
energy bills of the Nation's most vulnerable citizens by 25 percent or
more. The New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal
(NYSDHCR) is very concerned about President Bush's decision to
eliminate funding for the program for fiscal year 2009. If the
President's cut is sustained, the State program will lose $21.8
million. The State of New York relies on this funding to help assist
its low-income families. With oil prices at record levels, and cuts to
LIHEAP proposed, these cuts would be devastating to low-income families
and seniors in New York. Currently, we have waiting lists for this
assistance in excess of 18 months. NYSDHCR asks that Congress work
toward funding this program at its fully authorized level.
In conclusion, and as stated herein, NYSERDA and NYSDHCR
respectfully requests that the Senate provide, for fiscal year 2009,
$95 million for West Valley, $75 million for SEP, and at least $243
million for WAP. NYSERDA and NYSDHCR look forward to working with the
subcommittee to ensure that these program funding levels are provided
to ensure that essential energy projects are maintained.
______
Prepared Statement of the Biomass Energy Research Association
summary
This testimony pertains to the fiscal year 2009 appropriations for
biomass energy research, development, and demonstration (RD&D)
conducted by the Department of Energy's (DOE) Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE), Biomass Program. This RD&D is
funded by the Energy and Water Development bill and performed under the
heading of Energy Supply and Conservation, Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy.
BERA recommends a total appropriation of $275 million in fiscal
year 2009 under Biomass and Biorefinery Systems R&D (Energy Supply and
Energy Conservation), exclusive of earmarks. This is an increase of
about $50 million over the Department of Energy request for fiscal year
2009 for this programmatic area.
We feel this increase is necessary to meet goals for production of
fuels from cellulosic biomass as stipulated under the Energy
Independence and Security Act (EISA) of 2007. While the proposed DOE
Bioenergy budget is an increase of $27 million over the
administration's fiscal year 2008 proposed budget, it reflects a
decrease of $49 million from the DOE Biomass Program's authorized level
of (sec. 932) $274 million, and reducing funds available for important
Integrated Biorefinery Demonstration Projects (sec. 932(d)). Technology
demonstrations reduce technical and economic risk and accelerate the
potential for private investment. They are critical for reaching goals
for biofuels production for 2022 and beyond.
Specific lines items for the DOE biomass RD&D budget are as
follows:
--$20 million for Feedstock Infrastructure development (regional
partnerships, harvesting and storage technology)
--$35 million for Biochemical Conversion Platform Technology
(conversion of agricultural residues, wood, forest residues and
perennial crops to various fuels)
--$35 million for Thermochemical Conversion Platform Technology
(conversion of plants, oil crops, energy crops, wood and forest
resources to oils, long chain hydrocarbons, or other fuels/
intermediates)
--$175 million for Integrated Biorefinery Technologies demonstrations
--$10 million for Utilization of Platform Outputs: Bioproducts
(chemicals and materials as co-products)
background
On behalf of BERA's members, we would like to thank you, Mr.
Chairman, for the opportunity to present the recommendations of BERA's
Board of Directors for the high-priority programs that we strongly urge
be continued or started. BERA is a non-profit association based in the
Washington, DC area. It was founded in 1982 by researchers and private
organizations conducting biomass research. Our objectives are to
promote education and research on the economic production of energy and
fuels from freshly harvested and waste biomass, and to serve as a
source of information on biomass RD&D policies and programs. BERA does
not solicit or accept Federal funding.
There is a growing realization in our country that we need to
diversify our energy supply, develop technologies to utilize indigenous
and renewable resources, reduce reliance on imported oil, and mitigate
the impacts of energy on climate. Economic growth is fueling increasing
energy demand worldwide and placing considerable pressure on already
burdened energy supplies and the environment. The import of oil and
other fuels into the United States is growing steadily and shows no
sign of abating. Industry and consumers alike are faced with rapidly
rising and volatile costs for fossil fuels, especially petroleum and
natural gas. A diversified, sustainable energy supply is critical to
meeting our energy challenges and maintaining a healthy economy with a
competitive edge in global markets.
Biomass is the single renewable resource with the ability to
directly replace liquid transportation fuels. It can also be used as a
feedstock to supplement the production of chemicals, plastics, and
other materials that are now produced from crude oil. In addition,
gasification of biomass produces a syngas that can be utilized to
supplement the natural gas supply and electricity from fossil fuels.
Production of power from biomass co-products for use in biorefinery
processes greatly reduces the life cycle carbon footprint of biofuels.
Fuels, chemicals, and power are already being produced from biomass,
but on a small scale compared to the potential markets. While biomass
will not solve all our energy challenges, it can certainly contribute
to the diversity of our supply, and do so in a sustainable way, while
minimizing impacts to the environment or climate.
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 created various incentives for
diversifying our energy supply via the use of biofuels. In addition,
the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) of 2007 put forth a
mandate to increase use of alternative fuels for transportation, with a
substantial portion to come from cellulosic biomass. To meet the
ambitious goals of EISA will require aggressive support for RD&D to
move technology forward and reduce technical and economic risk.
Incentives are also needed to accelerate commercialization and
deployment.
bera recommendations for u.s. doe biomass rd&d
BERA's recommendations support a balanced program of RD&D,
including projects to develop and demonstrate advanced biochemical and
thermochemical biomass conversion processes, a diverse slate of liquid
transportation fuels, and co-production of fuels, chemicals, and power
in integrated biorefineries. Our overarching recommendations are to:
--Invest in demonstration of technology (as progress is made) to
reduce risk (e.g., through loan guarantees, cost-shared
projects, other mechanisms) and encourage private sector
investment and commercialization.
--Explore a variety of fuels beyond ethanol, including green diesel,
green gasoline, jet fuels, algae diesel, pyrolysis oils, mixed
alcohols, and others. Include fuels that can be easily
integrated into existing infrastructure, and revolutionary
fuels or feedstocks (algae). This will diversify options for
different transport markets that depend heavily on petroleum.
--Fund a variety of conversion technologies, both biochemical and
thermochemical.
--Integrate sustainability throughout RD&D to promote the use of
biomass technologies that improve environmental performance and
minimize impacts to land, water and air.
BERA's recommendations for funding for DOE biomass RD&D are shown
in Table 1 and outlined below. Note that recommended budgets for
demonstration projects do not include industry cost-share, which should
be 50 percent or more.
TABLE 1.--BIOMASS/BIOREFINERY SYSTEMS R&D, ENERGY SUPPLY & CONSERVATION, EERE
[In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Program Area Description of RD&D R&D Demonstration Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feedstock Infrastructure................. Regional feedstock 15.0 5.0 20.0
partnerships, joint
development of storage and
harvesting technology.
Biochemical Conversion Platform R&D...... Conversion of cellulosic 20.0 15.0 35.0
biomass--agricultural
residues, wood/forest
residues, perennial grasses.
Thermochemical Conversion Platform R&D... Conversion of wood/forest 20.0 15.0 35.0
residues to pyrolysis oils
or syngas.
Platform Outputs: Integrated Developing/validating 10.0 165.0 175.0
Biorefineries. biochemical and
thermochemical conversion
technologies in integrated
biorefineries (e.g., 932
projects) and small scale
biorefineries.
Platform Outputs: Bioprod- ucts.......... Co-production of chemicals 5.0 5.0 10.0
and other products from
biochemical and
thermochemical output
streams.
----------------------------------------
TOTAL.............................. ............................ 70.0 205.0 275.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feedstock Infrastructure.--Continue support for regional feedstock
partnerships to ensure the optimal and sustainable production of
feedstocks to meet demand on a regional basis. The Departments of
Energy and Agriculture, in partnership with the Sun Grant Initiative
universities and the members of the National Biomass State and Regional
Partnership, established the Regional Biomass Energy Feedstock
Partnership. Funding should be continued for these important
partnerships, as they will help ensure that cost competitive biomass
feedstocks are widely available in sufficient quantity and at an
acceptable market cost. Increase funding for cost-shared activities
with USDA on critical harvesting, storage and transport technologies to
ensure a feedstock delivery infrastructure is available to meet the
larger demand.
Platform Outputs: Support Development/Demonstration of Integrated
Biorefineries.--Activities should address promising biochemical and
thermochemical processes in integrated biorefineries producing fuels,
high-value products where possible, and potentially heat and power to
meet processing demands. A diversity of technologies and feedstocks
should be considered, as well as new fuel options (green diesel, jet
fuel, algae, etc.). The object is to improve process efficiency and
reduce cost, taking into consideration design, financing, permitting,
environmental controls, waste processing, and sustained operations;
feedstock acquisition, transport, storage, and delivery; and storage
and delivery of products to market.
Conversion: Fund Both Biochemical and Thermochemical Conversion
Platforms as Foundations for Integrated Biorefineries.--The biochemical
and thermochemical platforms are both important and could provide
viable technologies for production of fuels and chemicals. BERA urges
that both be funded to accelerate the development and demonstration of
large-scale, synergistic integrated biorefinery systems. BERA urges
that biochemical conversion research be funded at the amounts shown in
Table 1, and that thermochemical conversion R&D for biomass
gasification, pyrolysis, and synthesis of alternate liquid fuels be
given equal priority. Both should focus on the use of cellulosic
biomass, waste biomass, or novel concepts for feedstocks.
Platform Outputs: Invest in R&D to Develop Bioproducts That Enhance
the Economic Viability of the Integrated Biorefinery.--BERA urges that
funding be provided for R&D to enable economic production of commodity
organic and high value chemicals as co-products in biorefineries.
Biomass-derived fuels and chemicals combined would increase the product
slate and provide greater opportunity for reducing fossil fuels
consumption, while increasing the economic viability of the
biorefinery. BERA urges that this effort include research on sugar
intermediates, but that it be expanded to include direct conversion of
other intermediates (such as those derived from gasification and
pyrolysis) to fuels and commodity organic chemicals.
Reduce or Eliminate Earmarks.--The level of earmarks in the last
few years has limited new initiatives and led to premature reductions
of scheduled programs by EERE. BERA respectfully asks the subcommittee
to carefully consider the impacts of all earmarks on EERE's biomass
energy RD&D.
______
Prepared Statement of the Center for Advanced Separation Technologies
Chairman Dorgan and Ranking Member Domenici, and members of the
subcommittee, I represent the Center for Advanced Separation
Technologies (CAST), which is a consortium of seven universities. I
appreciate the opportunity to submit this testimony requesting that
your subcommittee add $3 million to the 2008 Fuels Program budget,
Fossil Energy Research and Development, U.S. Department of Energy, for
advanced separations research. Research in Advanced Separations
Technology Development is authorized by the Energy Policy Act of 2005,
title IX, subtitle F, sec. 962. I am joined in this statement by my
colleagues from the consortium: Richard A. Bajura, West Virginia
University; Peter H. Knudsen, Montana Tech of the University of
Montana; Rick Q. Honaker, University of Kentucky; Jan D. Miller,
University of Utah; Ibrahim H. Gundiler, New Mexico Tech; and Maurice
C. Fuerstenau, University of Nevada-Reno.
funding request for center for advanced separation technologies
CAST was formed initially as a partnership between Virginia Tech
and West Virginia University in 2001 to address the needs of the U.S.
coal industry. In 2002, five other universities (University of
Kentucky, Montana Tech, University of Utah, University of Nevada-Reno,
and New Mexico Tech) joined to form a consortium, with Virginia Tech as
the lead institution. The objective of the consortium is to develop
Advanced Separation Technologies that can be used to produce cleaner
fuels from domestic resources with minimal environmental impact.
proposed work
The United States faces an energy crisis created by an imbalance
between domestic supply and demand. While the United States makes up
only 4.6 percent of the world's population, it consumes 24 percent of
the world's energy resources, 25 percent of the oil, and 44 percent of
the motor gasoline, while its domestic energy production lags behind.
As a result, the United States imported 30 percent of its energy needs
in 2006, a number expected to grow in the future. On the other hand,
the United States is fortunate to have large amounts of untapped energy
resources within its borders, which include 271 billion tons of
recoverable coal, 2.6 trillion barrels of oil in the form of oil shale,
and 20 billion barrels of oil in oil sands. In addition, the United
States has 200,000 trillion cubic feet (Tcf) of methane deposited in
the form of hydrates in ocean floors and permafrost. The amount of
energy deposited as methane hydrates far exceeds the amounts of all
fossil energy resources combined. The advanced separation technologies
developed by CAST will be useful for developing these resources in an
environmentally acceptable manner and help the United States achieve
its energy independence.
A major concern in developing these domestic resources is the
greenhouse gases (GHG) emitted from the utilization of fossil energies,
which account for 85 percent of the total energy consumed in the United
States. Therefore, the country is seeking to increase energy
efficiencies and develop renewable energies. However, the renewable
energies account for only 7 percent of the total, including
hydroelectric power (2.9 percent), bio-fuels (0.8 percent) and others.
Recognizing that the crux of the energy crisis lies in the shortages of
transportation fuel liquids, the country is striving to increase the
production of bio-fuels. In 2005, the United States produced about 4
billion gallons; however, the United States consumed 180 billion
gallons of gasoline and diesel fuel combined in the same year. Thus,
ethanol accounts for only a small percentage of the transportation fuel
need. According to a publication by the National Academies, the energy
from biomass will likely increase by 60 percent, and those from wind,
solar and other renewable resources are likely to nearly triple by
2030. But the net effect of all these activities will probably raise
the total renewables from 7 percent of the total energy consumed in the
United States to about 8 percent in 2030. Thus, the United States will
have to rely on fossil energy resources for the foreseeable future.
On the other hand, the scientific debate on global warming seems to
be over, and the country is prepared to reduce CO2 emissions
by legislation. But Congress recognizes that the United States cannot
stop global warming single-handedly. Developing countries, such as
China and India, should also participate in limiting their own
CO2 emissions. If the United States reduced the emissions
unilaterally, the cost of producing American goods would increase
relative to those manufactured in countries without emission limits,
resulting in the relocation of U.S. industry and manufacturing jobs.
It is projected that developing countries will account for more
than three-quarters of the increase in global CO2 emissions
between 2005 and 2030, and these countries' overall shares in world
emissions are expected to rise from 40 percent in 2005 to nearly 55
percent by 2030. In 2006, China and India alone produced 3.1 billion
tons of coal, representing 46.2 percent of the world production, while
the United States produced 1.16 billion tons of coal accounting for
19.3 percent of the world production. In the near term, the major focus
of these countries is on economic development and reducing poverty.
Therefore, it would be desirable for the United States to develop
affordable clean coal technologies (CCT) that can be used in these
countries.
A serious problem in China and India is that much of the coal is
burned as mined without cleaning, causing low thermal efficiencies. The
thermal efficiencies for power generation are 29 percent in these two
countries as compared to 38 percent in the United States. By improving
the quality of coal used for power generation, China can increase the
efficiency to 33 percent and reduce CO2 emissions by 20
percent. Currently, only 12 percent of the coal burned in China for
electricity generation is cleaned coal. Thus, increased use of advanced
coal cleaning technologies, representing the most affordable CCTs,
should help China reduce CO2 emissions substantially.
According to a recent IEA report, India could reduce CO2
emissions by 55 percent using state-of-the-art technologies relating to
coal quality, boiler/generator design, instrumentation and control, and
high voltage distribution systems. Unfortunately, much of the coals
burned in India for power generation are of low quality, assaying 35-42
percent ash.
It is, therefore, an objective of CAST research to develop advanced
technologies that can be used to separate various impurities such as
ash, sulfur, and mercury from coal so that they can be burned more
cleanly and efficiently. The Chinese Government considers pre-
combustion coal cleaning an important element in their strategy to
increase energy supply and improve energy transportation systems, as
stressed in their plan to implement CCTs. Recently, India passed a law
requiring coals to be cleaned if they are to be transported more than
1,000 km.
summary of accomplishment
Thanks to your support, CAST has become the world leader in
developing advanced separation technologies for the coal industry. Many
of the solid-solid and solid-liquid separation technologies developed
by CAST are marketed commercially worldwide under license agreements.
For example, the Microcel flotation technology is used to remove ash,
sulfur, mercury, and other impurities from coal in the United States,
Australia, and China. In addition, an advanced fine coal dewatering
technology has been tested successfully in full-scale tests, and is
marketed commercially. More recently, another fine coal dewatering
technology has been tested successfully at pilot-scale and is expected
to be commercialized before the end of this year. With the
commercialization of these advanced separation technologies, the U.S.
coal industry will no longer have to discard fine coal due to the lack
of appropriate separation technologies. These new technologies will
help coal companies produce cleaner solid fuels without causing
environment damage.
The advanced separation technologies developed at CAST will soon be
implemented in India. As part of the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean
Development and Climate (APP) program, the U.S. Department of State
(DoS) provided major funding for CAST through a competitive
solicitation process to implement advanced separation technologies in
India. Also, CAST has submitted a proposal to Coal India Limited (CIL),
which produces 86 percent of the coal in the country, to implement the
advanced fine coal beneficiation technologies developed by CAST in a
demonstration plant.
Some of the advanced separation technologies developed for cleaning
coal have cross-cutting applications. For example, the methods of
separating fine particles are used for producing potash (KCl) from
previously unminable resources in New Mexico. For another, methods of
separating coarse particles are used for producing phosphate
fertilizers in Florida.
new intitiatives
Coal is the most abundant energy resource the United States has,
and it is difficult to displace it with renewable energy resources in a
relatively short timeframe. Therefore, it is imperative to develop
methods of utilizing coal with minimal CO2 emissions. To
meet this objective, it is proposed to develop advanced gas-gas
separation methods which will have crosscutting applications for many
ongoing programs such as Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS),
Innovation of Existing Plants, Gasification, and Hydrogen from Coal.
During the course of studying the basic sciences involved in a
solid-solid separation process (i.e., froth flotation), CAST has
developed a new understanding of the behavior of hydrophobic species in
water. Based on both experimental and theoretical studies, it has been
found that hydrophobic surfaces attract each other via hydrophobic
force, which originates from the tendency for water molecules to
reorganize themselves around hydrophobic entities. These studies have
lead to an improved understanding of how ice (or hydrate) is formed
around hydrophobic molecules (e.g., methane on ocean floors), and why
different gases (e.g., CO2, nitrogen, and hydrogen) form
hydrates under different conditions, which in turn provide a basis for
separating one type of gas from another.
It is, therefore, proposed to separate different types of gases
from each other by forming hydrates selectively. At present, cryogenic
distillation is the only commercially viable method of separating
oxygen and nitrogen, and this new method can potentially reduce the
cost of producing oxygen substantially. The same method can also be
used to separate other gases. For example, CO2 and nitrogen
present in combustion gases can be readily separated from each other as
shown by thermodynamic calculations and in experiment. It is also found
that the kinetics of hydrate formation and, hence, the separation
process can be improved in the presence of appropriate additives. The
gas-gas separation process based on selective hydrate formation can
have higher capacity and lower cost than the methods of using
membranes. The new gas-gas separation method can also be used for
producing ultra-pure hydrogen for fuel cell applications, which is a
major objective of the Fuels Program.
The proposed research can also lead to the development of efficient
methods of extracting hydrates from permafrost and ocean floors, while,
at the same time, allowing CO2 to be sequestered in place.
The Blake Ridge deposit off the Carolina shores alone has 1,300 Tcf of
methane, which is about six-times larger than the amount of the
conventional natural gas resource in the United States. Thus, the
proposed work offers a new approach for separating gases for CCS and
for the production of clean fuels such as methane and hydrogen from
coal.
funding request
It is requested that $3 million of research funding for CAST be
added to the fiscal year 2009 Fuels Program budget, Fossil Energy R&D,
the U.S. Department of Energy. Continued funding will allow CAST to
develop advanced technologies that can be used to exploit domestic
energy resources and help developing countries reduce their
CO2 emissions. In addition, the new gas-gas separations
technologies to be developed at CAST will have crosscutting
applications for a wide spectrum of the Fossil Energy R&D programs.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Mining Association (NMA)
nma recommendations
Department of Energy (DOE)
$156 million for the FutureGen project at Mattoon, Illinois; $382.7
million for base coal research and development programs; $200 million
for the Clean Coal Power Initiative (CCPI); $38.5 billion for the loan
guarantee office to support deployment of advanced coal technologies;
and $7.5 million for DOE's participation in the Asia-Pacific
Partnership on Clean Development and Climate.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Civil Works Program.--$180 million for the Regulatory Program. See
the table below for NMA's list of priority lock and dam projects and
recommendations for levels of funding required for their completion.
NMA opposes the Corps' proposed concept of a new inland waterways
``lockage fee/tax'' to fund improvements to the Nation's inland
waterways system.
background
Office of Fossil Energy
NMA strongly supports: $156 million for the FutureGen project at
Mattoon, Illinois and opposes the administration's proposal to cancel
the project and use the funding for smaller carbon, capture and
sequestration projects. In addition, NMA supports the $382.7 million in
the administration's budget request for base coal research and
development programs. However, NMA recommends that CCPI be funded at a
level of $200 million, which would enable DOE to conduct a third
solicitation targeting advanced technology systems that capture carbon
dioxide for sequestration.
While the NMA applauds the administration's commitment to
accelerating research, development and deployment of technologies that
will allow the management of carbon emissions at coal-fueled power
plants, the NMA questions the efficacy of DOE's proposal to cancel the
FutureGen project as originally configured. Tremendous progress has
been made since the FutureGen project was announced in 2003 and the NMA
urges the subcommittee to reject the administration's proposal and to
fund the FutureGen project as originally configured with the $156
million requested.
Technological advancements achieved in the base coal research and
demonstration programs such as gasification, advanced turbines, and
carbon sequestration, provide the component technologies that will
ultimately be integrated into the FutureGen project as currently
configured. NMA believes these programs should be funded at a level of
at least the President's request of $382.7 million. In addition, the
advanced turbine program should be funded at $55 million instead of the
requested level of $28 million. The increase in funding for these and
other programs will ensure the FutureGen project meets the intended
goals outlined in the DOE's 2004 report to Congress, ``FutureGen,
Integrated Sequestration and Hydrogen Research Intiative--Energy
Independence through Carbon Sequestration and Hydrogen from Coal.''
The Coal Utilization Research Council and the Electric Power
Research Institute estimate that by 2025, combustion and gasification-
based power generation options can be available commercially--with the
ability to capture and sequester CO2--at a cost of
electricity comparable to the cost of new power generation (with
CO2 capture) today. This includes the current work on
FutureGen. In order to achieve this goal, a Federal investment of $10
billion through 2025 is necessary while the industry investment is
expected to be $7 billion over that same time.
In addition, NMA recommends $3 million of funding for the Center
for Advanced Separation Technologies (CAST), which is a consortium of
seven universities lead by Virginia Tech. CAST has developed many
advanced technologies that are used in industry to produce cleaner
fuels in an environmentally acceptable manner, while some of them have
crosscutting applications in the minerals industry. Further development
of advanced separation technologies will help encourage developing
countries, such as China and India, to deploy affordable clean coal
technologies (ACCT) and reduce CO2 emissions. Research in
Advanced Separations is mandated by the 2005 Energy Policy Act, section
962.
Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate (APP)
NMA supports the administration's total request of $52 million for
this partnership and specifically, the request of $7.5 million to fund
the DOE's participation.
The APP will spur development of cutting edge technologies and
practices that support economic growth while reducing emissions,
including greenhouse gas emissions. It will result in expansion of
market opportunities for U.S. mining and equipment companies and other
U.S. businesses.
The APP, involving the United States, Australia, Canada, China,
India, Japan and South Korea, is important for a number of reasons:
--It Will Result in Real Emissions Reductions.--With the
participation by China and India, APP is the only international
agreement addressing rapid emissions growth in the developing
world, which is forecast to surpass emissions of industrialized
nations in 2010. APP is a voluntary, technology-based approach
to emissions reduction geared towards future economic growth
and energy security and will be more effective than unrealistic
mandates or treaties.
--It Builds on Methane-to-Markets and Other Successful Programs That
Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions.--The U.S. coal industry has
captured and re-used 308 billion cubic feet of coal mine
methane--the equivalent of removing 40 million automobiles per
year from the roads. APP, working with the EPA's Methane-to-
Markets program will use U.S. experience and expertise to
accelerate large-scale capture and recycling of methane in
China and India.
--It Helps Preserve Coal as an Important Energy Source.--The United
States, China, India and Japan will be at the center of a
significant rise in population, economic activity and energy
use in the next 50 years. Coal is essential to sustaining
America's competitiveness and vitality in a changing world, as
it is in China and India. APP supports improvements in
efficiency in both coal mining and use through the acceleration
of clean coal technologies, industrial technology strategic
planning and energy efficiency best practices.
