[Senate Hearing 111-]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011
----------
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 2011
Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act.]
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL
Department of the Army
Corps of Engineers--Civil
Prepared Statement of the San Mateo County Harbor District
OYSTER POINT MARINA/PARK BREAKWATER RECONFIGURATION
The San Mateo County Harbor District requests your support for a
fiscal year 2011 appropriation of $400,000 to the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers Continuing Authorities section 107 account to complete this
vital project, which will facilitate the first new water transit
service on San Francisco Bay and essential waterborne emergency
response capability serving the northern San Francisco Peninsula.
Through this project, the breakwater entrance has been widened to
enable safe, fast, and comfortable access by new ferryboat service to
and from the Marina serving east San Francisco Bay.
Completion of the project requires installation of wave attenuators
and adaptive management to dissipate wave energy now entering the
Marina's berthing area because of the entrance widening. This last task
will provide increased protection to berthed vessels from southeasterly
storm surges and protection of Marina facilities and property.
Oyster Point Marina/Park is located in the city of South San
Francisco, and is operated for the city by the Harbor District under a
Joint Powers Agreement. Oyster Point was designated by the San
Francisco Bay Area Water Emergency Transportation Authority (WETA) as
the initial expansion terminal facility for WETA's new regional ferry
service on San Francisco Bay. This is due to the significant employee
base working near the Marina in and around South San Francisco in life
science industries. There are currently around 25,000 employees within
a 4.5 mile radius from the Marina, which is forecasted to double by
2015. Many of these workers commute over the Bay bridges and
contribute, and are adversely affected by, traffic congestion and air
pollution. Water transit is an economically and environmentally viable
alternative.
Additionally, the Marina has been identified as a vital component
of WETA's emergency response plan for San Francisco Bay. The breakwater
project including the wave attenuators is required to accommodate rapid
waterborne emergency response activities, expanded vessel traffic,
improve vessel access and safety, and new ferry traffic.
NORTHERN HALF MOON BAY SHORELINE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
The San Mateo County Harbor District requests your support for a
fiscal year 2011 appropriation of $100,000 to the U.S. Army Corp of
Engineers Continuing Authorities section 111 account for this project.
Project goals are (a) to halt shoreline erosion now threatening the
Coast Highway, which, as the only coastal artery in the region, is a
homeland security concern as evidenced by the recent tsunami advisory
for the California coast; (b) to enable restoration of anchorage area
to the only designated Harbor of Refuge between San Francisco and
Monterey Bay; (c) to restore public shoreline access and use adjacent
to a major metropolitan area; (d) to demonstrate beneficial sand
replenishment methods that may have broader environmentally sound
applicability; and (e) overall, to insure that the Federal Pillar Point
Harbor breakwater performs as intended.
The Pillar Point Harbor breakwater was built around 1960 to create
a harbor of refuge for the commercial fishing fleet and other vessels.
While serving its primary function, the breakwater has caused erosion
of the adjacent beach and bluff areas by preventing sand movement along
the shoreline and by scouring the area next to the breakwater. This
shoreline erosion has increased over time, destroying one road and
threatening California Highway 1 and several structures, and causing
loss of a heavily used public beach. A July 2009 Army Corps of
Engineers Initial Appraisal concluded that there is sufficient cause
for Federal interest in a shoreline improvement project, which is
supported by government agencies and the public.
PILLAR POINT HARBOR, CALIFORNIA
The San Mateo County Harbor District requests your support for a
fiscal year 2011 appropriation of $2.2 million to the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers Operation and Maintenance account to complete storm damage
repairs to the Federal breakwater at Pillar Point Harbor. Completion of
repairs already in progress will restore breakwater integrity and
navigation safety to a designated critical Harbor of Refuge vital for
the fishing industry, waterborne commerce, recreational boating, and
local and regional economies.
Breakwater-caused shoreline impacts south of the breakwater are
adversely affecting adjacent State highway safety, causing loss of
public beach use, and affecting shoreline property, and must be
addressed by a demonstration project. The recent tsunami advisory for
the California coast highlighted the need for the proposed action,
especially as State Highway 1 is the only traffic artery on this
stretch of coast available for emergency response needs. This project
element will address damage prevention or mitigation along the northern
open-ocean shoreline of Half Moon Bay that are attributable to
construction of the Federal breakwater.
The eroding beach shoreline fronts on Monterey Bay National Marine
Sanctuary waters, which are administered for this sanctuary under
agreement by the Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary.
Project performance will show how human activities can be sustained
without causing adverse impacts on Sanctuary resources.
This project thus addresses urgent Federal concerns with navigation
safety, homeland security, marine resource protection, and public use,
and will complete work already begun.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Shore & Beach Preservation
Association
I am Mayor Harry Simmons of Caswell Beach, North Carolina and
President of the American Shore & Beach Preservation Association. ASBPA
appreciates this opportunity to provide written testimony to the Senate
Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee on the fiscal year 2011
budget of the Corps of Engineers. Over the years, the Appropriations
Committees, and Congress as a whole, have been extremely supportive of
what is known as the Federal shore protection program. We are very
grateful for the many times you stood up to what has seemed like the
never-ending efforts of one administration after another to cripple or
terminate this program.