--It creates new markets for U.S. companies in the emerging economies
of China and India.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Program.--NMA supports the administration's request of
$180 million for administering the Corps' Clean Water Act (CWA),
section 404 permit program and for implementing the Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU).
The Corps' Regulatory Branch plays a key role in the U.S. economy
since the Corps currently authorizes approximately $200 billion of
economic activity through its regulatory program annually. NMA
recommends that a portion of the Corps' regulatory program funding be
used for implementing the MOU issued on February 10, 2005, by the
Corps, the U.S. Office of Surface Mining (OSM), EPA and the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service. The MOU encourages a coordinated review and
processing of surface coal mining applications requiring CWA section
404 permits.
The ability to plan and finance mining operations depends on the
ability to obtain CWA section 404 permits issued by the Corps within a
predictable timeframe. In this regard, the NMA appreciates the
subcommittee including language in the fiscal year 2008 Omnibus
appropriations bill directing the Corps to work with OSM to develop a
more efficient process for expediting permit decisions associated with
surface coal mining operations; in addition to directing the Corps to
dedicate sufficient personnel and financial resources needed to support
an efficient permit review process.
Civil Works Programs.--The NMA understands the Corps intends to
provide Congress with a legislative proposal to replace the diesel fuel
tax that has been in place since 1986, with a ``lockage fee/tax'' that
would more than double the taxes paid by the towing industry. The coal
industry ships approximately 185 million short tons of coal annually on
the inland waterways systems. Therefore, the increase in this tax will
ultimately be borne by the consumers of coal-fired electricity. NMA
opposes such a tax increase and urges Congress to reject this proposal
and instead maintain the current diesel fuel tax and change the Inland
Waterways Trust Fund cost-sharing formula from 50/50 to 75/25 (Federal/
non-Federal) to ensure predictable, consistent, and adequate funding
for key inland waterways infrastructure projects. Below is a table
indicating NMA's fiscal year 2009 priority navigation projects.
NMA FISCAL YEAR 2009 PRIORITY NAVIGATION PROJECTS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year Fiscal Year NMA
Construction 2008 Enacted 2009 Request Recommendations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert C. Byrd Lock and Dams Ohio River, OH/WV................. $905,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000
Kentucky River Lock Addition, Tennessee River, KY.............. 51,168,000 22,330,000 34,500,000
Marmet Lock and Dam, Kanawha River, WV......................... 29,520,000 9,000,000 9,000,000
McAlpine Locks and Dams, Ohio River, IN/KY..................... 44,280,000 6,270,000 6,270,000
Locks and Dams 2, 3, 4, Monongahela River, PA.................. 69,175,000 40,806,000 40,806,000
J.T. Myers Locks and Dams, Ohio River, IN/KY................... 984,000 .............. 14,624,000
Olmsted Locks and Dams, Ohio River, IL/KY...................... 102,336,000 114,000,000 114,000,000
Emsworth Dam, Ohio River, PA................................... 42,312,000 25,800,000 25,800,000
Greenup Lock and Dam, Ohio River, KY/OH........................ .............. .............. 12,100,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The National Mining Association (NMA) represents producers of over
80 percent of the coal mined in the United States. Coal continues to be
the most reliable and affordable domestic fuel used to generate over 50
percent of the Nation's electricity. NMA members also include producers
of uranium--the basis for 20 percent of U.S. electricity supply. NMA
represents producers of metals and minerals that are critical to a
modern economy and our national security. Finally, NMA includes
manufacturers of processing equipment, mining machinery and supplies,
transporters, and engineering, consulting, and financial institutions
serving the mining industry.
______
Prepared Statement of the Gas Technology Institute
increase the combustion budget to $4.2 million in the fiscal year 2009
energy and water appropriations bill for doe, eere
Dear Chairman Dorgan and Senator Domenici, we write today because
we are concerned about the Department of Energy budget request for the
Industrial Technologies Program within the Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy budget. In particular, we are disappointed to see the
essential elimination of the Combustion program within the Crosscutting
Industries of the Future area.
The combustion focus at the Department has been on development of
next generation boiler technology, applicable to a variety of
industrial processes, that is both much more efficient and
environmentally friendly than existing technology. The Gas Technology
Institute, Cleaver Brooks, a boiler manufacturer, and a number of gas
utilities have been working with the DOE, California Air Resources
Board, California Energy Commission, South Coast Air Quality Management
District, and others to develop next generation ``Super Boiler''
technology.
Developing a clean, efficient natural gas steam boiler will be a
boon to the U.S. economy. Increasing energy costs and stringent local
emissions standards are two reasons why America's industrial facilities
are re-locating overseas. With 31 percent of industrial energy used for
steam generation, widespread adoption of Super Boiler technology can
significantly reduce costs and emissions.
The Super Boiler system is 94 percent efficient compared to current
technologies which are around 80 percent efficient. This increase in
efficiency will provide a 15-20 percent fuel savings, corresponding to
a 15-20 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, and a 90 percent
reduction in NOX emissions. Technological development
efforts for the coming year include fuel flexibility and the use of
alternative fuels for the boiler, scale up, extensive testing and
improvements to the heat recovery system that will both further boost
efficiency and reduce emissions.
We urge you to fund the DOE Combustion budget at $4.2 million in
the fiscal year 2009 Energy and Water Appropriations bill for the
Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
(Industrial Technologies Program, Industries of the Future
Crosscutting) for continued development and deployment on Super Boiler
technology.
Thank you for considering this request.
______
Prepared Statement of the Alliance for Materials Manufacturing
Excellence (AMMEX)
The Alliance for Materials Manufacturing Excellence (AMMEX)
welcomes this opportunity to provide its input to the subcommittee on
the proposed budget for fiscal year 2009 for the Industrial
Technologies Program (ITP) at the Department of Energy. AMMEX
organizations include the basic materials manufacturing sector
(aluminum, chemicals, forest products, glass, metal casting, steel) in
the U.S. economy along with several stakeholders in materials
manufacturing, such as the Northeast-Midwest Institute, the National
Association of State Energy Officials and the American Council for an
Energy-Efficient Economy. We are writing to urge Congress to restore
funding to the ITP to the level of $125 million and to restore the
structure of the program to one that emphasizes new process development
in all six materials industries as opposed to cross-cutting research.
This request would align the program with the authorized funding
levels and intent of both section 452 (Energy Intensive Industries
Program) of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, which was
signed into law on December 19, 2007, as well as the Energy Efficiency
and Renewable Energy Act of 2007, which passed the House unanimously on
October 22, 2007.
U.S. materials manufacturing continues to face challenges resulting
from increased cost and decreased availability of traditional energy
supply resources. These challenges have stimulated innovation in the
materials manufacturing sector in order to create significant energy
improvements and to diversify the energy supplies. While the
innovations of the past have brought the materials manufacturing sector
a long way, the sector cannot go further without new innovations. In
order to do this, the materials manufacturing processes must be
transformed, i.e. new processes and new innovations must be developed
which will use much less energy and which will be able to utilize
diverse forms of energy.
The member organizations of AMMEX have been partners with the
Department of Energy's Industrial Technology Program since its
inception. ITP is a true public-private partnership. DOE and materials
manufacturers jointly fund cutting-edge research that addresses the
needs of the Nation and materials manufacturers. All projects have the
shared goals of reducing energy consumption, reducing environmental
impact, increasing competitive advantage of U.S. materials
manufacturers, and enhancing our national security. The program is
unique because we select only projects with ``dual benefits''--a public
benefit such as reduced emissions or petroleum use, justifying the
Federal funding; and an industry benefit such as a more efficient
process, justifying the industrial funding. Substantial energy
reductions have occurred as shown below.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Figure 1.--Materials Manufacturers have greatly reduced energy use
since 1990 because of their co-investment with DOE
To accomplish these goals, the Federal Government and industry will
need to embark upon a co-funded effort to broaden and accelerate
inherently high-risk research, development, and deployment of new
materials manufacturing processes that utilize diverse energy sources.
This effort will also allow the materials manufacturing sector to
lessen dependence on natural gas and oil resources and conventional
electricity sources--thus benefiting consumers through contribution to
a stable energy market.
Furthermore, it is critical to recognize the important
contributions of ITP to efforts to combat climate change. The
development of new technology is an extremely important facet to
dealing with climate change. Most, if not all AMMEX industries have
voluntarily reduced energy intensity by 25 percent since 1990 in
partnerships with DOE and only very small gains in energy use are still
possible for today's processes [red area in above chart].
Most of the legislative options being considered to reduce
CO2 and other greenhouse gases employ a target of at least a
50 percent reduction in CO2 emissions by 2050 over a 2000
baseline. It is important to acknowledge that achieving such a goal
with today's manufacturing processes will be very challenging. Thus, we
are confronted with the ideal opportunity for ITP and AMMEX
industries--collaboration to accelerate the development and deployment
of new, transformational technologies to help our country reach its
CO2 mitigation goals. We would argue there is not a more
appropriate public-private partnership than one focused on our
environment. It is the method of choice employed by our competitors in
Europe and Asia.
The infrastructure already exists to create such a program--only a
slight re-focusing of the ITP program and a return to historical budget
levels is all that is needed for the Federal Government and materials
industries to embark upon a co-funded effort to broaden and accelerate
inherently high-risk research, development, and deployment of new
materials manufacturing processes that utilize diverse energy sources.
Consequently, our request for funding in fiscal year 2009 for ITP
entails two parts:
--A return to a total program level of $125 million, bringing the
funding amount closer to the level authorized in the Energy
Independence and Security Act of 2007.
--A re-structuring of the program so as to return to the structure
that was so successful from 1990-2003--a balanced portfolio of
industry-specific research from the point of view of research
impact, i.e., that 50 percent or more of the funding go to
industry specific new process development [where the energy
savings potential in industry is highest].
AMMEX members have identified their top new process development
concepts [not in priority order] which would be pursued at the funding
levels and structure defined above:
Aluminum
--Improved, energy-efficient burners and furnaces for aluminum
melting
--Improved energy efficiency and recovery rates for recycling
technologies
Chemicals
--Development of alternative feedstocks for the chemical industry to
reduce dependence on petroleum and natural gas derived
feedstocks
--Nano-manufacturing scale-up methodologies for key unit operations:
synthesis, separation, purification, stabilization, and
assembly
--Development of low-energy, low-capital membrane or hybrid
separations technology
Glass
--Complete development and deployment to multiple industries of
Submerged Combustion Melter
--Waste Heat Recovery and Use as Electrical or Chemical Energy
--Low Residence Time Glass Refining Technologies
Forest Products
--Advanced water removal and high efficiency pulping
--Gasification of Spent Pulping Liquors and Biomass Residuals
Metal Casting
--Simulation of Dimensional Changes and Hot Tears
--Engineered Coatings for Aluminum Pressure Dies
--Developing a lightweight production cast aluminum metal matrix
composite alloy
Steel
--Ironmaking by Molten Oxide Electrolysis
--Ironmaking by Flash Smelting using Hydrogen
--Demonstration of the Paired Straight Hearth Furnace Process
The United States also faces serious shortages in the science and
engineering manpower that is needed to keep America's competitive edge
in world markets through technology innovation and timely application.
From the President's recent State of the Union Addresses to recent
legislation passed by Congress, the Nation is awakening to the need for
a re-energizing of our commitment to technology education. Our proposal
to the subcommittee is an effort to both rebuild America's materials
manufacturing industries and meet shared national energy and
environmental goals.
On behalf of the AMMEX coalition, we thank you for the opportunity
to submit this statement. We look forward to continuing to work with
the subcommittee as you move forward on the fiscal year 2009
appropriations legislation for the Department of Energy.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Forest and Paper Association
agenda 2020 technology alliance
The Agenda 2020 Technology Alliance, a Special Project of the
American Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA) welcomes this opportunity
to provide the subcommittee with our views on the industry's key
public-private partnerships within the Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy (EERE) and to urge increased funding to adequately
address industry's challenges in fiscal year 2009. The EERE Industrial
Technologies Program (ITP) and Office of Biomass Programs (OBP) provide
vital funding for research, development, and demonstration (RD&D) of
technologies that dramatically reduce the forest products industry's
energy intensity and transforms our industry into producers of carbon-
neutral biofuels--thus addressing strategic national needs associated
with energy efficiency, energy security, diversified energy supply, and
environmental performance. We recommend increasing the industry
specific funding for the forest products industry in ITP to $6 million.
We support the President's request for $225 million for Biomass and
Biorefinery Systems R&D in OBP and ask that the subcommittee work to
maintain eligibility of forest biorefineries in these programs and keep
the appropriations unencumbered to allow for full funding of
competitive biomass systems and biorefinery RD&D grants.
The Agenda 2020 Technology Alliance is an industry-led partnership
with government and academia that holds the promise of reinventing the
forest products industry through innovation in processes, materials and
markets. The collaborative, pre-competitive research, development, and
deployment supported through Agenda 2020 provide the foundation for new
technology-driven business models that will enable our industry to
address market demands for materials from renewable sources, while also
contributing solutions to strategic national needs including energy
reduction and sustainability. The technology approaches developed
through Agenda 2020 are aligned to provide solutions to the competitive
challenges faced by the U.S. forest products industry, which accounts
for approximately 6 percent of the total U.S. manufacturing output,
employs more than a million people, and ranks among the top 10
manufacturing employers in 42 states with an estimated payroll
exceeding $50 billion.
As is the case with many U.S. manufacturing industries, we face
serious domestic and international challenges. Since early 1997, more
than 145 pulp and paper mills have closed in the United States,
contributing to a loss of 86,000 jobs, or 40 percent of our workforce.
An additional 80,000 jobs have been lost in the wood products industry
since 1997. New capacity growth is now taking place in other countries,
where forestry, labor, and environmental practices may not be as
responsible as those in the United States. Several drivers have
heightened the need to develop new energy efficiency technologies: the
recent volatility of energy markets, especially for natural gas;
renewed national focus on climate change and environmental performance;
and aging process infrastructure. Global competition, coupled with
massive industry restructuring due to financial performance pressures
from Wall Street, continue to hinder the ability of U.S. companies to
make new investments. Each year without new investments, new
technologies and new revenue streams, we lose ground to our overseas
competitors.
Currently, energy is the third largest manufacturing cost for the
forest and paper industry at 18 percent for pulp and paper mills--up
from 12 percent just several years ago. For some of our mills, the cost
of energy is about to eclipse employee compensation.
Since 1994, the forest products industry has been one of DOE's
``Industries of the Future,'' partnering with ITP through the Agenda
2020 Technology Alliance in RD&D that has yielded successful advances
towards our national energy and environmental goals. Agenda 2020 stands
as an example of successful industry-government collaboration to
develop technologies that hold the promise of reinventing industry,
while providing real solutions for strategic national energy needs.
Every Federal $1 spent on ITP saves $7.06 in annual energy costs and
1.3 million in annual source BTUs (2004 estimates). As recently as
2003, the ITP/Agenda 2020 portfolio included a total shared DOE and
industry investment of almost $48 million, with nearly 55 percent
coming from direct project cost shares by industry.
Today, after several years of continuous and substantial cuts, the
ITP/Agenda 2020 budget has been reduced by over 80 percent since fiscal
year 2002. This undermines our progress in achieving crucial energy
efficiencies at a time when energy and response to climate change are
major factors in the survival of the U.S. forest products industry.
Projects rescoped or cut in recent years due to budget shortfalls
resulted in a lost energy savings potential of 5 trillion BTUs/yr.
Recent reductions make us unable to pursue projects in key priority
areas such as advanced water removal and high efficiency pulping, which
represents a lost savings potential of 100-200 trillion BTUs/yr. In
fiscal year 2009, a further funding reduction is proposed and emphasis
shifted from industry specific funding. Unfortunately, the types of
technologies that cross all industries are not those from which we can
achieve the maximum savings for energy and environmental emissions.
Furthermore, the proposed funding of $1.448 million is barely
sufficient to fund ongoing projects, let alone address the high
priority R&D needs specific to the forest products industry that have
been jointly identified by industry with the DOE.
This comes at a crucial time when the forest products industry,
like many energy-intensive industries, is facing unprecedented
pressures due to the rising costs of energy and potential climate
change mandates. Although we are nearly 60 percent self-sufficient
(using biomass), it is imperative that we seek solutions as diverse as
fuel switching, finding new energy sources, and options for reducing
energy consumption. Thus we are in greater need than ever for the
technology-based energy efficiency solutions that could be provided
through our Agenda 2020 partnership with ITP. AF&PA's recommended ITP
funding for forest products research ($6 million) would help our
industry partially recover its capacity to develop and deploy vital
energy efficiency technologies. Restoring Agenda 2020 funding to pre-
fiscal year 2005 levels will not only help the competitive position of
American industry, but will also serve national strategic goals for
reduced dependence on foreign oil.
Second, the Integrated Forest Products Biorefinery (IFPB) is a key
Agenda 2020 technology platform and a top technical and economic
priority for our industry. The objective is to develop and deploy core
technologies that can be integrated into existing processing
infrastructure, which would be transformed into geographically
distributed production centers of renewable ``green'' bioenergy and
bioproducts. This can be done while co-producing existing product
lines, creating higher skilled and better paying jobs, strengthening
rural communities, and opening new domestic and international markets
for U.S. forest products companies.
The IFPB technology has the potential to integrate agricultural
wastes, agricultural producers, forest landowners, agricultural
landowners, forest product producers, and the petrochemical industry to
produce clean renewable bio-fuels to support our local economies and
the Nation. Widespread application of this technology would not only
reduce the environmental impact of burning fossil fuels, it would also
increase the viability of agricultural, forest products, and other
industries that use waste heat. It will create new high paying jobs,
both direct and indirect, increasing tax revenue. From an energy
perspective, the IFPB has the benefit of making the forest products
industry even more energy self-sufficient, serving the DOE strategic
goal of reduced energy intensity in industry by reducing fossil energy
consumption. In addition, the IFPB would permit the industry to become
a producer of renewable, carbon-positive bioenergy and biofuels,
contributing to DOE strategic goals to dramatically reduce dependence
on foreign oil and to create a new domestic bioindustry.
In light of these realities, AF&PA and Agenda 2020 also support the
administration's announced $225 million budget initiative in fiscal
year 2009 for biorefinery research and demonstration in OBP. This
initiative provides much needed funding to advance core enabling IFPB
technologies, as well as providing major capital cost-share for
commercial scale biorefinery demonstration. The forest products
industry is an ideal partner to develop and commercialize integrated
biorefineries. We have much of the infrastructure and expertise--wood
harvesting, transportation and storage, manufacturing and conversion
infrastructure, waste handling and recovery--needed to achieve the
goals of integrated biorefineries. By and large, they are located in
rural communities where they can help realize important synergies
between agricultural and forest-based feedstocks.
Recent estimates from Princeton University show significant
potential for net environmental benefits of IFPBs, inclusive of
offsetting other fossil fuel consumption in the mill. The industrywide
potential is to reduce nearly 100 million tons of carbon emissions
annually from IFPBs. The study also estimates the cumulative value of
savings due to reduced CO2, SO2, and
NOX emissions is $6 million to $40 billion. A core enabling
technology for part of the IFPB is black liquor gasification (BLG),
which converts the by-product of the chemical pulping process into a
synthetic gas. The synthetic gas can subsequently be burned to directly
produce clean, efficient energy, or converted to other fuels such as
hydrogen, renewable transportation fuels, and/or other high value
chemicals. If fully developed and commercialized, a biorefinery based
on BLG can produce up to 10 billion gallons of other renewable
transportation fuels, and as much as 20,000 MW of biomass power.
However, private/public investments in RD&D are critical to bring
IFPB technologies into full commercial use. Co-investment for RD&D can
help mitigate the technical risks (especially integration with capital-
intensive, legacy infrastructure) of early adopters of emerging IFPB
technologies. Risk mitigation is an important factor in achieving the
benefits of IFPBs, especially for integrating biorefinery technologies
with existing manufacturing infrastructure. Federal support through
research funding and other investments, such as loan guarantees and tax
credits, is critical.
In order to achieve the promise of IFPB technologies for the
industry and for the Nation, we need greater stability and availability
of funds provided through the OBP budget. We urge the subcommittee to
preserve the proposed $225 million funding of the Biomass and
Biorefinery Systems R&D program, so that there will be sufficient
appropriations to fund biorefinery demonstration and commercialization
projects. We also urge the subcommittee to ensure that forest-based
materials are eligible for this and future biorefinery research and
demonstration funding. Forest-based materials can sustainably produce
enough biofuels to displace up to 10 percent of the country's petroleum
production. They are a vital feedstock for achieving reduced dependence
on foreign oil and facilitating bioindustries domestically and should
be included in programs for biomass and biorefinery RD&D.
The Agenda 2020 Technology Alliance appreciate the subcommittee's
interest in ensuring sustained and adequate funding for RD&D
partnerships and look forward to working with you to advance industry
and national interests.
______
Prepared Statement of the Vision2020 Technology Partnership, Glass
Manufacturing Industrial Council, Copper Development Association,
International Copper Association, Hydraulic Institute, Pump Systems
Matter, and the Vanadium Producers & Reclaimers Association
Mr. Chairman, we respectfully request that the subcommittee grant
restoration of appropriations funding in the fiscal year 2009
Department of Energy Appropriations bill to match the $190 million
authorized for the Industrial Technology Program (ITP) within the
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Act of 2007.
The submitting coalition represents a broad range of energy
intensive sectors including chemical and chemical allied industries,
the copper industry including mining, producer and fabricating
companies, organizations focused on hydraulic and pump system
technology, the domestic glass industry sectors including flat,
container, fiber and specialty glass and the domestic vanadium
producers and reclaiming companies. We believe that the Industrial
Technologies Program is critical to boost Federal and corporate R&D
investments into novel applications that will help move our industries
towards higher energy efficiency.
Environmental quality, economic vitality and national security are
all at risk due to the inability of the United States to effectively
conserve energy as the country continues to grow and expand the
national standard of living. Energy conservation is now a national
goal. While renewable energy processes are one part of the solution,
undertaking energy efficiency is as necessary as ever before. Both
President Bush and the Congress have recognized that technology is the
key to both energy efficiency and renewable energy.
In the United States, industry accounts for over one-third of all
energy consumption. Of that, the majority is consumed by several heavy
industries including chemical, glass and metals production, aluminum,
mining, petroleum refining, forest and paper products, and supporting
industries. These groups all consume high amounts of energy per unit of
production, making them a prime target for energy efficiency efforts.
In addition, the rising cost of energy has the potential to put these
industries at a competitive disadvantage with other nations.
While the President and Congress have continually supported
industrial energy efficiency efforts, the funding provided has not
matched the problem. Funding has dropped from $175 million in fiscal
year 2000 to $57 million in fiscal year 2007. The House Committee on
Science and Technology noted on September 25, 2007 that ``these funding
levels reflect a dramatic shift in priorities away from industrial
efficiency R&D.'' Fortunately, Congress recognizes the need to increase
funding levels through its own authorization of $190 million in fiscal
year 2008 for the Industrial Technology Program.
The Industrial Technology Program (ITP) is a competitive, public-
private partnership program which works to utilize research and
development in cutting edge, high-value cost sharing methods to improve
the energy efficiency of America's industrial sector. The ITP operates
through coordinated research and development, validation, and
dissemination of energy-efficiency technologies and operating
practices. ITP projects have already won dozens of ``R&D 100 Awards''
and have generated over 150 patents on exciting new technologies. Dual
use benefits for both public and industrial uses are required by the
ITP. Nearly 200 technologies have reached the commercial market
assisting over 13,000 U.S. manufacturing plants and leading to $23
billion worth of energy savings.
All programs which are awarded competitive funding must meet the
shared goal of reducing energy consumption, reducing environmental
impacts and increasing the competitive advantage of U.S. material
manufacturers. In addition, while cross-cutting technologies are
valuable, the application of ITP technologies to individual industries
is critical and needs to be strengthened with additional funding. It is
in this application at the factory level where the vast majority of the
actual energy savings and environmental protection will be recognized.