The Federal coastal restoration program represents our Nation's
commitment to responsible coastal stewardship. Our coasts are the
gateway to America. They provide the seagoing and intracoastal water
highways which carry most of America's commerce. They are the home to
hundreds of animal and plant species that are not likely to be found
elsewhere. They sustain tens of thousands of middle-class and service
worker jobs which, together with taxes on business profits, bring
billions of dollars into the Federal Treasury each year.
This administration has been far more willing to discuss and budget
for coastal programs and projects than at any time since 1995. That is
indeed refreshing. However, the recommendation the President has made
in his fiscal year 2011 budget of approximately $55 million is only
one-tenth of what ASBPA's national survey shows as the need for $460
million for the Federal cost-share of what is needed to fund authorized
shoreline projects and studies. Inevitably and regrettably, this
optimal funding number increases each year that we have done this
analysis. The Federal Government has not provided its share of the cost
of studies and projects while non-Federal sponsors have their 35 to 50
percent share in hand because they have set aside funds in advance.
Following are our recommendations for funding some of the national
programs promoting coastal stewardship. They are not listed in priority
order. ASBPA hopes the subcommittee will give consideration to each of
these requests. Thank you for considering our views. We look forward to
continuing to work with the subcommittee on the funding and
effectiveness of coastal programs.
NATIONAL PLANNING CENTERS OF EXPERTISE (GI)
The Corps of Engineers designated six national Planning Centers of
Expertise and identified their roles in support of plan formulation and
complex technical evaluations associated with plan formulation. These
Planning Centers of Expertise provide specialized planning talent to
enhance and supplement the capabilities of the districts. They include
Deep Draft Navigation and Small Boat Harbors, Inland Navigation,
Ecosystem Restoration, Coastal Storm Damage Reduction, Flood Risk
Management, and Water Management and Reallocation Studies.
ASBPA has found that the Coastal and Storm Damage Reduction
Planning Center of Expertise (Coastal PCX) has been extremely helpful
to Districts and their customers and has increased the quality of the
Corps work product and re-instilled confidence on the part of local
sponsors in the Corps of Engineers. In fiscal year 2009, Congress
designated some funding allocated to the Planning Support Program (GI
account) for the 6 centers. In fiscal year 2010, the Senate bill
designated funding specifically for the Coastal PCX. This was not
carried over in conference.
ASBPA Request.--$1,500,000 for the 6 PCX's as a separate line item
under the GI account. No funding is included in the President's budget
request.
WATER RESOURCE PRIORITIES REPORT (GI)
Section 2032 of WRDA 2007 provides the Corps of Engineers with the
direction and authority to examine risk assessment and risk reduction
in the broadest and yet most practical approach imaginable. We
understand the Corps has requested but not received funding from
Congress to do the report.
ASBPA Request.--$2 million to undertake what is likely to be a 2-
year effort to meet the mandate of section 2032. No funding is included
in the President's budget request.
SECTION 2038--NATIONAL SHORELINE EROSION CONTROL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
(CG)
Section 227 of WRDA 1992 created a program to test new technologies
that will improve the performance of Federal beach restoration projects
and reduce their cost. Section 2038 of WRDA section 2038 moved the
section 227 program into the section 103 Small Shoreline Protection
Projects Continuing Authorities Program. The President has earmarked
every dollar of the funding he requested for section 103 projects, and
not one of those dollars is requested for the Shoreline Erosion Control
development program.
ASBPA Requests.--$8,975,000 to plan, construct, and/or monitor at
least 9 demonstration projects. No funding is included in the
President's budget request.
REGIONAL SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT RESEARCH PROGRAM (O&M)
RSM is not a faster way to plan and execute water resources
projects; it is a better way. It is a systems-based approach that
solves sediment-related issues through integrated management of
littoral, estuarine, and riverine sediments and projects to achieve the
type of balanced and sustainable approach that is lacking when planning
and funding is done on a project-by-project basis. RSM will be a major
factor in protecting environmental resources while also bringing
efficiencies and greater effectiveness that would otherwise not be
achievable.
ASBPA Request.--$9 million to continue Federal, State, and local
cooperative RSM efforts in almost a dozen States. The President has
requested $2 million for this program.
REGIONAL SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM AUTHORIZED BY SECTION 2037 OF WRDA
2007 (CG)
This is now known as the section 204 program and is separate from
the RSM research program above. This program enables the Corps to do at
least two things that the Research program cannot do: (1) Construction
RSM projects; and (2) Cooperate with States that have initiated their
own RSM studies.
ASBPA Request.--$15 million to fund the planning and construction
phases of RSM projects from New England to California. There is no
funding included in the President's budget request.