In order to fully recognize the potential benefits of the ITP, it
is imperative that Congress fully fund the ITP at the level of $190
million. This is the level seen as necessary by the authorizing
committees with jurisdiction and rightly so, given the environmental
benefits, national security needs for energy independence, and economic
productivity gains which can be realized in energy efficiency efforts
aimed at the U.S. industrial sector. A national imperative focused on
the ITP will help get us there.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Geological Institute
To the chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for this
opportunity to provide the American Geological Institute's perspective
on fiscal year 2009 appropriations for geoscience programs within the
subcommittee's jurisdiction. The President's budget request for
Department of Energy (DOE) research programs provides no funding for
oil and gas research and development (R&D), eliminates mandated direct
spending of $50 million for unconventional onshore and ultra deep water
offshore natural gas R&D, includes a decimating cut to hydropower R&D
and does not fulfill some of the geothermal and carbon sequestration
R&D funding authorized in the Energy Independence and Security Act of
2007.
Given the interest of the administration and Congress to reduce the
Nation's foreign oil dependence, reduce prices on fossil fuels and
mitigate carbon emissions from fossil fuels, it seems like an
inopportune time to eliminate or under fund programs that could help
with these objectives. We hope that Congress will support wise
investments for all energy resource programs and carbon sequestration
R&D. AGI applauds the requested 18 percent increase for the largest
supporter of physical science research in the United States, DOE's
Office of Science, and encourages the subcommittee's full support for
this increase. We applaud the request of $30 million for geothermal R&D
and an increase of about $35 million for carbon sequestration R&D, both
of which partially fulfill the Energy Act of 2007. We ask for the
subcommittee's continued support for oil and gas, unconventional
natural gas, geothermal, hydropower and carbon sequestration R&D so the
Nation can develop a diverse portfolio of energy resources while
enhancing carbon mitigation strategies to secure clean, affordable and
secure energy supplies for now and the future.
AGI is a nonprofit federation of 44 geoscientific and professional
associations that represent more than 100,000 geologists,
geophysicists, and other earth scientists. The institute serves as a
voice for shared interests in our profession, plays a major role in
strengthening geoscience education, and strives to increase public
awareness of the vital role that the geosciences play in society's use
of resources and interaction with the environment.
doe office of science
The DOE Office of Science is the single largest supporter of basic
research in the physical sciences in the United States, providing more
than 40 percent of total funding for this vital area of national
importance. The Office of Science manages fundamental research programs
in basic energy sciences, biological and environmental sciences, and
computational science and, under the President's budget request, would
grow by about 15 percent from about $3.9 billion last year to $4.7
billion. AGI asks that you support this much needed increase.
Within the Office of Science, the Basic Energy Sciences (BES)
program supports fundamental research in focused areas of the natural
sciences in order to expand the scientific foundations for new and
improved energy technologies and for understanding and mitigating the
environmental impacts of energy use. BES also discovers knowledge and
develops tools to strengthen national security.
The Basic Energy Sciences (BES) would remain the largest program in
the office with an increase of 24 percent from $1.27 billion in fiscal
year 2008 to $1.57 billion in fiscal year 2009 in the President's
request. Within the BES, Chemical Sciences, Geosciences and Biosciences
would receive a $75 million increase over their fiscal year 2008 budget
for a total of $297 million. The Geoscience program provides peer-
reviewed grants to universities and DOE national laboratories for
fundamental Earth science research in geochemistry, hydrology, rock
mechanics, and geophysical imaging. The $7.5 million increase
specifically for the Geoscience research program is focused on solid
earth geophysics and geochemistry to understand the stability and
transformation of deep carbon sequestration, nanoscale geochemistry,
chemical imaging, experimental and theoretical studies of complex
subsurface fluids and mid-scale instrumentation.
The President's request for the Office of Science only partially
fulfills the carbon sequestration R&D and large-scale demonstration
project, which was authorized to receive $240 million in fiscal year
2009 and the carbon sequestration university-based R&D which was
authorized to receive $10 million in fiscal year 2009. An additional
$30 million is requested for carbon sequestration R&D and demonstration
within the Office of Fossil Energy to partially satisfy the wise
investments called for in the Energy Act of 2007. AGI requests that
funding for carbon sequestration R&D in the Office of Science and the
Office of Fossil Energy be increased to fulfill the intent of the
Energy Act of 2007.
doe energy efficiency and renewable energy
Within DOE Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, the President's
fiscal year 2009 budget request would cut funding by 27 percent or $467
million. We are concerned about the cuts to alternative energy R&D
programs, in particular the reduction of more than 70 percent (a cut of
almost $7 million) for hydropower R&D which would decimate the program.
A balanced portfolio of R&D across many promising energy resources
should be maintained with steady funding to help ensure energy supplies
in a changing world.
AGI applauds the $30 million requested for geothermal R&D and
greatly appreciates previous support from Congress for this key
alternative energy resource. The geothermal research program within the
Renewable Energy account, which funds Earth science research in
materials, geofluids, geochemistry, geophysics, rock properties,
reservoir modeling, and seismic mapping, would receive an increase of
51 percent from fiscal year 2008 enacted levels only one year after the
administration slated the program for termination. The new funds for
geothermal satisfy in part an authorization in the Energy Independence
and Security Act of 2007, which calls for $90 million for geothermal
R&D in fiscal year 2009.
doe fossil energy research and development
AGI urges you to take a critical look at the Department of Energy's
Fossil Energy Research and Development (R&D) portfolio as you prepare
to craft the fiscal year 2009 Energy and Water Development
Appropriations bill. Over the past 8 years, Members of Congress have
strongly emphasized the need for a responsible, diversified and
comprehensive energy policy for the Nation. The growing global
competition for fossil fuels has led to a repeated and concerted
request by Congress to ensure the Nation's energy security. On February
28, 2007 this subcommittee held a hearing on the ``10-Year Energy
Research and Development Outlook'' in which the Energy Information
Administrator Guy Caruso noted the Nation's need for fossil fuels over
the next 30 years and the other expert witnesses noted the critical
need to continue R&D on fossil fuels and all other energy resources.
The President's proposal, which provides no funding for oil and gas
R&D, is short sighted and inconsistent with congressional concerns and
expert testimony presented to your subcommittee. No funding for oil and
gas R&D will hinder our ability to achieve energy stability and
security.
The research dollars spent by Fossil Energy R&D go primarily to
universities, State geological surveys and research consortia to
address critical issues like enhanced recovery from known fields and
unconventional sources that are the future of our natural gas supply.
This money does not go into corporate coffers, but it helps American
businesses remain competitive by giving them a technological edge over
foreign companies. All major advances in oil and gas production can be
tied to research and technology. AGI strongly encourages the
subcommittee to ensure a balanced and diversified energy research
portfolio that does not ignore the Nation's primary sources of energy,
fossil fuels, for at least the next 30 years.
Today's domestic industry has independent producers at its core.
With fewer and fewer major producing companies and their concentration
on adding more expensive reserves from outside of the contiguous United
States, it is the smaller independent producers developing new
technologies concentrated on our domestic resources. However, without
Federal contributions to basic research that drives innovation, small
producers cannot develop new technologies as fast, or as well, as they
do today. The program has produced many key successes among the typical
short-term (1 to 5 years) projects usually chosen by the DOE. And even
failed projects have proven beneficial, because they've often resulted
in redirection of effort toward more practical exploration and
production solutions.
In 2003, at the request of the Interior Appropriations
Subcommittee, the National Academies released a report entitled Energy
Research at DOE: Was It Worth It? Energy Efficiency and Fossil Energy
Research 1978 to 2000. This report found that Fossil Energy R&D was
beneficial because the industry snapped up the new technologies created
by the R&D program, developed other technologies that were waiting for
market forces to bring about conditions favorable to commercializing
them and otherwise made new discoveries. In real dollars from 1986-2000
the Government invested $4.5 billion into Fossil Energy R&D. During
that time, realized economic benefits totaled $7.4 billion. This
program is not only paying for itself, it has brought in $2.9 billion
in revenue.
Unfortunately, despite this success, the President's fiscal year
2009 budget request continues the alarming reduction of energy R&D
funding by eliminating all funding for our primary energy resources,
oil and gas. Federal funding for renewable, fossil and nuclear R&D has
decreased dramatically from $5.5 billion in 1978 to $793 million in
2005 according to a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report
entitled Key Challenges Remain for Developing and Deploying Advanced
Energy Technologies to Meet Future Needs. Such significant under-
investment in energy R&D over many decades hinders progress on cost-
effective and environmentally-sound exploration and extraction of raw
energy resources and clean and efficient development, production and
use of energy products.
The Federal investment in energy R&D is particularly important when
it comes to longer-range research with diversified benefits. In today's
competitive markets, the private sector focuses dwindling research
dollars on shorter-term results in highly applied areas such as
technical services. In this context, DOE's support of fossil energy
research, where the focus is truly on research, is very significant in
magnitude and impact compared to that done in the private sector, where
the focus is mainly on development. Without more emphasis on research,
we risk losing our technological edge in the highly competitive global
market place.
Perhaps one of the most promising areas of R&D for domestic oil
supplies are in the ultra deep waters where drilling is allowed in the
Gulf of Mexico. The Energy Policy Act of 2005, set aside $50 million
annually from collected offshore royalties for ultra deep water and
other unconventional oil and gas R&D to support clean and efficient
exploration and extraction in the Gulf. The President's budget request
would repeal this program and provide no funding for ultra deep water
and other unconventional oil and gas R&D. AGI asks that you consider
R&D spending or other incentives to encourage the private sector to
invest in clean and efficient technological advances to enhance our
unconventional fossil fuel supply in offshore regions where drilling is
allowed and significant infrastructure already exists.
The research funded by DOE leads to new technologies that improve
the efficiency and productivity of the domestic energy industry.
Continued research on fossil energy is critical to America's future and
should be a key component of any national energy strategy. The societal
benefits of fossil energy R&D extend to such areas as economic and
national security, job creation, capital investment, and reduction of
the trade deficit. The Nation will remain dependent on petroleum as its
principal transportation fuel for the foreseeable future and natural
gas is growing in importance. It is critical that domestic production
not be allowed to prematurely decline at a time when tremendous
advances are being made in improving the technology with which these
resources are extracted. The recent spike in oil and natural gas prices
is a reminder of the need to retain a vibrant domestic industry in the
face of uncertain sources overseas. Technological advances are
necessary to maintaining our resource base and ensuring this country's
future energy security.
Thank you for the opportunity to present this testimony to the
subcommittee.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science
Society of America, and the Soil Science Society of America
Dear Chairman Dorgan, Ranking Member Domenici and members of the
subcommittee, the American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of
America, and Soil Science Society of America (ASA-CSSA-SSSA) are
pleased to submit the following funding recommendations for the
Department of Energy for fiscal year 2009. For the Office of Science,
ASA-CSSA-SSSA recommend a funding level of $4.722 billion, an 18
percent increase over fiscal year 2008 ($3.973 billion). For the Office
of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, we recommend a funding level
of $1.843 billion, a 7 percent increase over fiscal year 2008. We
recommend a funding level of $6.094 billion, a 7 percent increase, for
the Office of Environmental Management. Specifics for each of these and
other budget areas follow below.
With more than 25,000 members and practicing professionals, ASA-
CSSA-SSSA are the largest life science professional societies in the
United States dedicated to the agronomic, crop and soil sciences. ASA-
CSSA-SSSA play a major role in promoting progress in these sciences
through the publication of quality journals and books, convening
meetings and workshops, developing educational, training, and public
information programs, providing scientific advice to inform public
policy, and promoting ethical conduct among practitioners of agronomy
and crop and soil sciences.
department of energy office of science
The American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America,
and Soil Science Society of America (ASA-CSSA-SSSA) understand the
challenges the House Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee faces
with the tight budget for fiscal year 2009. We also recognize that the
Energy and Water Appropriations bill has many valuable and necessary
components, and we applaud the subcommittee for funding the DOE Office
of Science in the fiscal year 2008 Omnibus Appropriations bill at
$3.973 billion. Under the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-
58), the Office of Science is authorized to receive $5.2 billion in
fiscal year 2009. Congress approved the America COMPETES Act of 2007
(Public Law 110-69), recognizing that an investment in basic
(discovery) scientific research is essential to providing America the
brainpower necessary to maintain a competitive advantage in the global
economy and keep U.S. jobs from being shipped overseas. The President's
request of $4.722 billion is consistent with the America COMPETES Act,
which authorizes the doubling of the Office of Science's budget over a
7-year period. Such an investment is needed to keep U.S. science and
engineering at the forefront of global research and development in the
biological sciences and geosciences, computing and many other critical
scientific fields. The Office of Science supports graduate students and
postdoctoral researchers early in their careers. Nearly one-third of
its research funding goes to support research at more than 300 colleges
and universities nationwide. Moreover, approximately half the users at
Office of Science user facilities are from colleges and universities,
providing further support to their researchers. The Office of Science
also reaches out to America's youth in grades K-12 and their teachers
to help improve students' knowledge of science and mathematics and
their understanding of global energy and environmental challenges. This
recommended funding level of $4.722 billion is critical to ensuring our
future energy self-sufficiency and as a means to address major
environmental challenges including global climate change. Finally, a
funding level of $4.722 billion will allow the Office of Science to:
maintain and strengthen DOE's core research programs at both the DOE
national laboratories and at universities; provide support for 1,000 of
PhD's, postdoctoral associates, and graduate students in fiscal year
2009; ensure maximum utilization of DOE research facilities; allow the
Office of Science to develop and construct the next-generation
facilities necessary to maintain U.S. preeminence in scientific
research; and enable DOE to continue to pursue the tremendous
scientific opportunities outlined in the Office of Science Strategic
Plan and in its 20 Year Scientific Facilities Plan.
basic energy sciences
Within the Office of Science, the Basic Energy Sciences (BES)
Program is a multipurpose, scientific research effort that fosters and
supports fundamental research to expand the scientific foundations for
new and improved energy technologies and for understanding and
mitigating the environmental impacts of energy use. ASA-CSSA-SSSA
support the President's fiscal year 2009 request of $1.568 billion, a
23 percent increase over fiscal year 2008, for BES. The portfolio of
programs at BES supports research in the natural sciences by focusing
basic (discovery) research on, among other disciplines, biosciences,
chemistry and geosciences. Practically every element of energy
resources, production, conversion and waste mitigation is addressed in
basic research supported by BES programs. Research in chemistry has
lead to the development of new solar photoconversion processes and new
tools for environmental remediation and waste management. Research in
geosciences leads to advanced monitoring and measurement techniques for
reservoir definition. Research in the molecular and biochemical nature
of photosynthesis aids the development of solar photo-energy
conversion.
Within the Basic Energy Sciences Program, the Chemical Sciences,
Geosciences, and Energy Biosciences subprogram supports fundamental
research in geochemistry, geophysics and biosciences. The Geosciences
Research Program supports research focused at developing an
understanding of fundamental Earth processes that can be used as a
foundation for efficient, effective, and environmentally sound use of
energy resources, and provide an improved scientific basis for advanced
energy and environmental technologies. The Biosciences Research Program
supports basic research in molecular-level studies on solar energy
capture through natural photosynthesis; the mechanisms and regulation
of carbon fixation and carbon energy storage; the synthesis,
degradation, and molecular interconversions of complex hydrocarbons and
carbohydrates; and the study of novel biosystems and their potential
for materials synthesis, chemical catalysis, and materials synthesized
at the nanoscale.
biological and environmental research
Within the Office of Science, the Biological and Environmental
Research (BER) Program, for more than five decades, has advanced
environmental and biological knowledge that supports national security
through improved energy production, development, and use; international
scientific leadership that underpins our Nation's technological
advances; and research that improves the quality of life for all
Americans. BER supports these vital national missions through
competitive and peer-reviewed research at national laboratories,
universities, and private institutions. In addition, BER develops and
delivers the knowledge needed to support the President's National
Energy Plan. ASA-CSSA-SSSA support a 7 percent increase for BER which
would bring the funding level to $582,504,790 for fiscal year 2009.
ASA-CSSA-SSSA support a variety of programs within BER including the
Life Sciences subprogram which supports Carbon Sequestration Research
(we recommend a 7 percent increase, bringing the funding level to
$7,625,890), and the Genomes to Life (GTL) program (we also recommend a
7 percent increase to bring funding to $163,422,170). Within Genomes to
Life (GTL) are programs supportive of bioenergy development including
GTL Foundation Research, GTL Sequencing, GTL Bioethanol Research, and
GTL Bioenergy Research Centers, all playing an important role in
achieving energy independence for America. Also within BER is the
Environmental Remediation subprogram and its Environmental Remediation
Sciences Research program, both critical programs to advancing tools
needed to clean up contaminated sites. ASA-CSSA-SSSA support the
President's budget request for the Climate Change Research subprogram
in BER which calls for a 13 percent increase bringing the funding level
to $154,927,000. This subprogram supports many important areas of
climate change research including: Climate Forcing which supports the
Terrestrial Carbon Processes program and supports the Ameriflux network
of research sites (which should receive a 7 percent increase, bringing
funding to $14,379,730), as understanding the role that terrestrial
ecosystems play in capturing and storing carbon is essential to
developing strategies to mitigate global climate change. An additional
program of high importance within the Climate Change Research
subprogram is the Climate Change Response and its associated programs--
Ecosystem Function and Response, and Education. Finally, also under the
Climate Change Research subprogram is the Climate Change Mitigation
program, part of BER's support to the Climate Change Technology
Program, which will continue to focus only on terrestrial carbon
sequestration.
department of energy office of energy efficiency and renewable energy
Biomass is currently the only clean, renewable energy source that
can help to significantly diversify transportation fuels in the U.S.
DOE's Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Biomass Program is helping
transform the Nation's renewable and abundant biomass resources into
cost competitive, high performance biofuels, bioproducts, and biopower.
The Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) manages
America's investment in the research and development (RD&D) of DOE's
diverse energy efficiency and renewable energy applied science
portfolio. For the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, we
recommend a funding level of $1.843 billion, a 7 percent increase over
fiscal year 2008. The fiscal year 2009 EERE budget maintains focus on
key components of the AEI and Twenty in Ten including the Biofuels
Initiative to develop affordable, bio-based transportation fuels from a
wider variety of feedstocks and agricultural waste products.
Note: ASA-CSSA-SSSA strongly oppose the use by the Department of
the term ``agricultural wastes''. Crop residues, e.g., corn stover,
play a very important role in nutrient cycling, erosion control and
organic matter development. Recent studies have shown that excessive
removal of crop residues from agricultural lands can lead to a decline
in soil quality. By no means should they ever be referred to as
``wastes''.
biomass and biorefinery systems
Within EERE, the Biomass and Biorefinery Systems plays an important
role providing support for Regional Biomass Feedstock Development
Partnerships and Infrastructure Core R&D programs, both within
Feedstock Infrastructure. Activities included within this program are
resource assessment, education, sustainable agronomic systems
development, and biomass crop development. The mission of the Biomass
Program is to develop and transform our domestic, renewable, and
abundant biomass resources into cost-competitive, high performance
biofuels, bioproducts and biopower through targeted RD&D leveraged by
public and private partnerships. ASA-CSSA-SSSA support the President's
request for a 25 percent increase for the Feedstock Infrastructure
program which would bring the funding level to $15,500,000.
department of energy office of environmental management
ASA-CSSA-SSSA urge the subcommittee to provide the Office of
Environmental Management (EM) a 7 percent increase for fiscal year 2009
which would bring total funding for EM to $6.094 billion. EM supports
high-priority soil and ground water remediation and excess D&D at
Portsmouth, Paducah, Los Alamos, Savannah River, Oak Ridge, Idaho,
Hanford, and other sites. Technology Development and Deployment
supports tank waste, soil and groundwater, and facility D&D.
climate change research
ASA-CSSA-SSSA urge the subcommittee to continue to provide strong
support for Climate Change Research to the following programs as
follows: Climate Change Science Program (CCSP), $145,940,000; Climate
Change Research Initiative (CCRI), $23,672,000; and Climate Change
Technology Program (CCTP), $833,301,000. These three programs together
will increase our understanding of the impacts of global climate change
and also develop tools and technologies to mitigate these impacts.
basic and applied r&d coordination
The Office of Science continues to coordinate basic research
efforts in many areas with the Department's applied technology offices.
Within this area is Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage R&D (we
recommend a 7 percent increase, bringing total funding to $18,055,000).
The BER research includes understanding, modeling, and predicting the
processes that control the fate of carbon dioxide injected into
geologic formations, subsurface carbon storage, and the role of
microbes and plants in carbon sequestration in both marine and
terrestrial environments.
national laboratories
The Office of Science manages 10 world-class laboratories, which
often are called the ``crown jewels'' of our national research
infrastructure. The national laboratory system, created over a half-
century ago, is the most comprehensive research system of its kind in
the world. Five are multi-program facilities including the Oak Ridge
National Laboratory. In the 2007 fiscal year, these facilities were
used by more than 21,000 researchers from universities, national
laboratories, private industry, and other Federal science agencies.
national energy technology laboratory (netl)
NETL's Carbon Sequestration Program is helping to develop
technologies to capture, purify, and store carbon dioxide
(CO2) in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions without
adversely influencing energy use or hindering economic growth.
Terrestrial sequestration requires the development of technologies to
quantify with a high degree of precision and reliability the amount of
carbon stored in a given ecosystem. Program efforts in this area are
focused on increasing carbon uptake on mined lands and evaluation of
no-till agriculture, reforestation, rangeland improvement, wetlands
recovery, and riparian restoration. ASA-CSSA-SSSA urge the subcommittee
to direct the Department to increase funding for its terrestrial carbon
sequestration program, specifically The Regional Carbon Sequestration
Partnerships, which are collaborations between Government, industry,
universities, and international organizations funded by DOE to
determine the most suitable technologies, regulations, and
infrastructure needs for carbon capture and sequestration.
oak ridge national laboratory (ornl)
ORNL is one of the world's premier centers for R&D on energy
production, distribution, and use and on the effects of energy
technologies and decisions on society. Clean, efficient, safe
production and use of energy have long been our goals in research and
development. At ORNL, unique facilities for energy-related R&D are used
both for technology development and for fundamental investigations in
the basic energy sciences that underpin the technology work.
Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of our requests.
______
Prepared Statement of the Friends Committee on National Legislation
(Quakers)
The Friends Committee on National Legislation (Quakers) makes the
following recommendations on budget request of the National Nuclear
Security Administration for fiscal year 2009 (fiscal year 2009):
--Reliable Replacement Warhead.--Under the Weapons Activities/
Directed Stockpile Work program, delete all funding from the
$10 million requested. Include in the committee report the same
language that was in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008:
``No funding is provided for the Reliable Replacement
Warhead.''
--International Nuclear Materials Protection and Cooperation.--Under
the Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation program, increase funding
by $195 million, from the requested $430 million to $625
million for fiscal year 2009. This would be the same amount as
was appropriated for fiscal year 2008.
--Nonproliferation and Verification R&D.--Under the Defense Nuclear
Nonproliferation program, we oppose the administration's
proposed budget cut of $112 million and support a funding level
closer to the fiscal year 2008 level of $387 million, but make
no specific suggestion.
--Global Threat Reduction Initiative.--Under the Defense Nuclear
Nonproliferation program, we strongly support the
administration's proposed increase of $26 million for fiscal
year 2009, to $220 million.
Reliable Replacement Warhead.--Congress wisely rejected the
administration's request for the Reliable Replacement Warhead for
fiscal year 2008. The arguments have not changed since last year.
The Joint Explanatory Statement to the Consolidated Appropriations
Act for fiscal year 2008 explains:
``As stated in both the House and Senate reports, Congress believes
a new strategic nuclear deterrent mission assessment for the 21st
century is required to define the associated stockpile requirements and
determine the scope of the weapons complex modernization plans. The
NNSA is directed to develop a long-term scientific capability roadmap
for the national laboratories to be submitted to the Committee on
Appropriations.''
FCNL agrees. The United States still has no 21st century nuclear
weapons policy in place. Until the reports mandated by the fiscal year
2008 defense authorization bill are completed, there is no framework to
base long-term nuclear stockpile decisions on.
The nuclear stockpile continues to be annually certified as safe
and reliable by the Secretaries of Defense and Energy. There remains no
need to rush to replace the plutonium pits in warheads, which have been
found to have lifetimes of a century or more.
Additionally, further development of RRW could have serious adverse
international security consequences. Proceeding with RRW would send the
wrong message to would-be proliferators, and undermine ongoing efforts
to curb the nuclear programs of Iran and North Korea. Development of a
new U.S. warhead would also provide nuclear weapons advocates in Russia
with effective material to lobby for more aggressive Russian nuclear
weapons modernization programs. Senator Sam Nunn's 2007 testimony
before your House Subcommittee counterpart remains as relevant today:
``[I]f Congress gives a green light to this [RRW] program in our
current world environment, I believe that this will be: misunderstood
by our allies; exploited by our adversaries; and complicate our work to
prevent the spread and use of nuclear weapons.''
Finally, FCNL rejects the Energy Department (DOE) assertion that
pursuing the RRW program is the only way to elicit the data needed to
address stockpile certification concerns raised by the September 7,
2007 review of RRW by the JASON Defense Advisory Group.
We believe DOE can address the stockpile certification concerns
raised by the JASONs review without developing RRW. The Joint
Explanatory Statement to the Consolidated Appropriations Act for fiscal
year 2008 also reaches this conclusion. By creating the Advanced
Certification campaign to address these certification issues and
simultaneously zeroing out the RRW program, the subcommittee (in
conjunction with your House counterpart) determined that these issues
could be pursued without advancement of the RRW program.
Nuclear Nonproliferation Programs.--Hundreds of tons of nuclear
weapons materials are stored at inadequately secured facilities in
Russia and perhaps 20 other countries. One hundred and ten pounds of
highly enriched uranium could be fashioned into a crude nuclear weapon
by a committed group of violent extremists. Such a weapon would destroy
downtown New York, killing more than half-a-million people from the
immediate effects of the explosion. The cost would be well over $1
trillion from the staggering economic disruption. A nuclear detonation
in any U.S. city would cause devastation that would make the 9/11
attack and the Katrina hurricane pale in comparison.
These programs continue to enjoy strong support across the
political spectrum, as evidenced by these statements from the past few
months (emphasis added):
``. . . the Department of Defense's Cooperative Threat Reduction
program and the Department of Energy's nuclear nonproliferation
programs . . . address perhaps the single biggest threat to the U.S.
homeland, the threat of nuclear terrorism and other weapons of mass
destruction.'' Rep. Ike Skelton, Chairman, House Armed Service
Committee, press release, December 7, 2007.
``Nuclear nonproliferation programs such as the NNSA's Global
Threat Reduction Initiative, GTRI, are some of the most important tools
we have to curb the threat of nuclear material being acquired by those
who wish to do us harm.'' Sen. Pete V. Domenici, Ranking Member, Senate
Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development,
Congressional Record, December 12, 2007, p. S15228.
``The proliferation of weapons of mass destruction remains the
number one national security threat facing the United States and the
international community.'' Sen. Richard G. Lugar, Ranking Member,
Senate Foreign Relations Committee, ``Remarks at the Defense in Depth
against WMD CPC Conference,'' Chantilly, VA, January 30, 2008.
The House Budget Resolution for fiscal year 2009 also reaches the
same conclusions:
``It is the policy of this resolution that . . . implementing the
recommendation of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the
United States (commonly referred to as the 9/11 Commission) to
adequately fund cooperative threat reduction and nuclear
nonproliferation programs (securing `loose nukes') is a high priority
and should receive far greater emphasis than the President's budget
provides;'' H. Con. Res. 312, sec. 502, March 7, 2008 (emphasis added).
Even the administration's budget request agrees:
``The convergence of heightened terrorist activities and the ease
of moving materials, technology and information across borders have
made the potential for terrorism involving weapons of mass destruction
(WMD) the most serious threat facing the Nation. Preventing WMD from
falling into the hands of terrorists is the top national security
priority of this administration.'' Department of Energy, Fiscal Year
2009 Congressional Budget Request, vol. 1, p. 453, February 2009
(emphasis added).
However, the administration's budget request does not match its
rhetoric. We ask the subcommittee to increase the nuclear
nonproliferation programs to at least last year's levels.
We greatly appreciate the termination of the Reliable Replacement
Warhead program in the Consolidated Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year
2008. We also appreciate the additional funds the subcommittee provided
for nuclear nonproliferation programs in the Continuing Resolution, the
Supplemental Appropriations Act, and the Consolidated Appropriations
Act. We believe the country is more secure because of your actions. We
urge you again to apply those priorities to your fiscal year 2009 bill.
Thank you for your consideration.
______
Prepared Statement of the US Fuel Cell Council
Chairman Dorgan, Ranking Member Domenici, and distinguished members
of the subcommittee, on behalf of the 110 organizations of the US Fuel
Cell Council (USFCC), I want to thank this subcommittee for supporting
fuel cell funding over the years. We are writing to urge strong support
for fuel cell and hydrogen programs managed by the Department of
Energy. Specifically, we request the subcommittee to consider the
following:
--Provide $20 million to establish a Market Transformation program.
--Restore $39 million to continue Hydrogen Production and Delivery
R&D.
--Add $15 million to Technology Validation (managed by Vehicle
Technologies--Hybrid Electric Systems).
--Add $5 million to restore EERE Manufacturing R&D.
--Add $10 million to Fossil Energy's SECA program.
--Add $4 million to Safety Codes and Standards, and maintain current
jurisdiction.
--Maintain Education jurisdiction under the Hydrogen Technology
Program and fund at $4 million.
--Restore $2 million to continue Fuel Processor R&D.
Fuel cells are a family of technologies that are being developed
for portable, stationary and transportation applications.
These technologies offer a unique combination of benefits. And
while our industry has invested billions to develop fuel cells for
portable, stationary and transportation applications, we view our
partnership with the Federal Government as vital. Funding for other
worthwhile technologies must not come at the expense of the hydrogen
program, as we feel this would impede efforts to become more energy
independent.
Establishing a Market Transformation program is a top priority for
industry. Last year the Senate Energy and Water Appropriations
Subcommittee provided funding for this endeavor; however, the measure
was not included in the final appropriations bill. The program, when
funded, will fulfill congressional intent as outlined in sections 782
and 783 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005.
The Market Transformation program will allow the Department of
Energy to assist other agencies to purchase portable, stationary and
transportation fuel cell systems. The program, which is voluntary, is
seen by industry as a key component to commercialization as it would
also help fuel cell manufacturers increase output, thereby reducing
costs and creating economies of scale. It would also allow more Federal
agencies to comply with new energy efficiency guidelines as directed by
Executive Order.
Unfortunately, the President's fiscal year 2009 request cuts or
changes a number of critical path programs, including Hydrogen
Production and Delivery R&D; Fuel Processor R&D; and Manufacturing R&D.
These programs are designed to maximize availability of fuel cells and
hydrogen at an affordable price.
With regard to Hydrogen Production R&D and Delivery, the
administration justifies the elimination of the program by stating that
the ``core technology readiness goals established for 2015 can be met
with the technologies for producing hydrogen from natural gas that were
developed in prior years, so . . . near-term hydrogen production is no
longer a critical-path barrier.'' We disagree. Cost-effective and
environmentally benign methods of reforming hydrocarbons are still not
commercially feasible. Several technical challenges remain, including
low cost desulfurization methods. Current refining methods often
produce flammable and/or hazardous waste. While alternative
desulfurization materials can avoid these problems, they are
prohibitively expensive--as much as 10 times the current cost. If
reinstated by Congress, the Department should be instructed to fund
improvements in removing sulfur-containing odorants from natural gas
and liquefied petroleum gas. In addition, a coordinated, nationwide (or
even international) effort to replace sulfur-containing odorants with
non-sulfur-containing odorants should be initiated.
In the transportation arena, there is growing support for ethanol
and other biofuels, and for hybrid vehicles as responses to our energy
challenge. These programs would not, by themselves, solve our problem.
They would, however buy us time to make the transition to hydrogen.
Automakers still view hydrogen as the ultimate transportation fuel as
it allows long range driving, short fueling time with little to zero-
emissions. The public/private partnership in fuel cells is working, and
more development and demonstration is needed.
Work performed by the Technology Validation program is designed to
demonstrate the performance of hydrogen infrastructure and fuel cell
systems under real world operating conditions. If development work were
to stop due to lack of funding it could take years or even decades to
revive the effort. By restoring funding to fiscal year 2008 levels, the
Department and private industry will continue to collect necessary data
to continue development of fuel cells for vehicles
Manufacturing R&D was also eliminated in the fiscal year 2009
request. Last year, the administration put significant focus on this
program as it was critical to ``cultivate a robust domestic
manufacturing capability in evolving hydrogen infrastructure and fuel
cell technologies, vital to establishing U.S. economic leadership in
emerging hydrogen and fuel cell industries.'' After 1 year and a single
round of solicitations awarded, the administration now feels the
program is not a critical-path barrier to achieving the programs core
technology readiness goals for 2015.
Once again, we disagree with the President's plan. The Department,
in cooperation with private industry, has made great strides in
reducing the high-volume cost of fuel cells. Eliminating this program
in its infancy will only delay efforts to bring the cost of fuel cells
down.
With regard to the Fossil Energy (FE) activities, we request $70
million for fuel cell activities, which includes funding for the Solid
State Energy Conversion Alliance (SECA). The SECA program is designed
to develop high-efficiency fuel cells that are capable of utilizing a
variety of domestically available fuel, including coal gas, ethanol and
other biofuels.
Proposed program cuts aside, we feel that most of the program
reorganizations suggested are unnecessary. For example, a proposal to
move hydrogen Education and Codes and Standards staff from the hydrogen
program to the vehicle technologies program, in the name of
consolidation, is misguided. Department leadership describes these as
``complementary'' activities, however we strongly disagree.
If altered, we fear the Department will not be able to accomplish
its stated mission to educate the public, code and safety officials,
and support DOE Market Transformation activities. Given the
transformational nature of hydrogen, we believe these positions
properly should remain within the hydrogen program for maximum
effectiveness, and in any event reorganization ought to be left to the
next administration.
Supporting the remainder of the Presidents fiscal year 2009 plan--
Hydrogen Storage R&D, Fuel Cell Stack Component R&D, and Distributed
Energy Fuel Cells Systems--will maintain the integrity of the
competitively awarded projects administered by the Department of Energy
and continue our public/private partnership designed to fully
commercialize fuel cell and hydrogen technologies.
Over the past 4 years, shortfalls in fuel cell and hydrogen core
program funds have slowed and in some cases stopped high-priority
research and development. Full funding can restore program momentum,
and give the country some hope that we can break the cycle of energy
dependence. Competition for energy supply and security of supply are
both urgent concerns, and the Nation's investment, we believe, ought to
match that urgency.
Thank you for considering our requests.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Association of State Energy
Officials
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I am Dub Taylor of
Texas and chair of the National Association of State Energy Officials
(NASEO). NASEO is submitting this testimony in support of funding for a
variety of U.S. Department of Energy programs. Specifically, we are
testifying in support of no less than $75 million for the State Energy
Program (SEP). SEP is the most successful program operated by DOE in
this area. Within a $75 million funding level for SEP we would support
the administration's proposed $10 million competitive program, but we
do not support such an effort at the proposed funding level of $25
million for the core SEP activities and $25 million for the competitive
program. SEP is focused on direct energy project development, where
most of the resources are expended. SEP has set a standard for State-
Federal cooperation and matching funds to achieve critical Federal and
State energy goals. We also support $300 million for the Weatherization
Assistance Program (WAP). These programs are successful and have a
strong record of delivering savings to low-income Americans,
homeowners, businesses, and industry. We also support an increase in
the budget for the Energy Information Administration (EIA) to $120
million, including an increase of $600,000 for EIA's State Heating Oil
and Propane Program, in order to cover the added costs of increasing
the frequency of information collection (to weekly), the addition of
natural gas, and increasing the number of State participants. EIA's new
State-by-State data is very helpful. EIA funding is a critical piece of
energy emergency preparedness and response. NASEO continues to support
funding for a variety of critical deployment programs, including
Building Codes Training and Assistance ($10 million), Rebuild America
($5 million), Energy Star ($10 million) and Clean Cities (Vehicle
Technologies Deployment) ($12.5 million). NASEO supports funding for
the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, at least at
the fiscal year 2006 request of $161.9 million, with specific funding
for the Division of Infrastructure Security and Energy Restoration of
$18 million, which funds critical energy assurance activities. We also
strongly support the R&D function and Operations and Analysis function.
The industries program should be funded at a $74.8 million level, equal
to the fiscal year 2005 levels, to promote efficiency efforts and to
maintain U.S. manufacturing jobs, especially in light of the loss of
millions of these jobs in recent years. Proposed cuts in these programs
are counter-productive and are detrimental to a balanced national
energy policy. The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA)
also has a number of exemplary provisions which should also receive
funding, including the new commercial buildings initiative. EISA also
reauthorized SEP (section 531) and Weatherization (section 411) through
fiscal year 2012. We remain concerned that a number of programs
authorized in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT 2005) have received
no direct funding. Of special interest are sections 124, 125, 126, 128
and 140 of EPACT 2005.
Over the past 7 years, both oil and natural gas prices have been
rising in response to expanded Chinese and Indian use, other
international events, increased domestic use, the falling dollar and
the result of the 2005 hurricanes. We expect $100+ oil to continue for
an extended period of time, with an expanded problem as summer
approaches. Gasoline prices may spike to $4/gallon. Diesel prices are
already over $4/gallon. In addition, we now have quantifiable evidence
of the success of the SEP program, which demonstrates the unparalleled
savings and return on investment to the Federal taxpayer of SEP. Every
State gets an SEP grant and all States, the District of Columbia and
territories support the program.
In January 2003, Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) completed a
study and concluded, ``The impressive savings and emissions reductions
numbers, ratios of savings to funding, and payback periods . . .
indicate that the State Energy Program is operating effectively and is
having a substantial positive impact on the Nation's energy
situation.'' ORNL updated that study and found that $1 in SEP funding
yields: (1) $7.22 in annual energy cost savings; (2) $10.71 in
leveraged funding from the States and private sector in 18 types of
project areas; (3) annual energy savings of 47,593,409 million source
BTUs; and (4) annual cost savings of $333,623,619. The annual cost-
effective emissions reductions associated with the energy savings are
equally significant: (1) Carbon--826,049 metric tons; (2) VOCs--135.8
metric tons; (3) NOX--6,211 metric tons; (4) fine
particulate matter (PM10)--160 metric tons; (5) SO2--8,491
metric tons; and (6) CO--1,000 metric tons. The energy cost savings is
much higher today, in light of higher prices. State monitoring and
verification has confirmed SEP's effectiveness.
State Energy Program Special Projects and Other Deployment
Programs.--Through fiscal year 2005, SEP Special Projects provided
matching grants to States to conduct innovative project development. It
had been operated for 10 years and has produced significant results in
every State in the United States. We support funding of DOE's new,
proposed SEP competitive program, but only above a minimum $55 million
SEP appropriation for the base SEP program. The States with lower
populations are disadvantaged by this program.
EISA authorized a new Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block
Grants program (section 541-548). We look forward to working with
Congress and the administration to make this program a reality. We hope
start-up funding can be provided in fiscal year 2009. However, we
remain concerned that a structure that requires DOE to review and
process thousands of local government grant applications each year will
be unworkable. With the elimination of the DOE/EERE Regional Offices,
DOE contracting processes have become slower. There is now a more
attenuated connection between State and local governments with DOE. We
look forward to working with Congress, local governments and DOE to
correct this situation. Joint planning needs to occur immediately.
State energy offices have partnered with local governments for decades.
This program should allow us to supplement and enhance those
activities.
Industrial Energy Program.--A funding increase to a level of $74.8
million for the Industrial Technologies Program (ITP) is warranted.
This is a public-private partnership in which industry and the States
work with DOE to jointly fund cutting-edge research in the energy area.
The results have been reduced energy consumption, reduced environmental
impacts and increased competitive advantage of manufacturers (which is
more than one-third of U.S. energy use). The States play a major role
working with industry and DOE in the program to ensure economic
development in our States and to try to ensure that domestic jobs are
preserved. State energy offices are working effectively with DOE on the
``Save Energy Now'' campaign. Funding for distributed generation should
be included above these amounts.
Examples of Successful State Energy Program Activities.--The States
have implemented thousands of projects. Here are a few representative
examples.
California.--The California Energy Commission has operated energy
programs in virtually every sector of the economy. The State has
upgraded residential and non-residential building codes (including
major 2008 upgrades), developed a school energy efficiency financing
program (including $100 million for high performance schools), and
instituted a new replacement program for school buses utilizing the
newest natural gas, advanced diesel and hybrid technologies. The
buildings program has reduced consumption by enormous amounts over the
past few years, through alternative financing programs and outreach.
California's greenhouse gas mitigation plans and a new solar initiative
are moving forward.
Colorado.--The State is conducting training to implement the new
statewide energy code. The energy office is pushing hard to promote the
use of biofuels and create infrastructure for the dispensing of the
fuel. The Colorado Carbon Fund has been developed to help individuals
and businesses develop and purchase offsets. In addition, the State is
working promoting community-based small wind projects, geothermal
energy, commercial buildings energy efficiency and a variety of solar
energy programs.
Hawaii.--After enacting significant legislation (``Energy for
Tomorrow''), the State is focused on implementing a plan to diversify
the energy sources utilized in the State. Distributed generation and
utility scale solar projects are being installed. An aggressive
hydrogen promotion program is ongoing. The State has a variety of
energy performance contracting projects. They have upgraded their
tropical energy building code. Extensive utilization of bioenergy and
biofuels is a priority and has been expanded.
Kentucky.--The energy office has been working on Energy Star
promotion activities and high performance energy programs for schools.
They are working to promote energy efficiency programs in the
agricultural sector as well, including the Kentucky Rural Energy
Consortium activities. They have been executing energy performance
contracts for a variety of State facilities.
Louisiana.--The State recently upgraded building energy codes. Now
they are embarked on an extensive training program to ensure that the
code will be followed and understood. In the alternative fuels area the
State has instituted projects including CNG fueling, hybrid electric
buses and bio-diesel promotions. Significant attention has been paid to
energy efficient reconstruction after Hurricane Katrina.
Mississippi.--The energy office has been working on an extensive
energy education program, ranging from school children to higher
education initiatives. The State has also been active in promoting
alternative motor fuels, rural business opportunities with the
agricultural sector, energy efficiency in State buildings and Energy
Star product promotions.
Missouri.--The energy office in Missouri has been operating a low-
interest energy efficiency loan program for school districts, colleges,
universities and local governments. Thus far, public entities have
saved more than $93 million, with more than 400 projects. The State
energy office has also worked with the Public Utility Commission and
the utilities within the State to get $20 million invested in
residential and commercial energy efficiency programs, with a
significant incremental increase to $20 million in investments in 2008
alone. A new revolving loan for biodiesel has also been initiated. The
energy office and the air agency have developed a program to set-aside
NOX allowances for energy efficiency and renewable energy.
New Jersey.--The State's Clean Energy Program expended
approximately $171 million in 2006 alone, with the expected electricity
and natural gas bill reductions for the life of these projects expected
to be over $2.3 billion. New Jersey has an extremely aggressive solar
energy program. Recent innovative projects have included a pilot
photovoltaics power systems program in Phillipsburg, a wireless energy
management demonstration project, an alternative fuel vehicle and a
bio-diesel vehicle rebate program, etc.
New Mexico.--After adoption of new energy legislation in 2007, the
State is pushing for new renewable energy transmission projects, the
implementation of the Renewable Portfolio Standard, expanded promotion
of the sustainable buildings tax credits, use of energy bonds,
promotion of ``solar roofs,'' and encouraging manufacturers to utilize
the alternative energy product tax credit. They have been training
green building professionals and promoting clean fuels and efficient
transportation options.
North Dakota.--The energy office in North Dakota has focused on
promotion of alternative fuels, wind energy projects (including a wind-
to-hydrogen demonstration), biomass gasification (with the EERC Center
for Renewable Energy in Grand Forks), energy efficiency for schools and
local governments and deployment of renewable technology.
South Dakota.--The energy office has instituted a energy efficient
grants program for higher education projects, including a 50 percent
match. Recent projects have included lighting, energy recovery and
heating and controls upgrades. The energy conservation loan program is
focused on State agencies and recent projects have included a biomass
boiler conversion. These projects have been instituted throughout the
State.
Texas.--The Texas Energy Office's Loan Star program has long
produced great success by reducing building energy consumption and
taxpayers' energy costs through efficient operation of public
buildings. This saved taxpayers more than $224 million through energy
efficiency projects. In another example, the State promoted the use of
``sleep'' software for computers, which is now used on 136,000 school
computers, saving 42 million kWh and reducing energy costs by $3
million annually. This is part of a broader energy efficiency program
that has helped 3,500 schools and local governments thus far. The State
has initiated the Texas Emissions Reduction Plan/Texas Energy
Partnership in 41 urban counties to reduce emissions through cost-
effective energy efficiency projects.
Utah.--The State has recently upgraded their building codes and
they have been pushing to train builders, local code officials,
architects and engineers. They also developed a zero-interest loan
program for school districts. A State renewable energy tax credit has
been utilized for large projects. The Governor has instituted a new
renewable energy initiative.
Washington.--The energy agency has been working on promoting energy
efficiency and renewable energy tax incentives, net metering and
biofuels development. The State is also working on promoting Energy
Star products and they are working regionally on building energy
efficiency activities. They have also instituted a regional energy
planning process.
West Virginia.--The Energy Division is focused on promotion of
energy efficiency in the industries of West Virginia, including work in
the steel, aluminum, chemical/polymer, glass, metal-casting, wood
products and mining industries. They are also promoting Energy Star
products, especially in the residential sector. The recently developed
State energy plan is being utilized to promote a diverse energy future
for the State.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Society of Plant Biologists
The American Society of Plant Biologists (ASPB) urges the
subcommittee to approve the Department of Energy (DOE) fiscal year 2009
budget request for the Office of Science of $4.7 billion. Please
support the Office of Basic Energy Sciences request for $1.568 billion.
Included with the Department's budget request for Basic Energy Sciences
is $297,113,000 for leading research in the Chemical Sciences,
Geosciences and Energy Biosciences Division. We urge you to support the
Department's budget request for the division, including $35.6 million
for Energy Biosciences research. ASPB supports the DOE budget request
of $568.5 million for the Office of Biological and Environmental
Research.
Research the subcommittee supported within the Energy Biosciences
program has led to many breakthroughs including increased understanding
of the composition of the cell wall. These findings help allow
scientists and the Department to project further research advances
leading to cost-competitive production of cellulosic ethanol. Many
years of basic research supported in Energy Biosciences led to these
cell wall findings. The highly regarded Energy Biosciences program also
funded basic research leading to the landmark discovery of an enzyme
that can convert cellulose into sugar for facile ethanol production.
Sunlight is the ultimate energy source for the earth. Harnessing
even a fraction of this sunlight would provide us sufficient energy for
years to come. Plants do this naturally through photosynthesis, also an
area of research that has garnered continuous support from the DOE
Energy Biosciences program. The burning of fossil fuels releases stored
carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, contributing to global warming.
Photosynthesis has the ability to recapture carbon dioxide, making
plants a carbon neutral contribution to our energy needs.
We credit the subcommittee, the Office of Basic Energy Sciences
Director and Under Secretary for the Office of Science for maintaining
each year standards for peer-review selection based on the highest
merit of science proposals submitted to the Energy Biosciences program
and other programs within the Office.
These findings on the cell wall and enzymes are being built upon in
a mission-related basic research effort by the Office of Biological and
Environmental Research aimed at achieving advances that make possible
cost-competitive production of cellulosic ethanol and other biofuels.
The three Bioenergy Research Centers awarded by BER will increase
understanding of cell wall and enzyme modifications needed to more
cost-effectively capture sugars in the cellulose and hemicellulose in
plant cell walls. We urge continued support for the three Bioenergy
Research Centers. The Centers will also make possible advances in
converting sugars to ethanol, biobutanol and other biofuels for the
Nation's motorists. Cellulose is the most abundant biological material
on earth. What was once only a dream of capturing and converting this
abundant, renewable and sustainable resource into transportation fuels
will become a reality thanks to continuing advances in plant and
microbial science that the subcommittee is making possible. Advances in
the fundamental understanding of oil crops such as soybean will
contribute to increased biodiesel fuel production.
We urge support for the $100 million initiative in Energy Frontier
Research Centers (EFRCs). Under this initiative, universities, national
laboratories, nonprofit organizations, and for-profit firms will be
invited to compete, singly or in partnerships, to establish an EFRC.
Centers will be selected by scientific peer review and funded at $2-5
million per year over a 5-year period. These integrated, multi-
investigator Centers will conduct fundamental research focusing on one
of more of several ``grand challenges'' recently identified in major
strategic planning efforts by the scientific community. The purpose of
these centers will be to integrate the talents and expertise of leading
scientists in a setting designed to accelerate research toward meeting
our critical energy challenges.