NATIONAL COASTAL MAPPING PROGRAM (GI)
This is an interagency effort to survey the U.S. shoreline on a
recurring basis to support regional sediment management, construction,
operations and maintenance, and regulatory functions in the coastal
zone. With this data, governmental entities at all levels will be
better able to manage America's coastal resources.
ASBPA Request.--$13 million to complete the first survey of the
entire U.S. shoreline of the lower 48 States. The President has
requested $7 million for this program.
COASTAL FIELD DATA COLLECTION PROGRAM (GI)
Without good data, there can be no project planning for the present
and no systems planning for the future. CFDC includes the Corps' Field
Research Facility which obtains data on longer-term coastal processes,
the Wave Information Study to develop and analyze new surge and wave
data. This line items also includes several other programs such as
SWIMS, PILOT, and MORPHUS.
ASBPA Request.--$6,600,000 to complete construction of projects and
continue monitoring and evaluation of completed projects. The President
has requested $1.4 million for all of the programs under this heading.
COASTAL DATA INFORMATION PROGRAM (O&M)
This is the first year the President has proposed funding a
separate line item. Nevertheless, this program was established in 1975
and has now been deployed at over 142 stations and has archived 200 GB
of wave duty, The CDIP also contains information that is accessed daily
by the Navy, Coast Guard, Marines, as well as those commercial
fisherman and others in the private sector.
ASBPA Request.--$5 million. The President's budget request contains
$3 million for this line item, which does not permit to expand to the
east coast.
NATIONAL SHORELINE MANAGEMENT STUDY (GI)
Authorized by WRDA 1999, this study will provide the first detailed
report since 1971 on which sections of the U.S. shoreline are accreting
and which are eroding. Without this basic information, none of us knows
how serious a problem coastal erosion is.
ASBPA Request.--$500,000. The President has requested $375,000 for
this study.
NATIONAL HURRICANE PROGRAM (GI)
This program is a cooperative effort with FEMA. The studies
provided by the National Hurricane Program (NHP) help State and local
communities establish evacuation plans by determining the probable
effects of a hurricane; predicting public response to the threat and
advisories, and identifying appropriate shelters. Specifically, NHP
conducts hazard and vulnerability analyses for coastal communities
considering different types of storm threats. This includes an
assessment of storm surge and wind impacts; existing road and other
transportation systems, population (e.g., demographics, behavior
analysis) and shelters. This information helps officials determine
where individuals are most likely to go when evacuating from a storm.
The NHP assists coastal communities by developing evacuation zones,
which helps determine where and when the public should be ordered to
evacuate as a storm approaches. This recommendation is negotiated among
decisionmakers within each community. Once the evacuation zones are
established, the NHP provides each community with corresponding
evacuation maps and suggested clearance times for the various types of
storm categories. The communities determine how to utilize these tools
and recommendations, in developing their evacuation plans.
ASBPA Request.--$3 million as a separate line item in O&M. It is
currently part of the National Emergency Preparedness Program and was
allocated $1 million from that program in fiscal year 2010.
FLOOD CONTROL AND COASTAL EMERGENCIES (FCCE)
According to the President's budget justification for this
important category of funds: ``FISCAL YEAR 2011 DISASTER PREPAREDNESS:
This activity consists of functions required to ensure that USACE
activities are ready to provide baseline response to disasters and
emergencies . . . Planning and preparedness funding should be sought as
part of the regular budget process, instead of relying on emergency
supplementals. Recent earthquakes, Nor'easters, ice storms and tsunamis
illustrate the need for preparedness funding and the ability to provide
trained staff and resources immediately after or even prior to an
event.'' ASBPA agrees with the need to include FCCE funding in the
regular appropriations bill. Unfortunately, this has not been the case
in recent years. When emergencies arise, the Corps has no money on hand
to deal with them and must wait for a Supplemental Appropriations bill
for that purpose.
ASBPA Request.--$50 million. The President has requested $30
million which is substantially below his fiscal year 2010 request.
______
Prepared Statement of the Fifth Louisiana Levee District
The Board of Commissioners for the Fifth Louisiana Levee District
respectfully requests that construction funding for Mississippi River
Levees be increased from the $29,150,000 contained in the proposed
budget for fiscal year 2011, to the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers'
capability of $56,238,000, and the Mississippi River Levee maintenance
allocation be increased from the proposed $7,582,000 to $20,270,000.
Reduced funding, combined with the inability to let construction
contracts under a continuing contract clause, has left thousands of
people in Louisiana vulnerable to the adverse effects of a deficient
levee system. Construction of levee enlargements is essential if the
levee is to contain the ``Project Flood'' which is estimated to be 20
percent greater than the record Flood of 1927.
The effect of fully funded contracts for levee construction, now
required under Public Law 109-103, (sec. 106 and 108), adopted by the
109th Congress in 2005, as opposed to the previous system of continuing
contract clauses, has virtually halted enlargement of the Mississippi
River Levee System in Louisiana. Year after year, as the cost of
projects and maintenance has increased, funding for levee systems and
flood control has been reduced. The current proposed budget is no
exception, with only $240 million allocated for the entire Mississippi
River and Tributaries (MR&T) project. We request that be increased to
the Corp's capabilities of $550 million.
Since the Mississippi River and Tributaries project was
established, less than $11 billion has been invested. This investment
provides benefits far beyond their actual cost to the taxpayer by
offering protection to the 4 million citizens, 1.5 million homes,
33,000 farms, and countless vital transportation routes from
destructive floods.
With the help of Congress, great progress has been made in the
Mississippi River Valley over the years, but there is still much to be
done, and because of that, we urge Congress to increase funding to the
Corp of Engineers in fiscal year 2011, to insure that the Corp is not
forced to halt or delay contracts for levee construction essential to
the well being of this Nation. It is vital that the MR&T project(s) be
completed at the earliest possible date. This can only be accomplished
through adequate funding and repeal of the mandate for contracts to be
fully funded prior to the beginning construction.
______
Prepared Statement of the Board of Levee Commissioners for the Yazoo-
Mississippi Delta
These are changing times for this country's flood control community
and those whom they seek to protect. As you in your wisdom consider
such weighty matters as Levee Certification coupled with FEMA's new
mapping initiative, the Clean Water Act, new Objectives, Principles and
Standards for the Corps of Engineers and a related Executive order, a
new WRDA bill and 2011 funding for the Mississippi River and
Tributaries Project, we urge you to do so with one guiding principle:
First do no harm.
As you craft a new approach to flood control activities for the
21st century, we urge you not to lose sight of the successes of the
20th and what they have meant to this country. The land in and around
the Mississippi River Valley is among the most fertile and bountiful on
earth. Not only is it home to the salt-of-the-earth men and women of
the Nation's heartland, but within it is produced a significant slice
of the U.S. export pie--the food and fiber that feed and clothe this
Nation and the rest of the world.
You in this body and we in the flood control community are its
stewards and as we move forward, we must do so always keeping in mind
our duty to protect it. Update the Clean Water Act, but maintain its
critical Navigable Waters clause; write new guidelines and standards,
but avoid any radical departure from what has worked; enact a new WRDA
bill, but enact one whose principal theme is to preserve and protect.
We are also keenly aware of the fiscal tightropes which must be
walked in this country's current economic environment. Every dollar is
critical and every expenditure must be prioritized. But what priority
trumps the protection of our people and the wealth they produce? What
role of government is more critical?
The administration proposes 2011 funding for the MR&T, truly one of
this Nation's success stories with a virtually unmatched benefit to
cost ratio, at $240 million, an amount far less than you appropriated
for 2010 and an amount even farther less than the Corps of Engineers'
capability. But the final word is that of Congress, and we urge you to
fund the MR&T umbrella of needed public works at the Corps capability
level of $550 million.
As a local levee board, our first priority should be and is the
protection of the lives and livelihoods of our people. Simply put, the
Mainline Mississippi River Levee makes life and development possible
within the Mississippi Delta. Therefore, we ask you to fund Mississippi
River levees construction at $56.238 million and their maintenance at
$20.270 million.
Our levee board is proud to have been the sponsor of the Upper
Yazoo Projects, one of the most successful such endeavors in the
country, given testament by the fact that it faces absolutely no
environmental opposition. To advance its completion, we urge that you
appropriate $13.3 million.
Mississippi's four flood control reservoirs have proven to be
remarkably successful structures, but they are aging and we request the
appropriation of a total of $54.113 million for their maintenance.
Also of primary importance to us is the Delta Headwater Project,
which helps to prevent our Delta streams from filling with soils eroded
from the hills. We ask that it be funded at $23.2 million.
The other investigations, construction projects and maintenance
efforts of importance to our levee district are as follows. We ask they
be funded in 2011 at their respective Corps of Engineers capability
levels:
--Channel Improvements--$59.646 million.
--Big Sunflower River--$2.2 million.
--Main Stem--$25,000.
--Yazoo Basin Reformulation--$1.6 million.
--Channel Maintenance--$89.484 million.
--Revetments and Dikes--$72.328 million.
--Vicksburg Harbor Maintenance--$750,000.
--Big Sunflower Maintenance--$1.684 million.
--Main Stem Maintenance--$3.4 million.
--Tributaries--$1.017 million.
--Whittington Auxiliary Channel--$400,000.
______
Prepared Statement of the Big Bear Municipal Water District
The Big Bear Municipal Water District appreciates the opportunity
to submit this testimony for the record in support of the $650,000
request in the fiscal year 2011 appropriations for the Santa Ana River
and Tributaries, Big Bear Lake, CA for the general investigations
budget of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The Big Bear Municipal
Water District is an independent special district of the State of
California, responsible for the overall management of Big Bear Lake,
Southern California's Premier recreational Lake.
Located 100 miles east of Los Angeles, the Big Bear Lake
recreational area attracts visitors from across southern California and
beyond. Annually, the greater Big Bear area receives over 6.5 million
visitors from around the world. The Lake is a unique recreational and
natural resource, offering some of the most beautiful high elevation
scenery in southern California. The lake has a depth of 72 feet, and is
about 7 miles in length and about 1.5 miles wide at its greatest width.