One of our most pressing energy challenges is in transportation
fuels. I wrote a letter to the editor on the exciting next generation
of biofuels that was published in The Washington Times on March 6,
2008. Following is the commentary:
[From The Washington Times, Mar. 6, 2008]
the next generation of biofuels
Oil closed at $100 a barrel February 19, for the first time. The
Washington Times reported on February 20, (``Oil tops $100 on refinery,
OPEC,'' Business) that fears that the Organization of the Petroleum
Exporting Countries may cut production contributed to the price
increase.
Some analysts see this $100 mark as just a stop on the way to $200-
per-barrel oil, possibly by the end of this decade. The reason cited is
similar to newspaper reports on the bump to $100 per barrel--OPEC's
control of supply.
In addition to the economic and political challenges imposed by our
reliance on foreign oil, we also need to be concerned that greenhouse
gas (GHG) emissions associated with the use of fossil fuel contribute
significantly to global warming, evident from observed increases in
global air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice
and a rising global average sea level. Is there a large-volume
alternative to the use of increasingly costly oil with its high GHG
emissions? There will be.
We are at the early stages of research on the next generation of
biofuels using plant cellulose. Plant stems, stalks and leaves will
become low-cost feedstocks for biofuels. A 2005 report from the U.S.
Department of Agriculture and the U.S. Department of Energy projects
that there will be enough biomass (cellulose) to meet more than one-
third of the current U.S. demand in transportation fuels.
At the same time, next-generation biofuels will greatly lower
emissions of stored carbon compared to gasoline. Biofuels will be
better for Americans' pocketbooks and the environment.
The President and Congress are to be commended for initiating
needed investments in new-generation biofuels research. Additional
investment is needed in all phases of plant research. This will help
hasten the day when biofuels make up 33 percent instead of 3 percent of
the transportation fuels used in the United States.
C. Robertson McClung,
President, American Society of Plant Biologists, Professor,
Dartmouth College.
Understanding plant growth and development at a systems level feeds
into increasing biomass, as does understanding basic mechanisms of
abiotic and biotic stress tolerance. Understanding how cell walls are
synthesized and their composition determined is not only fundamental to
our knowledge of basic plant biology, but also is a central issue in
biomass production and conversion. The same can be said of
understanding how plants synthesize and regulate the production of
lipids and oils as well as many other plant constituents and processes.
Please support increases in fiscal year 2009 for the Office of
Biological and Environmental Research Program for Ecosystem Research
(PER). PER sponsors experimental research to develop a better
scientific understanding of potential effects of climatic change on
U.S. terrestrial ecosystems and their component organisms. Field or
laboratory studies are directed at understanding cause-and-effect
relationships between temperature change and the abundance or
geographic distribution of terrestrial vascular plants or animals in
the United States. During the last decade there have been significant
advances in the mechanistic understanding of how the component elements
of terrestrial ecosystems are responding to elements of global change.
These include changes in: atmospheric carbon dioxide levels,
precipitation amount and seasonal distribution, and in daily and
seasonal temperature cycles. As the primary producers of terrestrial
ecosystems, the response of plants to multiple and interactive effects
of global change drive the overall ecosystem response. This mechanistic
research involving state-of-the-art physiological, biochemical,
molecular, and genomic approaches has been almost exclusively conducted
on individual plants exposed to global change scenarios under
controlled environment conditions. Over the same period of time there
have been tremendous strides made in the phenomenological
characterization of the response of terrestrial ecosystems to
interactive effects of global change. Again this research effort has
centered on plants as the drivers of the central ecosystem processes of
carbon, nitrogen, and water cycling. Plants also support the major
biotic and trophic interactions within ecosystems and there has been
intense interest to characterize the response of these interactions to
global change.
The emergent research frontier where breakthroughs are most needed
is in bridging mechanism and phenomenology to understand the systems
biology of a functioning ecosystem under realistic global change
treatments.
ASPB is a non-profit society of 5,000 scientists based primarily at
universities. ASPB publishes the most frequently cited plant science
journal in the world, Plant Physiology and the plant science journal
with the highest impact factor, The Plant Cell. Thank you again for the
opportunity to submit these comments to the subcommittee. Please let us
know if we could provide any additional information.
______
Prepared Statement of the Electric Drive Transportation Association
In the Nation's two newest comprehensive energy laws, the Energy
Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA), and the Energy Policy Act
of 2005 (EPAct05), Congress recognized the need to invest in
technologies and policies that will result in greater energy
independence. Those bills authorize research and development,
demonstration and deployment and manufacturing innovation programs to
promote electric drive technologies, which use electricity to displace
oil.
The Electric Drive Transportation Association (EDTA) applauds the
Senate's support for electric drive technologies, which reduce
petroleum consumption and decrease emissions of greenhouse gases and of
air pollutants. Using electricity, by itself or in conjunction with
another fuel, electric drive technologies power the wheels of vehicles
in use today and numerous others in development. These vehicles can be
passenger vehicles, trucks, tractors, locomotives or ground support
equipment. Electric drive also powers transportation infrastructure,
such as truck auxiliary power units and truck stop electrification
facilities, which allow idled trucks to power with clean, alternative
electricity.
Multiple fuel and vehicle technologies, including hybrids, battery
electric vehicles, fuel cell vehicles, and plug-in versions of these
electric drive vehicles, will be needed to end our unsustainable
dependence on oil. The Department of Energy's Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy programs to accelerate development of
electric drive vehicle technologies are pivotal to the effort to reduce
oil consumption.
The Senate's budget resolution provides $2 billion over the
President's request for these programs. As you allocate fiscal year
2009 funding for the important programs in the Office of Renewable
Energy and Energy Efficiency, we respectfully request that you provide
the resources necessary to realize the electric drive advances outlined
in EISA and EPAct05.
energy storage research and development
Specifically, we support expanded funding for energy storage
research and development at the Department of Energy's Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE), in particular, in the Vehicle
Technologies program.
Advanced batteries and other energy storage innovations are the key
to commercialization of plug-in electric drive and will accelerate
advances in all electric drive vehicles. The administration's request
for the existing DOE program is essentially level with fiscal year 2008
funding and does not reflect the intent of Congress as detailed in
EISA.
Fiscal year 2009 funding in the Hybrid Electric Systems account
should be expanded to include resources for the EISA section 641 energy
storage competitiveness program. This program, which is authorized at
$295 million, includes basic and applied research, development and
demonstration programs to support U.S. competitiveness in energy
storage for electric drive vehicles and stationary applications.
fuel cell technologies
We also urge you to ensure that the national effort to develop
hydrogen fuel cell options is able to advance toward its goals. The
fiscal year 2009 request for the Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technologies
program is $33 million, a reduction from fiscal year 2008 levels. The
Department's proposed program realignment should not undermine the
ongoing work that is yielding technology breakthroughs and will
ultimately yield necessary longer term transportation options.
For instance, the request for the Technology Validation program
cuts funding to $15 million, half of the fiscal year 2008 level. In
this program, hydrogen infrastructure and fuel cell systems are
certified under real world conditions. This work guides research
agendas and helps establish the ``real world'' data collection
necessary to develop fuel cell vehicles. Consequently, we believe this
program should be funded at least at the fiscal year 2008 level of $30
million.
Other programs necessary to the push toward commercialization are
also cut or unfunded entirely, including a $3.5 million reduction in
Safety Codes and Standards and a complete elimination of funding for
Manufacturing R&D (which received $5 million in fiscal year 2008).
Section 782 of EPAct05 authorizes Federal and State Procurement
program funding to help government fleets acquire fuel cells vehicles.
The program is designed to reduce the initial market barriers for
advanced technology vehicles by covering the cost premium of the early
Federal and State fleets of fuel cell vehicles. Congress should provide
the $25 million authorized by EPAct05.
The Department of Energy should not abandon its hydrogen production
and delivery activities, as the administration requests, and funding
for the Transportation Fuel Cell Systems Account should be restored to
at least the fiscal year 2008 level of $8 million.
deployment and demonstration
Other new and existing demonstration and deployment programs have
the potential to accelerate commercial deployment of electric drive
technologies, with the appropriate resources.
Specifically, the EISA section 131 Transportation Electrification
(b) Plug in Electric Drive Vehicle Program and (c) Near Term
Transportation Electrification Program can help industry partners to
work together to put on-road and non-road electric drive vehicles in
use, enabling manufacturers and consumers to identify real world
performance and establish initial market opportunities. The programs
are authorized at a total of $185 million. We ask that you provide
substantial funding to allow rapid ramp-up of these programs in their
initial year.
The Clean Cities program is another example of a successful,
ongoing effort to deploy advanced vehicle technologies. The Clean
Cities program consists of voluntary local and regional coalitions
working to build clean and efficient private and municipal fleets, with
advanced technology and alternative fuel vehicles. We appreciate the
Congress' history of support for the program and request that you
provide the technology- and fuel-neutral fund at the fiscal year 2008
enacted level, $12.5 million.
Another important activity at DOE in fiscal year 2009 will be the
rulemaking that will be required to implement new EPAct fleet
requirements. EISA's section 508 amends the existing fleet requirements
to finally, explicitly include electric drive (fuel cell, hybrid, plug-
in hybrid, medium and heavy duty hybrid electric vehicles and
neighborhood electric vehicles) and investments in alternative fuel
infrastructure. The $1.8 million in the request is insufficient to
ensure an expeditious and effective rule making process, and will delay
the ability of covered fleets to comply with hybrid and other electric
drive vehicles.
manufacturing innovation
We also support building domestic capacity for advanced batteries
and vehicles as envisioned by EISA 2007. The Senate Budget resolution
also endorses the effort, explicitly providing an additional $2.7
billion for green jobs initiatives, including ``loan guarantee and
grant programs'' for ``. . . production of fuel efficient vehicles.''
We respectfully ask that you direct the maximum available funds
toward programs authorized in the EISA that will help new and existing
manufacturers to produce advanced batteries and vehicles in the United
States and expand employment in these fields.
Specifically, we are referring to the section 136 Advanced
Technology Vehicle Manufacturing Incentive Program, which provides
grants for up to 30 percent of the cost of re-equipping or establishing
advanced vehicle and component manufacturing facilities, equipment
investment and engineering integration, and section 132: Domestic
Manufacturing Conversion, which authorizes grants to manufacturers of
fuel efficient vehicles and component suppliers to modernize production
facilities.
In addition, we recommend that additional funds be allocated to the
existing Loan Guarantee Program to include the battery and component
manufacturing guarantees activities authorized in EISA's section 134
Loan Guarantees for Fuel Efficient Automobile Parts Manufacturers and
section 135 Advanced Battery Loan Guarantee Programs. The
administration request includes $10 billion of $38.5 billion for
advanced and innovative energy; that amount should be increased with
funds directed to the EISA-authorized manufacturing activities.
EDTA appreciates the subcommittee's support for electric drive and
for EERE's Vehicle and Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technology programs. We
respectfully ask that the subcommittee use the funds available in the
fiscal year 2009 budget resolution to build on that support and
establish the electric drive programs authorized in energy legislation
and to ensure the continuing advancement of electric drive technology.
______
Prepared Statement of GE Energy
The following testimony is submitted on behalf of GE Energy (GE)
for the consideration of the subcommittee during its deliberations
regarding the fiscal year 2009 budget requests for the Department of
Energy (DOE). Among GE's key recommendations are: (1) support for the
$241.6 million funding request for the Nuclear Power 2010 program to
develop new U.S. nuclear generation; (2) $40 million in added funding
for the GNEP program, for total funding of $341 million, to start the
necessary activities for technology demonstration and to help industry
provide DOE with the information necessary to support the 2008
Secretarial Record of Decision; and (3) $27 million additional for the
Advanced Turbines program, DOE's major research effort focusing on gas
turbines for electricity production which also addresses key needs for
hydrogen turbines. Investments in these and the other important
programs discussed below will help to meet the challenges of assuring a
diverse portfolio of domestic power generation resources for the
future.
nuclear energy
Nuclear Power 2010.--The NP2010 Program provides vital funding in
three areas that are essential to the development of new nuclear
generation capacity in this country. The program provides support for:
(1) certification of new reactor designs, such as GE's advanced light
water reactor technology (ESBWR); (2) advancement of detailed design
and deployment planning to support new nuclear plant construction; and
(3) preparation, submittal and NRC approval of two Combined
Construction and Operating Licenses (COL). These activities are
currently advancing with co-funding support from GE-Hitachi Nuclear
Energy (GEH) and Westinghouse. Adequate DOE funding in fiscal year 2009
is necessary to maintain the schedules supporting certification, COL
license approval and construction initiation.
The administration has requested $241.6 million for fiscal year
2009 to support the NP2010 Program. GEH supports this funding level,
which reflects the additional funding needed above initial estimates to
facilitate continued ESBWR detailed design and deployment activities at
levels that support industry expectations.
Among other things, funding is needed to support critical detailed
design activities including piping and instrumentation diagrams
development, process flow diagrams, system design spec development, 3D
pipe routing and pipe stress calculations and the development of
procurement specifications for long lead and highly engineered
equipment. These detailed design activities are required for advanced
module design, simulation assisted engineering, and critical path
construction activities. Moreover, these detailed engineering
activities are critical to the refinement of the ESBWR capital cost
estimate. Deployment planning activities include the development of
site utilization plans, crane lift plans, construction execution plans,
procurement strategies, warehousing strategies and craft labor
planning. These are required to allow the ESBWR to be successfully
deployed in the desired timeframe well within the next decade.
The costs to complete these activities have escalated due to a
number of contributing factors that have changed versus baseline
assumptions made in 2005. These factors include, but are not limited
to, NRC rate increases, large volume of additional NRC RAI's (Request
for Additional Information), recent changes in regulatory position
related to aircraft impact and Human Factors Engineering design
process, customer expectations of increased design and COL
standardization, and performance of COL compliance reviews.
Additionally, higher resource demands from increased industry activity
as well as the FOAKE nature of the effort have placed a substantial
cost burden on the project. These and other factors have led to
significant additional program cost above baseline assumptions. The
fiscal year 2009 funding requested by the administration will help
offset some of these cost escalations.
The Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative and the Global Nuclear Energy
Partnership (GNEP).--The Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP),
initiated in early 2006, benefits from DOE's research and development
work currently conducted under the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative
(AFCI) and previously conducted in the Advanced Liquid Metal Reactor
program (circa 1985 to 1995). GNEP seeks to expand the use of nuclear
power in a proliferation-resistant manner, and to use nuclear waste by
reducing the long-term radiotoxicity of spent nuclear fuel. The key
emphases are on solutions for proliferation resistant fuel separations
and long-term nuclear waste reduction.
In support of the broad GNEP goals and to help the DOE prepare for
the 2008 Secretarial Record of Decision, DOE in October 2007 issued
awards to four commercial teams, including the team led by GEH, for
technical and conceptual design studies to provide information on
commercial methods that are available to close the fuel cycle. The GEH
team has explored the technical and business parameters that could
support a viable system in a four-part submittal. The submittal
included drafts of a Business Plan, a Technology Development Roadmap, a
Conceptual Design and a Communication Plan. The Business Plan explored
the current market, examined the financial viability of the Advanced
Recycling Center and proposed policy direction for solutions to spent
nuclear fuel. The cost and schedule report, a part of the Conceptual
Design, served as the bridge between the technical details from the
conceptual design and provided key financial input to the Business
Plan. The Conceptual Design submittal (approximately 4,000 pages long)
demonstrated in-depth knowledge developed during the Advanced Liquid
Metal Reactor program, GE-funded programs and our current experience.
The Technology Development Roadmap recommended direction on a future
research and development program that could be started in fiscal year
2009 to engage U.S. universities and national laboratories that would
allow the United States to lead within the GNEP policy framework as
well as have better collaborations with foreign governments. Finally,
the Communication Plan provided guidance on how the DOE may communicate
scientific, technical and practical information related to closing the
nuclear fuel cycle.
For fiscal year 2009, an additional $40 million above the
administration's budget request, for total GNEP funding of $341
million, is needed. The recommended additional funding should be used
to help industry conduct technology demonstration projects, such as the
manufacture and demonstration of: (1) key reactor components (e.g.,
reactor vessel); (2) electrometallurgical based fuel separation; and
(3) a reactor and fuel separation simulator. GEH further recommends
that adequate funding through the GNEP program be provided to both the
U.S. industry and the laboratories for electrometallurgical separations
and the PRISM reactor in support of the GNEP policy goals.
fossil energy
Coal is facing a challenging landscape. In anticipation of carbon
constraints, coal will require carbon capture and sequestration (CCS)
if it is to continue serving as a major national energy resource. It is
therefore necessary that the viability and efficacy of CCS be proven at
large scale, for multiple projects and over a range of geologic
settings. Only a major initiative and investment will provide the
necessary confidence for the commercial and public acceptance of CCS.
Meeting this challenge will require the combined resources of industry
and government at all levels working in partnership.
Financial incentives alone will not be sufficient to achieve the
goal of validated and commercially robust CCS. Reducing the risk and
time required to identify and characterize potential storage sites, to
obtain Federal, State and local government commitments related to long-
term liability issues, to conduct the necessary reviews and to complete
permitting will also require a substantial effort by all levels of
government. The DOE must acknowledge this challenge in all programs
related to CCS and provide specific assistance in addressing these
issues. For this reason, the commitment of government to assume long-
term liability for monitoring and safety of the stored CO2
should be sought in forthcoming solicitations for CCS development.
Without such assurances it is not likely that industry participation
will be forthcoming.
FutureGen.--DOE's decision to restructure the FutureGen program
correctly targets the deployment of CCS technology at a commercial
scale. The proposed restructuring recognizes that carbon capture ready
IGCC can be commercially supplied today; GE's commercial 630 MW IGCC
plant already is carbon capture ready. To be successful, FutureGen's
restructuring must address two overarching needs: (1) validation of
CO2 sequestration at a large scale; (2) in multiple
geological settings and (3) demonstration that utility powerplants with
carbon capture can be successfully integrated with sequestration. DOE's
proposed restructuring can provide the platform to satisfy these needs
and thus be a major step forward toward assuring a strong future for
coal-based power generation. As the Department further develops the
restructured FutureGen program, care must be taken, however, to avoid
burdening large-scale CCS projects with unneeded additional complexity
and cost. Nothing in the program's new structure should be allowed to
divert attention from the central objective of proving that the most
challenging goal can be met: that large-scale sequestration is viable
and safe.
Clean Coal Power Initiative.--GE supports CCPI and its role in
validating and testing advanced technology. With the potential
refocusing of FutureGen, that program's function as a platform for
introduction and validation of advanced IGCC carbon capture
technologies will not be available. CCPI must be ready to serve a
larger role in the validation and deployment of those technology
advancements that are needed to meet DOE's goal of no more than 10
percent additional cost for CCS. However, mounting multiple projects
within the overall anticipated funding of $250 million for Round 3 of
CCPI will be challenging. Front-end-engineering and detailed site
characterization for a CCS project alone could account for $40-$50
million. After capital expenses for carbon capture equipment and
sequestration pipeline and site development, there will be little if
any funding remaining for the additional costs of CCS operation needed
to validate sequestration capacity. For example, for a single 300 MW
IGCC train equipped with carbon capture, the minimum 50 percent capture
requirement of CCPI will result in over 1 million tons/year of captured
CO2 with potential annual incremental operating costs as
high as $40-$50 million. In recognition of these cost challenges, the
expectation for multiple project awards within the available CCPI
funding needs to be reassessed.
IGCC.--With its pre-combustion carbon capture, IGCC provides a
significant advantage over combustion technology. Despite its current
20 percent cost premium over pulverized coal combustion, IGCC can
provide a lower cost of electricity with carbon capture. However, it
should be recognized that IGCC is still in an early phase of commercial
deployment and at the very beginning of a steep cost learning curve.
Investment in technology development promises to have a high return.
DOE's goal of a maximum 10 percent premium in cost of electricity
for IGCC with carbon capture will not be met with current technology.
It will require technology advancements. Key technology areas that can
significantly lower cost and improve performance are advanced carbon
shift, CO2 capture and separations, overall process
efficiency plus advancing IGCC's capability for subituminous coals.
Therefore we strongly endorse the administration's request to increase
fiscal year 2009 funding for IGCC by $15.5 million over the fiscal year
2008 level to $69 million.
In addition, cost reduction must be pursued vigorously for IGCC to
realize its potential in maintaining coal competitiveness in a carbon-
constrained environment. From this perspective, the clearest and
quickest path to reducing the cost of carbon capture is the accelerated
deployment of IGCC and elimination of its cost premium. In order to
achieve this, we recommend a continuation and broadening of the
investment tax credits under the Energy Policy Act of 2005 from 6 to 12
IGCC projects and covering a scope that helps to offset both the cost
premium of IGCC as well as the incremental cost of carbon capture.
Carbon Sequestration.--GE also endorses the administration's
requested technology funding increase of $30 million from fiscal year
2008 levels to $149 million for carbon sequestration. Research in
sequestration needs to move forward as rapidly as possible. A primary
focus needs to be the development of science-based requirements for
site characterization, monitoring and CO2 quality.
Advancements in these areas are necessary to guide commercial-scale
sequestration. The DOE also needs to quickly move forward with the
demonstration programs authorized under section 702 of the Energy
Independence and Security Act of 2007 in order to apply and gain
experience with modeling, monitoring and rapid sequestration site
characterization.
Advanced Turbines.--GE recommends that funding be increased by $27
million to a total of $55 million for the Advanced Turbines Program.
This program represents the Department's high priority research effort
focusing on the development of enabling technologies for high
efficiency hydrogen turbines for advanced gasification systems. Gas
turbine R&D is focused on advanced combustion and high temperature
turbine technology for syngas/hydrogen fuels that will result from IGCC
and carbon capture type power plants. The program addresses those gas
turbine elements where the technology required for the use of syngas/
hydrogen fuels differs from the requirements for natural gas fueled gas
turbines. Development of these technologies will help offset some of
the efficiency and output penalties associated with CO2
capture. Unless the fiscal year 2009 budget for the Advanced Turbines
program is increased, funding will be inadequate for this promising
high priority work, and the progress and benefits of this research will
be delayed accordingly.
______
Prepared Statement of the Energy Committee of ASME's Technical
Communities
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, the ASME Energy
Committee is pleased to provide this testimony on the fiscal year 2009
budget request for research and development programs in the Department
of Energy (DOE).
introduction to asme and the asme energy committee
The 127,000-member ASME is a nonprofit, worldwide professional,
educational and technical Society. The Energy Committee of ASME's
Technical Communities comprises 30 members from 17 divisions of ASME,
representing approximately 40,000 of ASME's members.
ASME has long advocated a balanced energy supply mix to meet the
Nation's energy needs, including advanced coal, petroleum, nuclear,
natural gas, biomass, solar, wind, hydroelectric power, and energy
efficient building and transportation technologies. Sustained growth
will also require stability in licensing and permitting processes not
only for power stations but also for transmission and transportation
systems.
Over the past few years, concerns have been growing among
policymakers and the general public about adverse security and
environmental impacts resulting from America's dependence on foreign
sources of oil and gas. As a result, the current administration and
Members of Congress have made calls to diversify our energy supply and
increase R&D on advanced energy technologies. The Energy Committee
fully supports their efforts.
A forward-looking energy policy will require enhanced, sustained
levels of funding for R&D as well as Government policies that encourage
deployment and commercialization. The Energy Committee supports much of
the fiscal year 2009 budget request, especially the increases in funds
for fundamental scientific research. We wish to emphasize that
increased funding in all areas is essential to meeting our national
energy needs.
critical issues
The Energy Committee would like to point out some critical energy
issues:
--There is a critical worldwide shortage of trained persons in the
work force at all levels. This includes persons in the building
trades, persons in the manufacturing industry, persons who will
be available to operate and maintain the energy systems, and
engineers and scientists at all levels who will perform the R&D
and design functions for all energy systems.
--International programs in energy are growing and will continue to
do so in order to make use of shared resources. The
International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) and the
Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) programs are examples
of this. The ITER program includes seven international partners
and the GNEP program now includes 21 countries. Consistent and
sustained funding is required to demonstrate that the United
States is a reliable partner in these efforts.