The problems at Big Bear Lake are very similar to the more
publicized environmental problems at Lake Tahoe. The purpose is to
implement a project for aquatic habitat restoration in Big Bear Lake.
Most of the Lake's environmental problems are created by the activities
in the Federal owned lands in the surrounding watershed. The removal of
nutrient laden sediment that has accumulated is critical to improving
the Lake's water quality, controlling nuisance aquatic plant growth,
enhancing the wildlife habitat, and maintaining boating and fishing
access. The Lake is on the EPA's 303d list of impaired water bodies,
with listings for nutrients (phosphorous and nitrogen), invasive
aquatic plants, and mercury. Big Bear Lake dry year TMDL's for
nutrients and invasive aquatic plants have been developed. Removal of
sediment loads is a major remediation requirement. Big Bear Lake is
adjacent to the Pacific Flyway and is home to numerous waterfowl,
including the wintering bald eagle. Most recently, the Lake is
threatened by the introduction of the invasive species, Quagga Mussel.
We are in the 8th year of an ecosystem restoration feasibility
study being conducted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, general
investigations program. We are seeking funds for completion of the
feasibility phase. The water district is the cost-sharing sponsor and
has met all our local cost sharing responsibilities.
The Congressional Interests for this feasibility study are Senator
Barbara Boxer, Senator Dianne Feinstein and Congressman Jerry Lewis (R-
41st).
Our Contact information is: Mr. Scott Heule, General Manager, Big
Bear Municipal Water District, P.O. Box 2863, Big Bear Lake, CA 92315-
2863. Telephone: 909-866-5796, Fax: 909-866-6485, e-mail Address:
[email protected].
recommendation for your consideration
We support the $650,000 request to provide in the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers General Investigation Budget, for fiscal year 2011 to
advance the Santa Ana Tributaries, Big Bear Lake, CA aquatic habitat
restoration study being conducted by the Corps. Thank you.
______
Prepared Statement of The Little River Drainage District
Dear Senator Dorgan: My name is Sam M. Hunter, DVM of Sikeston,
Missouri. I am a veterinarian, landowner, farmer and resident of
southeast Missouri.
I am the President of The Little River Drainage District, the
largest such entity in the Nation. Our District serves as an outlet
drainage and flood control District to parts of seven counties in
southeast Missouri. We provide flood control protection to a sizable
area of northeast Arkansas as well. Our District is solely tax
supported by more than 3,500 private landowners in southeast Missouri.
My remarks will be directed toward the Mississippi River and
Tributaries Project (MR&T) and the St. Francis River Basin portion of
the MR&T. Those funds when properly expended are investments yielding a
return of substantial benefits to the American taxpayer throughout this
Nation. They are used to prevent flooding to much of our valuable
farmland, to industrial sites, and to upgrade our ever aging locks and
dam system on our navigable streams which will prevent unscheduled lock
closures, modernize our hydro-electric plants, and restore some of our
environmental assets. MR&T authorized by Congress in 1928 and still not
completed is returning back to our Nation $25 for every dollar
expended. What a good investment.
The $4.6 billion of stimulus funding provided the Corps of
Engineers in 2009 was greatly appreciated. Several needed projects were
commenced and completed which otherwise would not have occurred. Much
more needs to be done to provide the Mississippi Valley the flood
protection its citizens need and the extreme need to modernize our
inland waterway system.
Many jobs would be realized and many products would be purchased
throughout the entire Mississippi Valley and the watersheds which
discharge into this system if an aggressive modernization of our Inland
Waterway was put in motion. We must put people back to work and this
will help considerably. The stimulus funds helped, however, there still
remains room for more funding. This District supports the request of
the Mississippi Valley Flood Control Association for funding levels at
$550 million for the MR&T Project. This project as well as all of the
subsidiary projects within it are returning back to the U.S. Treasury a
minimum of $6 for each $1 invested.
Many of our locks and dams are over 70 years old and we are sitting
idly by letting them deteriorate further. The current administration
pledged to improve the infrastructure in this Nation. We are waiting to
see that promise fulfilled. These much needed improvements are
investments in this Nation's future. When they are fully underway many
jobs will be created in the private sector thus serving a twofold
purpose. Please hear us and help us improve this vital part of our
Nation.
We believe Congress needs to intervene and reverse the trend of
OMB, this administration and of past administrations. We have not
seriously invested in our waterway infrastructure for decades but we
must. Local economies will be affected positively by these investments.
Local labor will be used. Local businesses will provide needed
materials. This would be a major boost to our economy. Each year OMB
and recent administrations have submitted low budget amounts for this
worthwhile project and we have had to rely on Congress to ``fix'' the
problem. You should not be burdened with this task. Someone needs to
inform OMB what projects need funding which are assets to our Nation
and not a liability.