--Investment guarantees for construction of new renewable and nuclear
facilities were enacted in previous energy legislation. These
guarantees will enable lower financing costs for a variety of
energy technologies leading to lower energy costs for the
American public. Extending these programs further into the
future will allow a reasoned rate of increase in construction
and application of these technologies for electric generation.
fossil energy
The fiscal year 2009 budget request of $754 million for fossil
energy represents an increase of $11 million over the fiscal year 2008
appropriation. The Energy Committee supports the increase in coal
research programs to $624 million. The effective use of coal in today's
environment demands an increase in efficiency and a decrease in release
of environmentally harmful emissions. The Energy Committee agrees with
the DOE in its efforts to build IGCC plants by providing funding for
the addition of CCS technology to multiple plants that will be
operational by 2015. This approach builds on technological R&D
advancements in IGCC and CCS technology achieved over the past 5 years.
The use of advanced integrated gasification combined cycle
technology and carbon sequestration may allow the United States to
utilize its coal resources in a more environmentally sound and cost
effective manner. We encourage strong and consistent funding for these
programs now and in future years.
advanced fuels research
The Energy Committee agrees that the advanced fuels research should
be aimed at fuels used in the transportation system. We believe that
the development of transportation fuel systems that are not petroleum
based is a critical part of our future national energy policy. The
fiscal year 2009 budget for biomass and bio-refinery systems R&D is
increased by $27 million to $225 million. The Energy Committee
encourages Congress to ensure that these research programs continue to
receive adequate funding. We are also pleased to see the increase to
$221 million in the effort related to vehicle technologies with a
program emphasis on plug-in hybrid electric vehicles.
nuclear energy
The Energy Committee is encouraged to see the increase in the DOE
Nuclear Energy budget to $1.4 billion in fiscal year 2009. Nuclear
power, as a non-greenhouse gas-emitting resource, is a critical
component of a diverse U.S. power generation mix and should play a
larger role in the Nation's base power supply.
Proposed increases in the Nuclear Energy Budget are most evident in
the Nuclear Power 2010 program with an increase of $108 million and the
Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative with an increase of $122 million over
the fiscal year 2008 Appropriation. The Energy Committee believes that
nuclear generated electricity is important to the Nation, especially in
a more carbon conscious environment. Therefore continued R&D looking at
advanced nuclear systems is critical.
The GNEP program is vital to the international future of nuclear
energy. Agreements are already in place to establish cooperative
efforts. The U.S. based R&D elements of this program are now part of
the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative. The Energy Committee concurs with
the DOE goal to establish a full scale demonstration of the required
facilities, including a burner reactor and fuel recycle plant that will
not produce a pure plutonium product stream. The successful
implementation of the GNEP initiative will lead to a minimization of
high level nuclear waste, enhance the safeguarding of nuclear materials
by keeping them in the reactor fuel cycle, lead to an effective and
efficient use of all the potential energy contained in uranium and
allow cost effective generation of electricity.
The university reactor assistance and education assistance program
has been successfully integrated into other programs within the Nuclear
Energy budget. The Energy Committee supports the continuation of this
change.
energy efficiency and renewable energy
The Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) manages
America's investment in research, development and deployment of the
Department of Energy's (DOE) diverse energy efficiency and renewable
energy applied science portfolio. The fiscal year 2009 request of $1.25
billion provides a balanced and diverse portfolio of solutions to
address the urgent energy and environmental challenges currently facing
our Nation. Most of the key EERE programs, including Biomass, Building
Technologies, Geothermal Energy, Vehicle Technologies, and Wind Energy,
have received increases in funding to support the growth of renewable
energy that the United States needs. The potential to meet the growing
need for domestically produced energy justifies sustained and increased
support for these programs.
The Hydrogen Program is reduced $65 million; however, $32 million
has been added to hydrogen related activities and funding in the
Vehicle Technologies Program. The Energy Committee encourages fully
funding the Hydrogen Program as requested and recommends restoring a
minimum level of $2 million in funding to the Hydrogen Production and
Delivery R&D activity to coordinate efforts with other Hydrogen
Production R&D activities in other DOE offices.
The funding to the Water Power Program reflects increasing interest
in ocean energy resource characterizations but it neglects the need for
sustained support for conventional hydropower R&D. Hydropower is our
Nation's largest renewable energy source. This includes pumped storage
hydro and repowering existing hydropower facilities with advanced,
environmentally benign equipment. The Energy Committee recommends
increasing the fiscal year 2009 funding level of the Water Power
Program to $10 million to continue supporting development and
deployment of advanced conventional hydropower and ocean energy
technologies.
The integration of renewable electric generating systems into the
operation of the electricity distribution system is critical to
economic operation of these systems. The Energy Committee believes that
R&D related to the integration of the electric grid and its control as
a national system is imperative to the growth of renewable energy
generating technologies and we encourage full funding for such
research.
science and advanced energy research programs
The Energy Committee is pleased by the increased request for the
Office of Science (OS), $4.72 billion or $749 million over the fiscal
year 2008 appropriated amount, which attempts to restore the funding
trajectory mandated in the America Competes Act of 2007 (Public Law
110-69). OS programs in high energy physics, nuclear physics,
biological and environmental research, basic energy sciences, and
advanced scientific computing, serves every student in the country.
These funds support research at the DOE Laboratories and at a large
number of universities and colleges. We believe that basic energy
research will also improve U.S. energy security over the long term,
through its support for R&D on cellulosic ethanol, advanced battery
systems, and fusion.
Of the fiscal year 2009 requested increase, $214 million is for the
ITER fusion energy international agreement taking place in Cadarache,
France. This program did not receive funding in fiscal year 2008. The
Energy Committee is encouraged by this cooperative agreement and the
enormous potential it holds.
The Energy Committee would like to impress upon the members of this
subcommittee and their colleagues that high energy physics and nuclear
physics programs are very important to all branches of engineering. The
information gathered allows the development of data related to material
formation and failure which guides the selection of materials for many
day to day applications.
other doe programs
DOE is also very active in areas outside of R&D. The environmental
remediation program that funds the decommissioning and decontamination
of old DOE facilities is one such program. The Energy Committee
questions the advisability of the budget decreases in this program.
Congress should appropriate the budget to ensure that this work is
accomplished in an expeditious manner.
conclusion
Members of the Energy Committee consider the issues related to
energy to be one of the most important issues facing our Nation. The
need for a strong and coherent energy policy is apparent. We applaud
the administration and Congress for their understanding of the
important role that scientific and engineering breakthroughs will play
in meeting our energy challenges. In order to promote such innovation,
strong support for energy research will be necessary across a broad
portfolio of technology options. DOE research can play a critical role
in allowing the United States to use our current resources more
effectively and to create more advanced energy technologies.
Thank you for the opportunity to offer testimony regarding both the
R&D and other parts of the proposed budget for the DOE. The ASME Energy
Committee is pleased to respond to additional requests for additional
information or perspectives on other aspects of our Nation's energy
programs.
______
Prepared Statement of the State of Alaska Department of Natural
Resources
Dear Chairman Dorgan and Subcommittee on Energy and Water
Development, I appreciate this opportunity to provide testimony
outlining the urgent need for energy-related research and resource
assessment in Alaska. Specifically, scientific work performed and
funded in Alaska through the U.S. Department of Energy provides an
invaluable service to the Nation by helping address energy security and
development of technologies for the challenges unique to the Arctic.
Alaska is one of the few places in the United States where the
scientific unknowns are so ubiquitous, and the task so daunting, that
Federal and State agencies seldom compete for the most high profile
projects; there are too many to go around. In fact, we compliment each
other's efforts in an attempt to tackle the many challenges that face
us all. The Office of Fossil Energy, National Energy Technology
Laboratory (NETL) Arctic Energy Office, plays a critical role in this
collaborative effort.
Federal land-management responsibility in Alaska is significant.
Although final conveyances are not complete, the current Federal land
allotment stands at 243 million acres, or about 64 percent of the total
Alaska land surface. The State of Alaska manages about 24 percent, or
90 million acres, and the Native corporations about 10 percent.
Additionally, the energy potential in offshore Alaska Federal waters
dwarfs nearly all other areas in North America. Those regions are now
becoming the next global exploration frontiers of major international
oil and gas companies. For example, the most recent lease sale, in the
Chukchi Sea, astounded even the most optimistic of explorationists by
the bonus bids that were recorded ($2.6 billion). Many of the geologic
attributes that were targeted by the bidding extend onshore to the east
into the National Petroleum Reserve Alaska (NPRA). Additionally, the
formidable challenges that will be faced to safely bring any discovered
commodities to market will require the collaboration of many entities.
Arguably, Alaska has the greatest potential for undiscovered
conventional resources of any area in the United States. Current mean-
case technically recoverable resource estimates (calculated by the U.S.
Geological Survey for on-shore basins and Minerals Management Service
for offshore Alaska basins) stand at 200 trillion cubic feet of natural
gas potential, and 46 billion barrels of oil. These probabilistic
estimates are for undiscovered conventional resources only, and do not
include the vast amount of natural gas in unconventional reservoirs
such as gas hydrates, coalbed methane, shale-bed gas, and low
permeability reservoirs. Additionally, Alaska contains the largest
reserves of coal in all of the United States. Given that fossil energy
will realistically play a key role in the energy portfolio of America
for the foreseeable future, it is imperative that ``all hands remain on
deck'' and agencies like the NETL Arctic Energy Office remain in full
functional operation. The alternative will only put us farther behind
and even more dependent on the volatilities of the global energy
market.
The many important projects being managed from the NETL Arctic
Energy Office attest to the critical role they play. Programs that
collaborate with other agencies and address key aspects of national
energy supply, Arctic engineering, environmentally sensitive
exploration and development technologies, and rural energy supply will
not be fully realized without committed and long-term participation by
the Federal Government. The State of Alaska is rightfully spending
hundreds of millions of dollars on these efforts, but we cannot do it
alone.
Many changes are needed in the national energy policy, including a
focus on and facilitation of dramatic conservation efforts, development
of non-fossil energy sources that make environmental and economic
sense, technological development for better use of fossil fuels, and
continued pursuit of new conventional and unconventional reserves.
Nevertheless, whether or not we stand ready, energy demand in the
United States is forecast to increase by 19 percent by the year 2030.
Even more alarming, global demand for energy is forecast to increase by
57 percent in that same time period. We shall either prepare for the
inevitability of dwindling resources, shrinking supply and shortfall,
and increasing dependence on foreign energy resources, or pray this
calamity is not upon us and continue to cut budgets and hope that a
miracle is ``just around the corner.'' I believe we should spend the
capital to prepare now.
Thank you for your consideration of this important issue.
______
Prepared Statement of the Association of State Energy Research and
Technology Transfer Institutions (ASERTTI)
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I am David Terry,
Executive Director of the Association of State Energy Research and
Technology Transfer Institutions (ASERTTI). ASERTTI is submitting this
testimony in support of funding for a variety of U.S. Department of
Energy programs. State and local governments host a wide range of
public interest energy organizations, including State research and
technology transfer institutions, municipal energy organizations, land
grant colleges, universities, and others. The members of ASERTTI focus
on State- and local-level public interest, applied clean energy
research and technology transfer. Our work aims to develop and improve
clean energy technologies, rapidly transfer those technologies to the
private sector, and aid in the transformation of markets. ASERTTI
promotes and facilitates communication and collaboration in the above-
mentioned areas among its State and local members, as well as with
other organizations, such as the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)
National Laboratories. Each year, our members invest hundreds of
millions of dollars in State and local energy funds. We believe
improved collaboration with our Federal partners would significantly
leverage our efforts and State funds--improving our Nation's energy
future. In this regard, ASERTTI wishes to highlight a number of funding
priorities, as follow, within DOE's Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy (EERE) programs for the Industrial, Building, and
Vehicle Efficiency Technologies, as well as for the Biomass, Solar, and
Weatherization Assistance Programs.
industrial technologies
The administration's fiscal year 2009 budget request would cut the
Industrial Technologies Program by $2.3 million, compared with fiscal
year 2008, and contains cuts in several very important programs.
Following are ASERTTI's priorities within the Industrial Technologies
Program.
Industrial Assessment Centers (IAC).--The IACs are part of the
industrial program's crosscutting budget. The IAC program is unique in
that it trains university engineering students in conducting energy
audits of small- and medium-sized facilities and, in so doing, helps
the facilities identify and implement energy saving measures. We
recommend that the program be restored to fiscal year 2006 funding
levels of $6.4 million in fiscal year 2009, with additional increases
in funding and in the number of centers in future years. This is $2.4
million above the fiscal year 2008 funding level.
Distributed Generation (DG/Distributed Energy).--Over the past
decade, this program area has played a key role in the development of
high-efficiency clean technologies like combined heat and power (CHP).
These activities were moved around within DOE between EERE and the
Office of Electricity. For fiscal year 2008, Congress appropriated
$14.5 million for these activities. However, the administration's
fiscal year 2009 request is only $1.5 million. The program is now part
of the crosscutting piece of the Industrial Technologies Program.
ASERTTI recommends a robust funding increase over the fiscal year 2008
appropriated level for Industrial DG.
Within this DG (or DE) program, it is especially important to
restore critical Centers that have become the cornerstone for regional
DG activities, providing technical assistance and becoming involved in
State and local interconnection and emissions issues--greatly
leveraging Federal, State, and private resources. Section 451 of the
recently enacted Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 expands
these Clean Energy Application Centers (formerly Regional Application
Centers) and authorizes $10 million for fiscal year 2009. ASERTTI
strongly supports this authorization level. These Centers also would
support market transformation activities to facilitate deployment and
help reduce regulatory and institutional barriers. The Centers also
would encourage public private partnerships to achieve these goals.
Efficiency can be as high as 85 percent in CHP applications when
compared to central station power generation efficiencies of 30-55
percent. These activities are estimated to contribute as much as 11
trillion BTUs of displaced energy and 0.2 MMTCE in carbon savings in
2020.
Industrial Best Practices.--This is one of DOE's most effective
industrial energy programs. ASERTTI urges strong support for this
program and recommends funding it at the administration's fiscal year
2009 request level of $15.5 million.
Industries of the Future (specific).--This valued program enables
cost-shared research with industry at major State and local research
institutions. The program focuses on energy-intensive industries such
as steel, aluminum, glass and metal casting. This program was reduced
from $63 million in fiscal year 2002 to $11 million in fiscal year
2008. The administration's fiscal year 2009 request of $11.4 million
represents a cut over the previous year, since most research funding is
multi-year, and funding from earlier years is not being replaced.
Moreover the glass portion of the program has been eliminated. Congress
authorized an expanded Energy-Intensive Industries program under the
Energy Independence and Security Act focused on industry-specific
research. This program authorized a focused approach that responds to
the needs of individual industries and requires their long-term
commitment. To begin implementing this approach, ASERTTI recommends
fiscal year 2009 funding of $24.2 million--$12.8 million above the
administration's $11.4 million request.
building technologies
Zero Energy Commercial Buildings Initiative.--The buildings sector
in the U.S. accounts for about 40 percent of total energy consumption
and 40 percent of carbon dioxide emissions, and nearly half of those
emissions and of that consumption comes from commercial buildings. A
large multi-year initiative is critical to achieve deep savings
throughout the commercial buildings sector. This public-private
collaboration will combine RDD&D, as well as better tracking of real
energy performance, strategic research, and a market transformation
plan. This newly-authorized program will be run by DOE with input from
an industry consortium and is a priority for ASERTTI. Thus, ASERTTI
recommends $20 million in fiscal year 2009 to fund this new Initiative,
in addition to the administration's request of $13 million for the
existing Commercial Buildings Integration program, for a total of $33
million for these activities.
Building Application Centers.--It is critical to ensure that
technologies developed under various building research programs make it
into the marketplace. This important initiative within Building
Technologies consists of a regional approach to transferring
technologies to the marketplace by providing hands-on, cost-shared
technical assistance to builders, communities, and others. This
approach has substantial State, local, and private support and is
delivering results. To date, only two regions have been provided
funding to move emerging technologies from the laboratory into the
marketplace. ASERTTI urges the subcommittee to encourage DOE to expand
and support these Centers in each region of the Nation.
vehicle technologies
In the fiscal year 2009 budget request, the administration has
proposed a variety of cuts to important vehicle programs--relative to
fiscal year 2008 levels for the combined Vehicle and Hydrogen budgets--
that would help save energy at a time of record-high gasoline prices
and would help reduce greenhouse gas emissions. ASERTTI's priorities
are as follows:
Hybrid Electric Systems.--The Vehicle and Systems Simulation and
Testing activity relates in part to heavy vehicle systems optimization
R&D, which warrants greater attention. The administration's proposed
reduction in funding for this activity is a concern. ASERTTI recommends
that $7.1 million be restored to Vehicle and Systems Simulation and
Testing, which would restore funding for this effort to $28.2 million.
Furthermore--and quite critically--energy storage efforts must be
accelerated. ASERTTI therefore recommends that the Energy Storage R&D
activity be funded at $59.5 million, an increase of $10 million above
the administration's request for R&D efforts focused on electric,
hybrid, and plug-in hybrid vehicle battery storage capabilities.
Following on from these activities, State and local energy
institutions together with DOE created the Nation's first demonstration
fleet of plug-in hybrid electric school buses. More than one dozen of
these buses are now transporting students to and from schools around
the Nation. ASERTTI urges the subcommittee to provide plug-in hybrid
deployment funds for heavy duty vehicles to both expand the early
adoption of these breakthrough vehicles and to support ongoing
incremental improvements that will create a self-sustaining market for
these ``lead by example'' buses. The market for plug-in hybrid school
buses offers a means to reduce harmful air and greenhouse gas
emissions, and the opportunity to create niche markets in the public
sector that can grow into commercial opportunities that transform the
market. These heavy duty plug-in hybrid applications are critical to
meeting the Nation's energy and climate goals.
biomass program
ASERTTI Supports the Administration's Fiscal Year 2009 Request of
$225 Million.--To this end, ASERTTI urges the subcommittee to support
funding that targets regional coordination of biomass research,
demonstration, and technology transfer programs that emphasize the
alignment of State and Federal resources. Currently, little attention
or funding is provided to achieve joint State-Federal coordination in
this critical research area. We believe the Nation could reach the goal
of cost-competitive cellulosic-derived biofuels more rapidly if State
and Federal research and demonstration resources were better aligned.
ASERTTI also encourages Congress to fund analysis and communication
activities that better inform the public about the value of biofuels.
ASERTTI urges DOE to substantially increase the RDD&D under this
program area for stationary applications, including the development of
bio-based products and renewable, pipeline-quality biogas. Energy
innovations resulting from ongoing cellulosic RD&D should be leveraged
to address stationary application challenges, such as the need to
increase yield from anaerobic digesters, improve thermochemical
gasifiers, refine renewable gas cleanup for use in both power
generation and direct use applications. These stationary applications
also have the ability to improve the economics, and further reduce the
carbon footprint, of biofuels production.
solar energy program
The solar thermal research program is dominated by water-intensive
technologies for cooling. It is critical, particularly as water
resources are already scarce in some areas, and becoming more so
throughout the United States, to focus additional RDD&D efforts on dry
cooling systems. ASERTTI urges Congress to restore the Solar Energy
Program to at least the fiscal year 2008 appropriated level of $168.5
million, which is $12.4 million above the administration's fiscal year
2009 request of $156.1 million. ASERTTI also strongly recommends that
there be a particular emphasis going forward on dry cooling systems.
weatherization assistance program
ASERTTI supports the Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP), as it
helps low-income households, the elderly, and the disabled by improving
the energy efficiency of low-income housing. Each year the program has
exceeded its target and has weatherized approximately 100,000 homes.
The program also is reducing energy consumption in participating homes
by about 20 percent. Increased funding would allow WAP to expand
quickly to reduce energy usage by approximately 25 percent in each
assisted home. This represents savings that families can use to pay for
other critical needs, while reducing the Nation's energy demand by the
equivalent of 18 million barrels of oil every year. The
administration's request to eliminate funding for the program should be
rejected, and ASERTTI urges the subcommittee to fund WAP at no less
than $300 million.
______
Prepared Statement of the University Corporation for Atmospheric
Research (UCAR)
On behalf of the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
(UCAR) and the university community involved in weather and climate
research and related education, training and support activities, I
submit this written testimony for the record of the Senate Committee on
Appropriations, Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development. We urge
you to fund the DOE Office of Science at the requested level of $4.7
billion or higher as authorized by the America COMPETES Act.
UCAR is a 71-university member consortium that manages and operates
the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) and additional
programs that support and extend the country's scientific research and
education capabilities. In addition to its member research
universities, UCAR has formal relationships with approximately 100
additional undergraduate and graduate schools including several
historically black and minority-serving institutions, and over 50
international universities and laboratories. UCAR's principal support
is from the National Science Foundation with additional support from
other Federal agencies including the Department of Energy (DOE).
doe office of science
The atmospheric and related sciences community is concerned about
the final outcome for basic research in many areas of the fiscal year
2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act, including the DOE Office of
Science. We do understand that appropriators were faced with extremely
difficult funding choices, but the negative consequences of not
investing now in science that contributes to our economy, standard of
living, and safety and security, will only multiply in the future as
this country's global competitors invest on a broader scale than ever
before. We appreciate your support for last year's America COMPETES Act
and urge you to reinstate the doubling track for the Office of Science
with the fiscal year 2009 budget, and/or with a supplement to the
fiscal year 2008 budget.
There will surely be immense budget pressures facing you again in
your deliberations this year, but we ask that you focus on science as a
national priority. We urge you to fund the DOE Office of Science at the
requested level of $4.7 billion or higher as authorized by the America
COMPETES Act, ask that you make the Office a national priority when
difficult choices have to be made at the end of the budget process, and
that you enable the agency to apply the entire appropriation toward
planned agency research priorities.
Biological and Environmental Research (BER)
Within the Office of Science, the Biological and Environmental
Research (BER) program has as a key goal, the development of knowledge
necessary to identify, understand, and anticipate the potential health
and environmental consequences of energy production and use. These are
goals that are essential to our country's well being and security.
Peer-reviewed research programs at universities, national laboratories,
and private institutions play a critical role in the BER program by
involving the best researchers the Nation has to offer, and by
developing the next generation of researchers. All BER research
projects, other than those that have been in the ``extra projects''
category, undergo regular peer review and evaluation.
I urge the subcommittee to fund Biological and Environmental
Research at the level of the fiscal year 2009 budget request, $568.9, a
4 percent increase over the fiscal year 2008 level, and to enable BER
to apply that entire amount toward planned agency research priorities
that are peer-reviewed and that involve the best researchers to be
found within the Nation's university research community as well as the
DOE labs.
BER's Climate Change Research Program
Within BER, the Climate Change Research subprogram addresses some
of the most critical research priorities facing the world today
including developing the ability to predict climate change and its
impacts on global and regional scales, exploring the impacts of high
levels of CO2 on the Earth system, and providing the
scientific foundation necessary to help mitigate those impacts.
One example of the compelling work being done is a BER contribution
to the International Polar Year (IPY) utilizing the Community Climate
System Model to simulate eight future emission scenarios. The results
projected a decline in sea ice, with one scenario showing the Arctic
becoming ice-free in summer at the end of this century--an occurrence
that could change sea level, economies, world trade, and political
stability. Such advanced modeling activities supported by the BER
Climate Change Research are obviously critical to our understanding of
the current global climate and areas that are being transformed by
rapid change, but they are also critical to our understanding of what a
changed world may look like in the very near future.
In 2009, Climate Change Research funded work will continue to focus
on resolving the role of clouds and aerosols in climate change and
their interaction with solar radiation. While great progress has been
made in recent years, this remains one of the greatest scientific
uncertainties in climate change prediction. As we learn more about
climate change and the anthropogenic influences that are forcing change
at an unnatural rate, those results must be made accessible to
researchers working to understand the regional and local impacts that
climate change will produce. A new Climate Change Research effort is
strengthening the connections between the climate modeling research
communities and those that address integrated assessment of impacts in
addition to exploring adaptation methods. To be of use at regional
scales (where details make tremendous differences at local ecosystem
levels where we all live), models must be resolved at ever higher
resolutions to project local impacts with any reasonable certainly.
Running models at these resolutions presents complex problems of data
retrieval, archiving, analysis, and dissemination for which BER is
developing the tools and capabilities necessary.
The Climate Change Research goal to deliver improved regional
climate data and models is critical to the ability of policy makers and
stakeholders to provide stewardship resulting in a healthy planet--and
it is particularly important as signs of increasingly dramatic change
in our climate and environment continue to appear.