Investing in our waterways is a great way to stimulate the economy,
which currently is very much needed, and at the same time be building
and making investments into a system for the future which will return
back more dollars than expected. We petition you to give this vital
industry of our Nation a strong endorsement and do all you can to
ensure our waterways system and carriers stay competitive with our
foreign competitors.
I have the following additional comments for your benefit and
consideration.
INFRASTRUCTURE
The current administration stated often during its campaign and
after that a genuine concerted priority would be to invest in this
country's future, its infrastructure. When are we going to commence?
Our Federal road systems are crumbling. We must not wait for
bridges to fail as recently happened in Minnesota before we act. We
need to move forward across our entire Nation upgrading our Federal
highway system in its entirety. This will take long term commitments
not just a ``stimulus'' now and then. We need to put a plan in place,
work the plan and fund it properly each year until we have completed
the task.
Are we truly interested in fuel independence--a cleaner
environment--a better economy? If we are why don't we have someone step
forward to be a champion for our ``waterways'' system? We have locks
and dams which are an average of 50 years old. Parts are having to be
fabricated since they are no longer manufactured. Tows are having to be
broken up to pass because our locks and dams are too short and not
modernized. Many undue delays are occurring. This does not permit our
carriers to compete fairly with the foreign shipping industry. We must
start a concerted effort to improve this part of our Nation's
infrastructure.
Locks, dams, hydropower, recreation, flood control, water supplies
and all other benefits from the construction, operation and maintenance
of these features on our rivers benefit our entire Nation not just a
few. It is a national asset and it must be operated and funded as a
national benefit. Private industry can not and will not operate this
system fairly and in the best interest of our Nation.
Environmentally moving goods and freight throughout our Nation via
of water is much cleaner, less intrusive, and far more environmentally
acceptable than highways or rail. Noise pollution, air pollution, land
pollution are substantially less when we move the mass amount of goods
possible by water.
Fuel efficiency comparison is a ``no brainer''. For instance 1
gallon of fuel moves 155 tons of freight by truck, 413 tons of freight
by rail and 576 tons of freight by water. What part of this do we not
understand? Why can't we realize such an endeavor would reduce much of
our fuel needs and take much pressure off our highway system?
Economically investing wisely in our waterways effects much of our
Nation--not just a regional portion. Consider it being possible to
board a waterborne vessel at the Port of New Orleans, Louisiana and one
can touch 36 States of this Nation and 6 provinces in Canada without
ever getting onto land. Over 75 percent of our population lives along
water. Only two of our major cities are not on water, namely, Atlanta,
Georgia and Denver, Colorado. With the many ports throughout the
Mississippi Valley, which network many more people inland, it is
evident many local economies will be benefited when investments are
made in our water infrastructure.
We seem to be ready, willing, and capable of improving the
infrastructure of other nations at the expense of our taxpayers but
seem reluctant to do the same for our Nation. It is far past time to
reward the American taxpayer with a return for the money he provides
each year and stop using those funds to benefit those nations who are
our enemies.
It has been estimated our waterway infrastructure needs $100 to
$120 billion to modernize, upgrade and be made functional. Lets start
now by setting a 10 year goal to modernize that system and then plan to
meet that goal and exceed same when possible. Currently we are spending
$13 billion each month to fight terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan which
is more spent in 1 year of what is needed to bring our waterways up to
a finished plan. Perhaps we could cut the 10 year plan to even 5 years
by eliminating much of that funding, lets try.
I wish to thank you very much for your time and kind attention and
for taking the time to review the above. We would be very appreciative
of anything this subcommittee can do to help us improve our
environment, improve our livelihood, and improve the area in which we
live and work which ultimately is good for America. We are also very
appreciative of all this subcommittee has done in the past. We trust
you will hear our pleas once more and act accordingly.
______
Prepared Statement of the City of Flagstaff, Arizona
Chairman Dorgan, Ranking Member Bennett, and distinguished members
of the subcommittee, thank you for allowing me to testify on behalf of
the city of Flagstaff, Arizona in support of $8 million in the Army
Corps of Engineers budget for the Rio de Flag flood control project in
fiscal year 2011. The Rio de Flag flood control project is critically
important to the city, to northern Arizona, and, ultimately, to the
Nation.
As you may know, Mr. Chairman, with this subcommittee's help over
the last several fiscal years, Rio de Flag received more than $20
million to continue construction on this important project. We are
extremely grateful that the subcommittee boosted this project well
above the President's request every year, and we would appreciate your
continued support for this project in fiscal year 2011.
Like many other projects under the Army Corps's jurisdiction, Rio
de Flag received no funding in the President's fiscal year 2011 budget,
although the Corps has expressed a capability of $8 million to continue
construction on the project and have been unwavering in their support
of it. We are hopeful that the subcommittee will fund the Rio de Flag
project at $8 million when drafting its bill in order to keep the
project on an optimal schedule.
Flooding along the Rio de Flag dates back as far as 1888. The Army
Corps has identified a Federal interest in solving this long-standing
flooding problem through the Rio de Flag, Flagstaff, Arizona--
Feasibility Report and Environmental Impact Study (EIS). The
recommended plan contained in this feasibility report was developed
based on the following opportunities: (1) flood control and flood
damage reduction; (2) environmental mitigation and enhancement; (3)
water resource management; (4) public recreation; and (5) redevelopment
opportunities. This plan will result in benefits to not only the local
community, but to the region and the Nation.
The feasibility study by the Corps of Engineers has revealed that a
500-year flood could cause serious economic hardship to the city. In
fact, a devastating 500-year flood could damage or destroy
approximately 1,500 structures valued at more than $450 million.
Similarly, a 100-year flood would cause an estimated $100 million in
damages. In the event of a catastrophic flood, over one-half of
Flagstaff's population of more than 60,000 would be directly impacted
or affected.
In addition, a wide range of residential, commercial, downtown
business and tourism, and industrial properties are at risk. Damages
could also occur to numerous historic structures and historic Route 66.
The Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway (BNSF), one of the primary
east-west corridors for rail freight, could be destroyed, as well as
U.S. Interstate 40, one of the country's most important east-west
interstate links. Additionally, a significant portion of Northern
Arizona University (NAU) could incur catastrophic physical damages,
disruptions, and closings. Public infrastructure (e.g., streets,
bridges, water, and sewer facilities), and franchised utilities (e.g.,
power and telecommunications) could be affected or destroyed.
Transportation disruptions could make large areas of the city
inaccessible for days.
Mr. Chairman, the intense wildfires that have devastated the West
during the last several years have only exacerbated the flood potential
and hazard in Flagstaff. An intense wildfire near Flagstaff could strip
the soil of ground cover and vegetation, which could, in turn, increase
runoff and pose an even greater threat of a catastrophic flood.
In short, a large flood could cripple Flagstaff for years. This is
why the city believes it is important to ensure that this project
remains on schedule and that the Corps is able to utilize its expressed
capability of $8 million in fiscal year 2011 for construction of this
flood control project.
In the city's discussions with the Corps, both the central office
in Washington and its Los Angeles District Office also believe that the
Rio de Flag project is of the utmost importance and both offices
believe the project should be placed high on the subcommittee's
priority list. We are hopeful that the subcommittee will consider this
advice and also place the project high on its priority list and fully
fund the project at $8 million for fiscal year 2011.
It is important to note that the city has secured the necessary
property rights to begin construction, and the city is prepared to
assume the costs for the non-Federal portion of the cost-sharing
agreement.
The city of Flagstaff, as the non-Federal sponsor, is responsible
for all costs related to required Lands, Easements, Rights-of-Way,
Relocations, and Disposals (LERRD's). The city had already secured the
necessary property rights to begin construction in 2004. Implementation
of the city's Downtown and Southside Redevelopment Initiatives ($100
million in private funds) are entirely dependent on the successful
completion of the Rio de Flag project. The Rio de Flag project will
also provide a critical missing bike/pedestrian connection under Route
66 and the BNSF Railroad to replace the existing hazardous grade
crossings.
Mr. Chairman, the Rio de Flag project is exactly the kind of
project that was envisioned when the Corps was created because it will
avert catastrophic floods, it will save lives and property, and it will
promote economic growth. In short, this project is a win-win for the
Federal Government, the city, and the surrounding communities.
Furthermore, the amount of money invested in this project by the
Federal Government and the city--approximately $54 million (as
authorized by WRDA)--will be saved exponentially in costs to the
Federal Government in the case of a large and catastrophic flood, which
could be more than $450 million. It will also promote economic growth
and redevelopment along areas that are currently underserved because of
the flood potential.
In conclusion, the Rio de Flag project should be considered a high
priority for this subcommittee, and I encourage you to support full
funding of $8 million for this project in the fiscal year 2011 Energy
and Water Development Appropriations bill. Thank you in advance for
your consideration.
______
Prepared Statement of the Port of Harlingen--Harlingen, Texas
HISTORY AND BACKGROUND
Port Harlingen, also known as the Rio Hondo Port, is on the Arroyo
Colorado and Farm Road 106, on the eastern city limits of Harlingen.
The channel connecting Arroyo Colorado with the Gulf Intracoastal
Waterway was completed and dedicated on February 27, 1952. It is 12
feet deep and 125 feet wide and has a turning basin measuring 400 by
600 feet. By 1962 the port was handling $2.5 million in commerce. In
1983 commodity shipments amounted to 455,430 short tons, and they
increased to 801,003 short tons in 1984, when the port housed 10
industries with commercial leases. In 1989 Port Harlingen handled
728,954 short tons.