The Climate Change Research Request of $154.9 million for fiscal
year 2009 is a 13.2 percent increase over fiscal year 2008 which will
make up some of the ground lost in previous years. Within this amount,
Climate Change Modeling receives $45.4 million--a critical 46 percent
increase over fiscal year 2008. These additional resources are
absolutely necessary for the work that must be accelerated at the
regional level. I urge the subcommittee to fund Climate Change Research
at the fiscal year 2009 requested level of $154.9 million, and to
enable DOE to apply the entire amount toward planned national research
priorities.
Advanced Scientific Computing Research (ASCR)
Within DOE's Office of Science, Advanced Scientific Computing
Research (ASCR) delivers leading edge computational and networking
capabilities to scientists nationwide, enabling advances in computer
science and the development of specialized software tools that are
necessary to research the major scientific questions being addressed by
the Office of Science. Development of this capacity is a key component
of DOE's strategy to succeed in its science, energy, environmental
quality, and national security missions.
ASCR's continued progress is of particular importance to
atmospheric scientists involved with complex climate model development,
research that takes enormous amounts of computing power to address the
interaction of the earth's systems and global climate change. ASCR is
one of the most important resources supporting climate work in this
country.
Within ASCR, several programs are of particular importance to
climate change computer modeling work, particularly through the
development of complex software. The Leadership Computing Facility
(LCF) at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) provides a high
performance computing resource and, in 2009, will continue the
development of its world class facility with over 80 percent of its
resources being made available to unclassified scientific research. In
addition, the National Energy Research Scientific Computing Center
(NERSC) operated by Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, and the
Energy Sciences Network (ESnet) are also important enablers for climate
research, as is Argonne National Laboratory (ALCF) which is
strengthening its infrastructure to prepare for future computing
capacity. These computational and networking resources play a vital
role in the progress of U.S. climate research.
The high performance computing facilities for the Office of Science
serve thousands of scientists throughout the country at laboratories,
universities, and other Federal agencies. Computing time is awarded to
research groups based on peer review of submitted proposals. Basic
research accomplished at these facilities covers a wide range of
disciplines including climate modeling. ESnet enables researchers at
laboratories, universities and other institutions to communicate with
each other using collaborative capabilities that are unparalleled. This
high-speed network enables geographically distributed research teams to
collaborate effectively on some of the world's most complex problems.
Researchers from industry, academia and national labs, through this
program, share access to unique DOE research facilities, support the
frequent interactions needed to address complex problems, and speed up
discovery and innovation.
LCF, NERSC, and ESnet play complementary roles in advancing the
complex and challenging science of climate change and other scientific
areas of extreme importance to the security and quality of life of our
citizens. I urge the subcommittee to support the President's fiscal
year 2009 request of $368.82 million for DOE Advanced Scientific
Computing Research, a 5 percent increase over fiscal year 2008, and to
enable DOE to apply the entire amount toward planned national
priorities.
Scientific Discovery Through Advanced Computing (SciDAC)
BER and ASCR (through its Computational Partnerships program)
partner to support Scientific Discovery Through Advanced Computing
(SciDAC), a progressive program that provides the innovations in
computational research and development for petascale computational and
data management endeavors, including climate research. Along with very
broad scientific applications, a current SciDAC goal is to break
through the uncertainty still challenging researchers concerning the
role of clouds and aerosols in climate change. Additional SciDAC
investments address the role of land-ice in the climate system,
improved representation of ice sheets in global circulation models, and
understanding of climate extremes in a changing climate. Much of the
research is designed to provide global community access to the data for
impact studies as well as national and international assessments (e.g.,
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) concerning the
consequences of global warming. This work is becoming increasingly
critical as evidence mounts that regions of Earth are warming at an
alarming rate. SciDAC research activities are competed through a merit
review process and carried out via a synthesis of talent drawn from
universities, national laboratories, and private institutions.
BER funding for SciDAC is requested at $7.7 million for fiscal year
2009 with ACSR supporting SciDAC Computational Partnerships at $52.0
million. I urge the subcommittee to support the President's fiscal year
2008 requests within BER and ASCR for overall SciDAC funding.
______
Prepared Statement of RTI International
I am writing in support of the following subprogram in the fiscal
year 2009 Energy and Water appropriations measure: Department of
Energy--Fossil Energy Research and Development: Coal, Fuels and Power
Systems, Advanced Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle.
I respectfully request that the President's $69 million request for
the Advanced Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle subprogram be fully
funded.
Congress and the administration have highlighted energy as critical
to America's economic future and national security. It is all too clear
that the United States requires cost-effective technologies for clean
use of coal to generate electricity and fuel vehicles, to save jobs,
and enable domestic growth in critical industries such as chemicals,
fertilizer, pulp and paper, metals, and glass.
Funded by Congress, the Advanced Integrated Gasification Combined
Cycle subprogram has a historic opportunity to enable such benefits to
be achieved in a manner that is environmentally responsible.
DOE's plans for 2009 include scaling up a new technology that
greatly reduces the cost and improves the performance of a crucial step
in any clean use of coal: cleaning the synthetic gas--``syngas''--that
is made from coal. In every opportunity for clean use of coal, the
first steps are to make and then clean the syngas. The new technology,
called ``warm-gas clean-up,'' has lower capital and operating costs
than existing technologies, and does a better job of removing
pollutants. This technology meets or exceeds requirements in the Energy
Policy Act of 2005 for reduced sulfur and mercury emissions,
contributes to meeting the EPACT's requirements for efficiency, and
enhances the opportunity for carbon capture. Furthermore, this
technology provides 10 percent greater efficiency compared with current
technologies for generating electricity from coal, which causes a 10
percent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions without additional costs
or equipment.
The administration has included sufficient funds for DOE's plans to
scale up this syngas-cleaning technology. DOE's plans are well-timed,
because there is substantial industry interest in scaling up the
technology.
Time is of the essence to lower the costs of gasification.
Worldwide, electric utilities, chemical companies, and other industries
are making decisions today about how they will use coal in the near
future. Better technology at lower costs will enable expanded use of
gasification, with all of its environmental benefits, instead of
conventional approaches. For example, gasification for generating
electricity emits less carbon dioxide than conventional power plants.
Warm-gas clean-up prevents acid-forming pollutants without the solid
waste and carbon dioxide problems that come with scrubbing sulfur from
power plants' emissions. Further, warm-gas clean-up enables a cleaner
syngas, which means cleaner exhaust gas from the electric generating
turbine at greater thermal efficiency. That in turn yields benefits
such as significantly reduced cost to capture carbon (and the EPA
already notes that carbon capture will be much less costly with
gasification than with conventional power plants).
To realize the environmental and economic benefits of gasification,
DOE must have sufficient funds to implement the bipartisan intent of
Congress expressed in the Energy Policy Act of 2005.
I recognize the constraints by which the subcommittee is bound. I
appreciate your consideration of my request that the Advanced
Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle subprogram in DOE's Fossil
Energy Research and Development be funded at or above the President's
$69 million request for fiscal year 2009.
If you have any questions or require additional information, please
feel free to contact me. I look forward to working with you as the
fiscal year 2009 Energy and Water appropriations bill takes shape.
______
Prepared Statement of Florida State University
Florida State University is seeking $4,000,000 from the U.S.
Department of Energy (Electricity Transmission and Distribution) for
our Electric Power Infrastructure, Security R&D Program.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you and the members of the
subcommittee for this opportunity to present testimony before this
subcommittee. I would like to take a moment to briefly acquaint you
with Florida State University.
Located in Tallahassee, Florida's capitol, FSU is a comprehensive
Research university with a rapidly growing research base. The
University serves as a center for advanced graduate and professional
studies, exemplary research, and top-quality undergraduate programs.
Faculty members at FSU maintain a strong commitment to quality in
teaching, to performance of research and creative activities, and have
a strong commitment to public service. Among the current or former
faculty are numerous recipients of national and international honors
including Nobel laureates, Pulitzer Prize winners, and several members
of the National Academy of Science. Our scientists and engineers do
excellent research, have strong interdisciplinary interests, and often
work closely with industrial partners in the commercialization of the
results of their research. Florida State University had over $190
million this past year in sponsored research awards.
Florida State University attracts students from every State in the
Nation and more than 100 foreign countries. The University is committed
to high admission standards that ensure quality in its student body,
which currently includes National Merit and National Achievement
Scholars, as well as students with superior creative talent. Since
2005, FSU students have won more than 30 nationally competitive
scholarships and fellowships including 2 Rhodes Scholarships, 2 Truman
Scholarships, Goldwater, Jack Kent Cooke and 18 Fulbright Fellowships.
At Florida State University, we are very proud of our successes as
well as our emerging reputation as one of the Nation's top public
research universities.
Mr. Chairman, let me summarize our primary interest today.
The electric power system is critical as a fundamental enabling
infrastructure for every aspect of the economy, national security, and
defense. Large-scale failures in the electrical grid systems of North
America and Europe have made us aware of the critical nature of our
dependence on the availability of electrical power. A contributing
factor to these failures was a lack of detailed understanding of the
system response to an initial minor disturbance. Lack of investment in
power systems grids over the last 20-30 years has eroded the redundancy
traditionally built into the system. Over time, this lack of investment
in R&D resulted in the loss of many power engineering educational
programs. The Nation is now facing an acute shortage of power
engineers.
This multi-university project will build on existing expertise at
FSU, other Florida universities, and several of DOE's National
Laboratories. The research conduced will focus on critical issues
associated with modernizing the U.S. electric grid to improve
reliability, security, and efficiency and to support new technologies.
Much of the research will include industrial partners, thereby ensuring
rapid technology transfer from research-to-practice. These activities
include:
--Employing the real time digital simulator capability at FSU to
simulate real-time behavior of regional and local power systems
and interconnections and to examine areas of vulnerability to
major outages and cascading failures. We plan that this will
become a national user facility with remote access capability
over high-speed connections.
--Use of the real-time digital simulator through comparisons of
concurrent real time modeling and an actual system to assess
new technologies.
--Investigation into technology needs for enabling wide area
measurement, communications, and control advances for improved
coordination over large areas.
--Advanced materials R&D for superconductivity applications in power
systems.
Through coordinated efforts across multiple universities, FSU will
lead the initiative to address future needs to assure reliable energy.
We are seeking $4,000,000 in fiscal year 2009 for this important
project.
______
Prepared Statement of the Ground Water Protection Council
Honorable Chairman Dorgan and members of the subcommittee, the
following request by the Ground Water Protection Council (GWPC) is for
continued funding in fiscal year 2009, of the U.S. Dept of Energy's Oil
Technologies-Effective Environmental Protection: Risked Based Data
Management (RBDMS) and Cost Effective Regulatory Approaches (CERA)
programs. The request for fiscal year 2009 is at the fiscal year 2008
enacted level of $1.2 million (RBDMS) and $500,000 (Energy Efficiency).
--RBDMS ACCOMPLISHMENTS.--Data utilities from the Risk Based Data
Management System are installed and under use in 25 States and
1 Indian Nation. The use of RBDMS streamlines State oil and gas
permit and response times, enhances ground water protection,
provides improved public and industry joint access to data and
records, saves money for State and Federal agencies, reduces
paper reporting, increases production for small independent
domestic operators, and creates real time efficiencies in State
and Federal domestic oil and gas programs. Over the life of
this successful program, the States have matched Federal
funding with their own funds at a 3:1 ratio. If state in-kind
contributions are added, the State-to-Federal participation
ratio increases substantially. This has been, and continues to
be, a sound investment of Federal funds.
Fiscal year 2009 funding would provide:
E-Commerce.--The development of new RBDMS e-commerce applications
in fiscal year 2009 will increase environmental monitoring and
compliance and at the same time decrease both cost and time allocation
for small oil and gas producers. The result is money saved by State
governments, Federal agencies and increased domestic oil and gas
production.
--Cost Effective Regulatory Approaches.--The GWPC will focus on three
cost effective priorities: (1) reducing the costs of
information exchange between the oil and gas and mining
industries and regulatory agencies, (2) eliminating duplicative
reporting requirements across State and Federal jurisdictions,
while (3) providing the reference data needed to make informed
decisions about environmental protection and resource
development.
--Energy-Water Sustainability.--The USDOE has a goal of minimizing
water consumption by energy producing industries. The GWPC will
develop applications that will aid State agencies in tracking
water quality and quantity data related to oil and gas
production. This will assist States in the analysis of related
water consumption. Public education efforts through our Ground
Water Report to the Nation series will emphasize ground water
availability facts and realistic short and long term
conservation efforts that can be made locally.
--CO2 Geo-Sequestration.--Capture of CO2 from
power plants is one potential tool for decreasing the release
of this gas to the atmosphere. However, storage or
sequestration of its liquid form in geologic formations must be
done with protection of underground sources of drinking water
in mind. The GWPC will continue to work in cooperation with
State and Federal agencies to apply sound science in the
development of effective regulations, policy and technical
guidance, with a focus on protecting the Nation's invaluable
ground water resources. With additional funds we would be able
to develop a geo-sequestration volume information tracking
system.
THE GWPC.--GWPC is a respected national organization of State
ground water, UIC, and oil and gas regulatory agencies with a
successful track record of providing solutions to ground water
protection related issues that are environmentally protective,
scientifically based, cost effective and publicly accepted. We are the
proud recipient of the Secretary of Energy's ``Energy 100 Award''--
given to the top 100 most successful and publicly beneficial projects
(RBDMS) in the last 30 years of USDOE. We hope the subcommittee will
continue to support these efforts in fiscal year 2009 at the fiscal
year 2008 level of $1.2 million (RBDMS) and $500,000 (Energy
Efficiency).
We are grateful for your past support and would like to also
request that the subcommittee continue to support the USDOE Office of
Fossil Energy, and the National Energy Technology Lab (NETL). Without
their national presence not only our successes, but those of many
others would not have been accomplished. The programs they administer
serve a valuable purpose and are important to the long term efficiency
of the front line State and Federal agencies and the small domestic
operators who would not otherwise have been able to extend the life of
domestic reservoirs and increase environmental and ground water
protection at the same time.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Hydropower Association
The National Hydropower Association (NHA) \1\ appreciates the
opportunity to submit this statement regarding hydropower funding
priorities for the fiscal year 2009 appropriations budget cycle. NHA
requests $54 million in fiscal year 2009 Energy & Water Appropriations
for the Department of Energy's Waterpower Program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ NHA is a non-profit, national trade association dedicated to
promoting the Nation's largest renewable resource and advancing the
interests of the hydropower and new ocean, tidal and instream
hydrokinetic industries and the consumers they serve.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
hydropower's current and future potential as the nation's most robust,
renewable energy resource
Congress is currently examining the implications of climate change
on the environment, economy, and energy security of the United States.
Crucial to the climate debate is the need for policymakers to work
together to promote the development, deployment and expanded use of
existing renewable resources, as well as innovative new technologies,
that can play a significant role in addressing climate issues while
maintaining a reliable and affordable electricity supply system.
Hydropower of today and new water power technologies of tomorrow can
provide significant benefits to these national energy and environmental
goals.
Currently, hydropower provides sizeable benefits. As the leading
renewable energy resource in the country, it accounts for 7 percent of
all of the Nation's electricity in terms of actual generation and
approximately 9 percent in terms of actual capacity. Overall,
hydropower accounts for 77 percent of actual renewable electricity
generation and 83 percent of the Nation's renewable energy capacity.
As an important source of electricity, hydropower offers advantages
over other generation options. Importantly, hydroelectric units are
able to start, stop, and change output quickly, which provides
important grid stability and reliability benefits. As such, hydro has
the ability to firm intermittent resources such as wind and solar, a
benefit which becomes all the more important as the Nation moves to
incorporate more renewables in its energy portfolio. Finally,
hydropower's non-power benefits include water supply, flood control,
irrigation, navigation and recreation.
Hydropower's potential contribution is notable--from efficiency
improvements and capacity upgrades at existing projects, to new
development at existing non-powered dams, to significant new capacity
gains from emerging waterpower technologies, such as ocean, tidal and
instream hydrokinetic projects. According to a March 2007 Electric
Power Research Institute (EPRI) report titled, ``Assessment of
Waterpower Potential and Development Needs,'' the potential for
increases in capacity, mostly without the need to build dams, is
conservatively estimated at 23,000 MW by 2025, with an overall estimate
of 85,000 to 95,000 MWs with appropriate public policy support. This
includes:
--2,300 MW capacity gains at existing conventional hydropower
facilities;
--5,000 MW of new conventional hydropower at existing non-powered
dams;
--2,700 MW of new small and low head power conventional hydropower
(<30 MW installed capacity);
--10,000 MW from ocean wave energy technologies; and
--3,000 MW from hydrokinetic technologies (river-based).
Realization of these capacity gains will require continued and
increased research, development, demonstration and deployment (RDD&D)
support and other economic incentives as well as planning, testing and
impact evaluation assistance. As stipulated in EPAct 2005, the
Secretary of Energy is required to conduct R&D for conventional and new
waterpower technologies.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ EPAct 2005, title IX, sec. 931--``Conduct a program of
research, development, demonstration and commercial application for
cost competitive technologies that enable the development of new and
incremental hydropower capacity, adding diversity of the energy supply
of the United States, including: (i) Fish-friendly large turbines. (ii)
Advanced technologies to enhance environmental performance and yield
greater energy efficiencies. (. . .) The Secretary shall conduct
research, development, demonstration, and commercial application
programs for--(i) ocean energy, including wave energy (. . .) and (iv)
kinetic hydro turbines.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
nha's statement requests full funding of the suite of initiatives
identified in the epri report under the department of energy's new
waterpower r&d program at a level of $54 million per fiscal year
Waterpower Technology Development Needs
Through direct contact with NHA members, which include hydropower
owners and operators, ocean, tidal and instream hydrokinetic technology
developers, and the analysts and experts cited in the EPRI report, NHA
analyzed the report's suite of development recommendations and
concluded that the EPRI report provides a useful model, a roadmap from
which to guide activities under the DOE Waterpower R&D program. As
such, this statement highlights and summarizes the various R&D
initiatives outlined in the report. These directives are intended to
address the needs left unfunded by the previous RDD&D program for
hydropower and would expand the Department's efforts.
Waterpower Realization Committee.--To provide the initial guidance
and future oversight to benchmark results of the RDD&D program in terms
of real waterpower capacity and generation gains. This committee, made
up of representatives from industry, government resource agencies and
non-governmental organizations would guide RDD&D efforts and monitor
progress to ensure the realization of the capacity gains. The committee
would measure on an annual basis the capacity gains from the various
initiatives and make recommendations for refinement of the program, as
necessary.
Waterpower Performance Initiatives.--The suite of activities and
programs available to meet the goals of the program are outlined below.
Advanced Water Energy Science
Statement of Need.--The industry has identified the need for
advanced scientific techniques to support the following activities:
--Advance Water Energy Science
--Work that would support the industry's need to better predict
flow measurement. Accurate flow values are needed for a
variety of operation and environmental performance topics.
--Modeling work to improve hydraulic modeling techniques.
--Turbine research in order to develop better materials resistant
to cavitation and erosion damage.
--Generator research in order to discover materials suitable for
use as stator core; build one prototype stator core; and
study it over a period of time.
--Meteorological Forecasting and Optimal Dispatch of Energy/Water
Systems.--Work in this area will examine and determine the
benefits of integrating wind and other intermittent renewable
energy resources with hydropower and pumped storage resources.
Specific work could include:
--Near-term forecasting of meteorological conditions will help
identify needs for improving meteorological data and
instrumentation.
--Long-term projections of global climate change and effects of
other cycles and other factors on regional meteorological
conditions and future regional electricity and water
demand, energy and electricity supply mix, and fuel costs.
--Research into the integration of meteorological information and
load, energy price, and other forecasts with energy and
water system operations.
--Integration and Control of Renewable Energy Technologies.--Greater
opportunities to adopt renewable energy technologies and their
integration with water resources can be realized if research is
provided to develop advanced integration and control
mechanisms. Funding could be directed to the development and
demonstration of hybrid control systems to include real time
pricing, resource optimization and optimal economic value
methodologies.
Hydropower Environmental Performance
Statement of Need.--The following objectives will improve
hydropower performance by maximizing hydroelectric generation and
protecting fisheries resources.
--Complete RDD&D for Fish-Friendly Turbines.--Continued work on fish-
friendly turbine development offers the opportunity to address
energy and environmental impacts and needs. Activities under
this category include:
--Continue prototype Alden/Concepts NREC turbine development in
preparation for commercialization. Additional fish survival
testing.
--Continue testing of the advanced turbines at Wanapum dam.
--Perform power efficiency testing, and
--Deploy and evaluate the Alden/Concepts NREC design at School
Street Project, NY or other location.
--Bioengineering for Fish Passage and Entrainment Mitigation.--
Technologies are needed to solve the problem of fish mortality
involving hydropower structures. Continued work activities
include:
--Basic research on the effect of hydraulic process on fish
movement.
--Utilize biocriteria in the development of new turbine and fish
passage designs.
--Conduct demonstrations of new technology to determine
effectiveness in real-world applications.
--Water Quality Mitigation Technology.--New and more cost-effective
and less water intensive solutions are needed to address
dissolved oxygen and water temperature issues involving water
quality. Research is needed to:
--Review state of the art techniques for addressing these issues.
--Develop new technologies and target test sites for testing.
--Conduct cost-shared demonstrations of new technologies.
--Advanced Weirs for Flow Re-regulation and Aeration.--More work is
needed to optimize the design of weirs and demonstrate how they
can be used to improve the efficiency of existing projects.
Research activities could include hydraulic design studies,
coupled with model tests and prototype demonstrations.
Hydropower Operational Performance
Statement of Need.--Improved forecast models and the implementation
of advanced technologies can play a crucial role in enhancing the
operational performance of hydropower facilities. The following
objectives will improve operations at facilities.
--Hydropower Operation Decision Support Analysis.--Need to understand
various hydropower generation sensitivities to various
processes. Research activities could include:
--Determination of sources of hydropower generating variability
across spatial and temporal scales.
--Develop improved climate/meteorological stream flow forecast
models.
--Incorporate understanding and forecast models into optimization
and decision support models.
--Demonstrate benefits of using improved decisions support models.
--Demonstration Testing of the Advanced Hydropower Turbine System
(AHTS) to Increase Use of Efficient Designs.--Demonstration
activities will help potential users understand and overcome
potential risks of using new technologies.
--Advanced Electrical Equipment for Renewable Integration.--More
research into these technologies would increase efficiency and
reliability by providing ancillary services to the electric
grid.
Waterpower Technology Development.--This part of the program would
use funds to advance hydrokinetic and ocean energy technology in four
program areas:
Hydrokinetic Resource Assessment
Statement of Need.--New generation technologies are on the
threshold of implementation, but require additional site assessment and
a mapping program to outline the criteria for development. A complete
resource assessment and criteria protocol for hydrokinetic sites in the
United States is required and should be available to potential
developers, similar to the resource assessment for small hydropower
completed by DOE.
Hydrokinetic Environmental Profiling
Statement of Need.--Advanced technologies on the threshold of
implementation often are stalled because prospective users cannot
justify implementation risks and lack of knowledge among developers
regarding the environmental and institutional barriers. Research to
develop minimum time environmental data collection and analysis
techniques for use in site evaluation of hydrokinetic machines is
needed. This research would standardize monitoring techniques for
evaluating the environmental impacts of hydrokinetic technologies and
help expedite the deployment of these technologies.
Hydrokinetic Technology Improvement
Statement of Need.--Instream kinetic, tidal/wave energy and kinetic
hydropower and pressure systems for manmade conduit systems all require
test support and demonstration funding to support development,
deployment and realization of their potential. Research is needed to
determine proof of concepts with single prototype units and demonstrate
operational viability and environmental effects with pre-commercial
multiple unit projects. Support is also needed to identify
universities, labs, and other entities where proof of concepts and
operational tests can be conducted and environmental effects assessed.
Advanced Ocean Energy
Statement of Need.--Federal funding of ocean energy RDD&D and
required regulatory activities would enable the United States to
develop new domestic energy supplies, create jobs and capture an
emerging global export market. Research is needed to develop an ocean
wave energy technology industry to commercial deployment level
including research into marine resources and converters; energy
conversion, delivery and storage; environmental and cost monitoring;
and field deployment.
conclusion
Hydropower is already a major source of energy for the Nation. The
nascent ocean, tidal and instream hydrokinetic technologies are at the
beginning stages of commercial deployment. Yet both technologies have a
tremendous growth potential that could be realized through sustained
Federal RDD&D support. These renewable resources are clean, climate-
friendly technologies that can provide significant base load power to
the United States at a time when our demand for electricity continues
to increase dramatically. By expanding the funding for the DOE
Waterpower R&D program, the Nation could soon realize the tremendous
energy and environmental benefits of maximizing existing hydropower
projects and infrastructure as well as the suite of emerging waterpower
technologies.
______
Prepared Statement of the Health Physics Society
This written testimony for the record for fiscal year 2009 requests
reinstatement of funding for the Nuclear Education program appropriated
to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) in fiscal year 2008 to
include at least $1.5 million for support of health physics programs,
students, and faculty. This support is necessary to address the
shortage of health physicists, which is an issue of extreme importance
to the safety of our Nation's workers, members of the public, and our
environment. As explained below, justification by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) to rescind the NRC Nuclear Education
program is not applicable to the health physics academic programs.
Health Physics is the profession that specializes in radiation
safety, which is necessary for the safe and successful operation of the
Nation's energy, healthcare, homeland security, defense, and
environmental protection programs. Although radiation safety is
fundamental to each of these vital national programs, there is no
single Federal agency that serves as a home and champion for the health
physics profession as this profession cuts across all these sectors.
However, health physics is necessary for all these sectors to exist as
it supports the principle disciplines in these programs that are
championed by multiple Federal agencies, such as engineers, medical
professionals, law enforcement professionals, military personnel, and
environmental scientists.
As the Nation's development and use of radioactive materials grew
following the end of World War II, the Nation's demand for health
physicists increased in the areas of energy, defense, public health,
and environmental protection. This need was mainly supported by student
fellowships and scholarships from the Atomic Energy Agency (energy and
defense) and Public Health Service (public health and environmental
protection). However, over the years agencies and their missions
changed, the nuclear power industry faltered and the Department of
Energy (DOE) nuclear weapons complex downsized following the end of the
cold war. This resulted in the academic program support from Federal
agencies dwindling until the last remaining support from DOE was
terminated in fiscal year 1999. With this dwindling support, the supply
of new health physicists declined and the age of the existing health
physics workforce increased despite the continued need for health
physicists in energy, defense, public health, and environmental
protection programs as well as an exponential growth in the medical and
academic community. Due to these circumstances a human capital crisis
was created in health physics.
As the health physics human capital crisis grew and loomed in the
early years of the 21st century, Congress and the DOE took action to
add support to the nuclear engineering academic programs through DOE
programs in the Office of Nuclear Energy (NE) and eventually agreed
that this was an appropriate support mechanism for the health physics
academic program. In fiscal year 2005, just 4 years ago, Congress
appropriated money to DOE-NE for a health physics fellowship and
scholarship program as part of the University Reactor Fuel Assistance
and Support budget item. Shortly thereafter, Congress reinforced its
position that DOE needed to support the health physics academic
programs in provisions of section 954 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005.
Despite the fact that the need for an increased supply of health
physics professionals continued to exist, the DOE ceased funding the
Congressionally authorized DOE-NE health physics fellowship and
scholarship program after only 2 fiscal years of funding the programs
at minimal levels.
In fiscal year 2008, Congress transferred appropriations for a
Nuclear Education program, including health physics programs, to the
NRC. The Health Physics Society (HPS) applauds this insightful action.
The NRC does have a vested interest in the radiation safety associated
with most of the sectors covered by the health physics profession.
Although the NRC quickly addressed the demands of starting a new
education support program by opening two grant opportunities for
student and faculty support, the administration has not included
continuation of the program in their budget for fiscal year 2009.
The OMB has provided a justification for rescission of the Nuclear
Education program. This OMB assessment is patently wrong with regards
to health physics programs.
The OMB states ``. . . target levels for the undergraduate
enrollment have been met . . .'' and ``Since the 1990s, enrollment
levels in nuclear education programs have tripled . . .''
Specific to ``target levels,'' since DOE has only funded health
physics programs for 2 years, they have never established ``target
levels'' for health physics program enrollments nor has there been time
to assess the effect of those 2 years of funding on health physics
program enrollments. The DOE-NE HP fellowship and scholarship program
thus far has provided three graduate fellowships in fiscal year 2006
and zero undergraduate scholarships. In 2004, the HPPDO developed a
plan for revitalizing the academic programs to a level that could meet
the projected shortfall of health physicists. The Health Physics
Program Directors Organization (HPPDO) plan calls for an initial target
of 20 graduate fellowships and 20 undergraduate scholarships, i.e.,
target levels well above the actual performance of the Nuclear
Education Programs.
In addition, the HPS does not feel that undergraduate levels are an
appropriate metric to measure the success of an academic program.
Undergraduate levels are not viewed significant by university Deans
looking to justify graduate programs at the Masters and Doctorate
level. Furthermore, university administrators will not commit to
replacing an increasingly large number of retiring health physics
faculty unless the Federal Government demonstrates its commitment to
investing in the research and academic health physics infrastructure
necessary to support new faculty hires in this vital profession.
The OMB justification also states ``. . . and the number of
universities offering nuclear-related programs also has increased.''
Actually, the number of health physics programs graduating at least 5
students annually decreased from 20 programs in 1995 to less than half
that number in 2005, which belies the OMB statement.
We find the OMB justification ignores the value of Federal long-
term investment in academic infrastructure and ignores the value of
professional radiation safety professionals to the successful
protection of workers, members of the public, and the environment while
benefiting from the use of nuclear technologies.
We consider it would take approximately $1,000,000 to get to the
HPPDO plan of 20 fellowships and 20 scholarships in health physics. In
addition, funding of $500,000 should allow for up to two young faculty
members in health physics academic programs to receive grant support at
the level offered by the NRC fiscal year 2008 grant opportunities.
Considering the DOE budgets for the HP Fellowship and Scholarship
programs for fiscal year 2005 and fiscal year 2006 combined have
totaled $500,000 and only produced 3 fellowships, we feel this request
is very modest while we recognize it will not begin to provide the long
term support that will eventually be required if we are to have enough
safety professionals for our energy, healthcare, homeland security,
defense, and environmental protection programs. However, it will go a
long way to help building the student and faculty infrastructure needed
to reach this goal.
The subcommittee's favorable consideration of this request will
help meet our Nation's radiation safety needs of the future.
______
Prepared Statement of the Gas Turbine Association
The Gas Turbine Association (GTA) appreciates the opportunity to
provide the United States Senate Committee on Appropriations
Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development with our industry's
statement regarding fiscal year 2009 Department of Energy (DOE) Office
of Fossil Energy (FE) Advanced Turbines R&D at $55 million and Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Industrial Technologies Program
(ITP) Distributed Energy at $60 million funding levels.
From Connecticut to California, States are working to put in place
regulations to dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions. At the
same time, our economy will be demanding more electric power to
maintain its growth. Without new technology, the power generation
industry will be hard pressed to produce additional electric capacity,
while at the same time meet the strict greenhouse gas emissions
standards being set by States and the Federal Government.
Federal investment in research and technology development for
advanced gas turbines that are more versatile, cleaner, and have the
ability to burn hydrogen-bearing reduced carbon synthetic fuels and
carbon-neutral alternative fuels is needed to ensure the reliable
supply of electricity in the next several decades. Domestic coal based
Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) with carbon capture and
sequestration is one such approach that would significantly supplement
available supplies of domestic natural gas to guarantee an adequate
supply of clean and affordable electric power. Alternative fuel choices
range from imported LNG, coal bed methane, and coal-derived synthetic
or process gas to biogas, waste-derived gases and hydrogen. Research is
needed to improve the efficiency, reduce capital and operating costs,
and reduce emissions.
----------------------------------------------------------------
$55 million for doe fe advanced turbines
$60 million for doe eere itp distributed energy
Supporting these programs provides the following benefits:
--Efficient and reliable turbine technologies for alternative fuel,
near-zero-emission power plants
--Energy security by utilizing domestic energy sources to reduce the
demand for foreign energy imports
--Globally competitive electricity prices for U.S. industries,
businesses and homes, with reduced greenhouse gas emissions
from power plants
----------------------------------------------------------------
Because policy makers have begun implementing rigid CO2
regulatory mandates, failure to invest now will translate into stifled
economic growth and the loss of our global competitiveness later. The
Advanced Turbines program needs $55 million and the Distributed Energy
budget needs to be restored to $60 million in fiscal year 2009 to
ensure a smooth transition into a low-carbon economy.
gas turbines reduce greenhouse gas emissions
The gas turbine industry's R&D partnership with the Federal
Government has steadily increased power plant efficiency to the point
where natural gas fired turbines can reach combined cycle efficiencies
of 60 percent, and quick-start simple cycle peaking units can reach 46
percent. The gas turbine's clean exhaust can be used to create hot
water, steam, or even chilled water. In such combined heat and power
applications, overall system efficiency levels can reach 60 to 85
percent LHV. This compares to 40-45 percent for even the most advanced
thermal steam cycles (most of which are coal fired).
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Gas turbines already play a very significant role in minimizing
greenhouse gas emissions worldwide. Gas turbines are both more
efficient and typically burn lower carbon fuels compared to other types
of combustion-based power generation and mechanical drive applications.
The Nation needs to reinvigorate the gas turbine/government partnership
in order to develop new, low carbon power plant solutions without
increasing our reliance on natural gas. This can be done by funding
research to make gas turbines more capable to utilize hydrogen and
synthetic fuels as well as increasing the efficiency, durability and
emissions capability of natural gas fired turbines. If Congress
provides adequate funding to DOE's turbine R&D efforts, technology
development and deployment will be accelerated to a pace that will
allow the United States to achieve its emissions and energy security
goals.
technologies for advanced igcc/h2 gas turbine--reducing the
penalty for co2 capture
The turbines and related technologies being developed under the DOE
FE Advanced Turbines program will directly advance the performance and
capabilities of future power generation with CO2 capture and
sequestration. Advances are needed to offset part of the power plant
efficiency and output reductions associated with CO2
capture. Program funding is required to cost-share in the technology
development of advanced hydrogen/syngas combustors and other components
to realize the DOE goals.
Several GTA member companies are working cost-share programs with
the DOE to develop technologies for advanced gas turbine power plants
with carbon capture. These technologies will: (1) increase plant
efficiency; (2) increase outputs; and (3) allow further reductions in
combustion emissions of hydrogen rich fuels associated with
CO2 capture and sequestration. This will help offset some of
the efficiency and output penalties associated with CO2
capture. These programs are funding technology advancement at a much
more rapid rate than industry can do on their own.
The need for increased levels of Federal cost-share funding is
immediate. The fiscal year 2009 funding request for the Advanced
Turbines program is inadequate to meet DOE's 2010 Advanced Power System
goal of an IGCC power system with high efficiency (45-50 percent HHV),
near-zero emissions and competitive capital cost. To meet this 2010
goal, the researchers must demonstrate a 2 to 3 percentage point
improvement in combined cycle efficiency above current state-of-the-art
Combined Cycle turbines in IGCC applications.
The plan for the IGCC-based FutureGen-type application is to
develop the flexibility in this same machine with modifications to
operate on pure hydrogen as the primary energy source while maintaining
the same levels of performance in terms efficiency and emissions. The
goal is to develop the fundamental technologies needed for advanced
hydrogen turbines and to integrate this technology with CO2
separation, capture, and sequestration into a near-zero emission
configuration that can provide electricity with less than a 10 percent
increase in cost over conventional plants by 2012.
The Advanced Turbines program is also developing oxygen-fired (oxy-
fuel) turbines and combustors that are expected to achieve efficiencies
in the 44-46 percent range, with near-100 percent CO2
capture and near-zero NOX emissions. The development and
integrated testing of a new combustor, turbine components, advanced
cooling technology, and materials in oxy-fuel combustors and turbines
is needed to make these systems commercially viable.
The knowledge and confidence that generating equipment will operate
reliably and efficiently on varying fuels is essential for the
deployment of new technology. Years of continued under funding of the
Advanced Turbines program has already delayed the completion dates for
turbine R&D necessary for advanced IGCC, as well as timing for a
FutureGen-type plant validation.
mega-watt scale turbine r&d
In the 2005 Enabling Turbine Technologies for High-Hydrogen Fuels
solicitation, the Office of Fossil Energy included a topic area
entitled ``Development of Highly Efficient Zero Emission Hydrogen
Combustion Technology for Mega-Watt Scale Turbines''. Turbine
manufacturers and combustion system developers responded favorably to
this topic, but DOE funding constraints did not allow any contract
awards. The turbine industry recommends a follow-up to this
solicitation topic that would allow the developed combustion technology
to be tested in machines at full scale conditions and allow for
additional combustion technology and combustor development for high-
hydrogen fuels.
The turbine industry believes that this technology is highly
relevant to industrial coal gasification applications: (1) site-
hardened black-start capability for integrated gasification combined
cycle applications (the ability to restart an IGCC power plant when the
electric grid has collapsed); (2) supplying plant electric load fueled
on syngas or hydrogen; (3) increasing plant steam cycle capacity on hot
days when large amounts of additional power are needed; and (4) in gas
turbines for compression of high-hydrogen fuels for pipeline
transportation. The development of MW-scale turbines (1-100 MW) fueled
with high-hydrogen fuels will promote the sustainable use of coal. In
addition, highly efficient aeroderivative megawatt scale engines
operate under different conditions than their larger counterparts and
are installed for peaking or distributed generation applications. LNG,
syngas and hydrogen combustion are issues for new sites and the legacy
fleet. Funding is required to design efficient and low emissions
combustors that accommodate the new fuels.
high-efficiency, alternative-fueled distributed energy
The administration's budget request recognizes the need for the
development of alternate and dual fueled combined heat and power gas
turbines systems. The budget document states ``ITP would also pursue
the growth opportunity in traditional industry CHP applications below
20 MW, including medium-sized plants that require both power and
process heat. Specific activities would include the development of
alternative/dual fuel capability for turbines that meet the most
stringent NOX and CO regulations (e.g., those in southern
California)''.
However, there are insufficient funds allocated in the request to
do any work in this area. The administration's justification contends
``full consideration of the new DG/CHP activity within the context of
the fiscal year 2009 request was not possible''. If the United States
is serious about transitioning to a low-carbon economy, we must restore
the Distributed Energy budget to $60 million in fiscal year 2009 to
allow DOE to fund partnerships to develop ultra-high efficiency
alternative and dual fuel CHP systems.
university turbine systems research (utsr) program
Under the UTSR program, a consortium of 111 U.S. universities
located across 42 States conducts fundamental and applied research to
resolve critical knowledge gaps identified by the 17 industrial
partners that sit on the UTSR program's Industrial Review Board and by
the DOE in support of the IGCC/FutureGen program. The UTSR program has
been described as a model for university/government/industry
collaboration that is tightly focused on the research needed to support
widespread use of syngas and hydrogen fueled gas turbines for power
production.
This DOE/industry/university partnership is needed to help power
producers cleanly and efficiently produce electric power from gasified
coal, biomass and hydrogen, as well as natural gas. The UTSR program is
the only federally-funded university-based program in the gas turbine
area. The UTSR program's critical research efforts is needed to meet
the Advanced Turbine program goals of preparing low-cost, high-
efficiency, high-reliability, low-emission gas turbines for electricity
production using IGCC-derived fuels. The UTSR program provides critical
gas turbine research expertise in the United States and graduates with
knowledge and training. Without adequate DOE funding, universities will
de-emphasize this area in their own research investments and
curriculums and the United States will lose its competitive advantage
in this critical industry.
The Advanced Turbines program needs $55 million and the Distributed
Energy budget needs to be restored to $60 Million in fiscal year 2009
to keep pace with the rapidly approaching Climate Change emissions
mandates.
______
Prepared Statement of SNM--Advancing Molecular Imaging and Therapy
SNM, formerly known as the Society of Nuclear Medicine, appreciates
the opportunity to submit written comments for the record regarding
funding in fiscal year 2009 at the Department of Energy (DOE). SNM is
an international scientific and professional organization of over
16,000 members dedicated to promoting the science, technology, and
practical applications of molecular imaging and therapy.
In fiscal year 2008, Congress restored funding for nuclear medicine
research, after the Federal Government abandoned its over 50-year
commitment to funding vital nuclear medicine research by eliminating
funding in fiscal year 2006 for the research at the Department of
Energy (DOE) and making no accommodation to transition nuclear medicine
programs to other Government organizations. In past years, nuclear
researchers have used Federal funding within DOE to make major
accomplishments benefiting millions of patients with heart, cancer, and
brain diseases. The loss of Federal funding for nuclear research
adversely impacted future innovation in the field. With the restoration
of funding last year and the continuation of funding in fiscal year
2009 we will be able to get this research back on track. For that
reason, SNM advocates the continuation of funding for fiscal year 2009
at the level of $17.5 million for the nuclear medicine research program
now housed under the Office of Science's Biological Research Life
Science Radiochemistry and Instrumentation program \1\ in the fiscal
year 2009 Energy and Water Appropriations bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Previously nuclear medicine research was funded under the DOE's
Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research (BER)
program's Medical Applications and Measurement Science. The BER program
has been restructured, as directed by Congress, into two separate sub
programs--Biological Research and Climate Change Research. Biological
Research included activities in Life Sciences which is where this
research is now housed. They also renamed it to Radiochemistry and
Instrumentation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
what is nuclear medicine?
Nuclear medicine is an established specialty that performs non-
invasive molecular imaging procedures to diagnose and treat diseases
and to determine the effectiveness of therapeutic treatments--whether
surgical, chemical, or radiation. It contributes extensively to the
management of patients with cancers of the brain, breast, blood, bone,
bone marrow, liver, lungs, pancreas, thyroid, ovaries, and prostate,
and serious disorders of the heart, brain, and kidneys, to name a few.
In fact, recent advances in the diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease can be
attributed to nuclear medicine imaging procedures.
Annually, more than 20 million men, women, and children need
noninvasive molecular/nuclear medicine procedures. These safe, cost-
effective procedures include positron emission tomography (PET) scans
to diagnose and monitor treatment in cancer, cardiac stress tests to
analyze heart function, bone scans for orthopedic injuries, and lung
scans for blood clots. Patients undergo procedures to diagnose liver
and gall bladder functional abnormalities and to diagnose and treat
hyperthyroidism and thyroid cancer.
lack of federal funding threatens future innovations
The goal of the DOE's nuclear medicine research program is to
deliver relevant scientific knowledge that will lead to innovative
diagnostic and treatment technologies for human health. The modern era
of nuclear medicine is an outgrowth of the original charge of the
Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) to exploit nuclear energy to promote
human health. This program supports directed nuclear medicine research
through radiopharmaceutical development and molecular nuclear medicine
activities to study uses of radionuclides for non-invasive diagnosis
and targeted, internal molecular radiotherapy.
Over the years, the DOE nuclear medicine research program has
generated advances in the field of molecular/nuclear medicine. For
example, DOE funding provided the resources necessary for molecular/
nuclear medicine professionals to develop PET scanners to diagnose and
monitor treatment in cancer. PET scans offer significant advantages
over CT and MRI scans in diagnosing disease and are more effective in
identifying whether cancer is present or not, if it has spread, if it
is responding to treatment, and if a person is cancer free after
treatment. In fact, the DOE has stated that this program supports
``research in universities and in the National Laboratories, occupies a
critical and unique niche in the field of radiopharmaceutical research.
The NIH relies on our basic research to enable them to initiate
clinical trials.''
The majority of the advances in molecular/nuclear medicine have
been sponsored by the DOE, including:
--Smaller, More Versatile PET Scanners.--Brookhaven National
Laboratory (BNL) has completed a prototype mobile PET scanner,
which will record images in the awake animal. The mobile PET
will be able to acquire positron-generated images in the
absence of anesthesia-induced coma and correct for motion of
the animal. The long-term goal is to develop PET
instrumentation able to diagnose neuro-psychiatric disorders in
children.
--Highest Resolution PET Scanner Developed.--Scientists at the
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) have developed the
world's most sensitive PET scanner. The instrument is 10-times
more sensitive than a conventional PET scanner and became
operational in 2005.
--Imaging Gene Expression in Cancer Cells.--Images of tumors in whole
animals that detect the expression of three cancer genes were
accomplished for the first time by investigators at Thomas
Jefferson University and the University of Massachusetts
Medical Center. This advanced imaging technology will lead to
the detection of cancer in humans using cancer cell genetic
profiling.
--Modeling Radiation Damage to the Lung.--Treatment of thyroid
disease and lymphomas using radioisotopes can cause disabling
lung disease. Investigators at Johns Hopkins University have
developed a Monte Carlo model that can be used to determine the
probability of lung toxicity and be incorporated into a
therapeutic regimen. This model will optimize the dose of
radioactivity delivered to cancer cells and avoid untoward
effects on the lung.
--New Radiopharmaceuticals with Important Clinical Applications.--The
DOE radiopharmaceutical science program has developed a number
of innovative radiotracers at the University of California at
Irvine for the early diagnosis of neuro-psychiatric illnesses,
including Alzheimer's disease, schizophrenia, depression, and
anxiety disorders.
--Rapid Preparation of Radiopharmaceuticals for Clinical Use.--The
DOE-sponsored program at the University of Tennessee has
developed a new method for preparing radiopharmaceuticals by
placing a boron-based salt at the position that will be
occupied by the radiohalogen. The method has been used to
prepare a variety of cancer-imaging agents.
With continued DOE funding, essential molecular/nuclear medicine
research will continue at universities, research institutions, national
laboratories, and small businesses. Moreover, research with
radiochemistry, genomic sciences, and structural biology will be able
to usher in a new era of mapping the human brain and using specific
radiotracers and instruments, to more precisely diagnose neuro-
psychiatric illnesses and cancer.
In addition, to gain the full benefits of nuclear medicine, it is
important to ensure that nuclear medicine researchers have a steady
supply of radionuclides. One way to accomplish this goal would be to
create a National Radionuclide Enhancement Production program at the
DOE that would meet the Nation's medical and homeland security needs.
nas study recommends enhanced federal commitment to nuclear medicine
research
On September 20, 2007, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
released a report sponsored by the Department of Energy (DOE) and
National Institutes of Health (NIH), entitled Advancing Nuclear
Medicine Through Innovation. The charge of the NAS study was to provide
findings and recommendations on the state of the science in nuclear
medicine.
As one of the important findings, the report highlighted the
detrimental loss of Federal commitment to nuclear medicine research, as
evidenced by the large cuts in funding for the basic sciences related
to nuclear medicine in the DOE Office of Science Office of Biological
and Environmental Research (OBER) Medical Applications and Measurement
Science (MAMS) program in fiscal years 2006 and 2007.
As a result, says the report, ``there is now no short- or long-term
programmatic commitment by any agency to funding chemistry, physics,
engineering research and associated high-technology infrastructure
(accelerators, instrumentation, and imaging physics), which are at the
heart of nuclear medicine technology research and development.''
There are countless new innovations on the horizon in this area
that promise to improve patient care through new therapeutic isotopes
to cure disease, earlier diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease and cancer,
detection of the effectiveness of cancer therapies, development of the
next generation of imaging technologies, and more. However, without
ongoing funding for basic nuclear medicine research at DOE Office of
Science, these breakthroughs may never materialize.
To enhance Federal commitment, the NAS report recommended that
``reinstating support for the DOE-OBER nuclear medicine research
program should be considered.'' Additionally, the report recommends ``a
national nuclear medicine research program should be coordinated by the
DOE and the National Institutes of Health with the former emphasizing
the general development of technology and the latter disease-specific
applications.''
The report also states, ``Although the scientific opportunities
have never been greater or more exciting, the infrastructure on which
future innovations in nuclear medicine depend hangs in the balance. If
the promise of the field is to be fulfilled, a federally supported
infrastructure for basic and translational research in nuclear medicine
should be considered.''
We are at a critical juncture in nuclear medicine. In order to
capitalize on groundbreaking research that will improve and save lives,
Federal support for basic nuclear medicine research at DOE Office of
Science must continue. Therefore, SNM calls on Congress to support the
DOE Office of Science's Radiochemistry and Instrumentations programs
with $17.5 million in funding for nuclear medicine research for fiscal
year 2009.
conclusion
By continuing funding for the DOE's Radiochemistry and
Instrumentation nuclear medicine research program at the DOE, policy
makers will keep our Nation at the forefront of nuclear medicine
research and innovation. We thank you for the opportunity to present
our views on funding for these initiatives at the DOE and would be
pleased to answer any questions you may have.