The port is located 4 miles east of Harlingen, Texas on Highway
106. It is 25 miles west of Mile Marker 646 on the Gulf Intracoastal
Waterway, which stretches from the Mexican border at Brownsville,
Texas, along the entire coast of the Gulf of Mexico to St. Marks,
Florida. The Gulf Intracoastal Waterway provides over 1,300 miles of
protected waterway. The Harlingen channel is maintained to a width of
125 feet and a depth of 12 feet and is supplied by the Arroyo Colorado,
a fresh water river.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project is located in the vicinity of Rio Hondo and Harlingen
in Cameron and Willacy Counties, Texas. The project consists of a
channel 25.8 miles long. The channel extends with the main channel of
the GIWW through the Arroyo Colorado to the turning basin at Harlingen.
It also included a barge-mooring basin near the channel's junction with
the GIWW. Authorized channel dimensions are 12 feet by 125 feet. One
hundred percent of all the sugar (180,000 tons), 95 percent of all
commercial fertilizer products and 30 percent of all gasoline products
for south Texas is shipped through the Port of Harlingen. The Corps of
Engineers has determined a need for levee work in Harlingen Channel
that were destroyed during recent storms in Texas.
ECONOMIC IMPACT OF THE PORT OF HARLINGEN
The Port of Harlingen provides efficient and economical
transportation to points as close as Corpus Christi and as far as the
Great Lakes. Terminal docks and other facilities ease shipments into
and out of the Port of Harlingen, and over 150 acres of on-and-off
channel sites are available for industrial firms requiring economical
transportation and attractive land lease rates. The port is also an
important link in the comprehensive transportation network of the Rio
Grande Valley of Texas. Southern Pacific Company rail lines at the
port, along with switching capabilities with Union Pacific Railways,
keep products moving to Texas locations and on throughout the U.S. and
Mexico. Additionally, as was stated in the project description above,
100 percent of all the sugar (180,000 tons), 95 percent of all
commercial fertilizer products and 30 percent of all gasoline products
for south Texas is shipped through the Port of Harlingen.
COMMUNITY AND INDUSTRY SUPPORT
One industry the Port of Harlingen is involved in is sugar. The
Port of Harlingen Authority has bid and is building a $3.8 million
sugar transfer building to load barges of sugar for shipment to
Louisiana. The sugar mill shipped 171,962 short tons of sugar to
Louisiana in 2006-2007 and should ship in excess of 180,000 short tons
in 2007-2008. The mill cannot ship raw sugar by rail because the finish
mills in Louisiana are not currently capable of receiving raw sugar by
rail, and instead are organized to ship finished sugar by rail. To ship
the sugar by truck would take over 6,878 truckloads at 4 times the
cost. If this occurs, recent economic studies have determined that it
would put the mill out of business.
Additional industries present at the Port are Agro Alliance, Helena
Chemical, UAP and Wilber Ellis, which have facilities at the port or
down stream that handle 99 percent of all of the commercial liquid and
dry fertilizer for south Texas. CMX also has a terminal at the port
that handles much needed concrete sand shipped from Victoria and Cement
shipped in from Mexico.
Valero Energy Corporation, which once actively sent gas and diesel
fuel to the Port of Harlingen by barge, also has projects underway at
the Port. In October 2005, Valero finished a pipeline to the valley to
service all three terminals and stopped all barge traffic. In July 2006
they started barging (about two barges a month) ultra low sulfur diesel
to the valley. They are currently shipping the entire ultra low sulfur
diesel by barge and the traffic is almost back to levels achieved
before their pipeline was built.
WHAT WE NEED FROM THE SUBCOMMITTEE IN FISCAL YEAR 2011
The administration's fiscal year 2011 budget did not include
funding for the levee work needed in Harlingen Channel. As
deliberations on the Energy and Water Subcommittee on Appropriations
commence, we would appreciate your help in securing the Corps
capability of $805,000 so that this project can move forward and ensure
that the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway--Port of Harlingen received the
important levee work identified by the USACE.
______
Prepared Statement of the Brazos River Harbor Navigation District--
Freeport, Texas
HISTORY AND BACKGROUND
Port Freeport is an autonomous governmental entity authorized by an
act of the Texas Legislature in 1925. It is a deep-draft port, located
on Texas' central gulf coast, approximately 60 miles southwest of
Houston, and is an important Brazos River Navigation District
component. The port elevation is 3 to 12 feet above sea level. Port
Freeport is governed by a board of six commissioners elected by the
voters of the Navigation District of Brazoria County, which currently
encompasses 85 percent of the county. Port Freeport land and operations
currently include 186 acres of developed land and 7,723 acres of
undeveloped land, 5 operating berths, a 45 feet deep Freeport Harbor
Channel and a 70 feet deep sink hole. Future expansion includes
building a 1,300-acre multi-modal facility, cruise terminal and
container terminal. Port Freeport is conveniently accessible by rail,
waterway and highway routes. There is direct access to the Gulf
Intracoastal Waterway, Brazos River Diversion Channel, and State
Highways 36 and 288. Located just 3 miles from deep water, Port
Freeport is one of the most accessible ports on the gulf coast.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The fiscal year 2002 Energy and Water Appropriations signed into
law included a $100,000 appropriation to allow the United States Army
Corps of Engineers (USACE) to conduct a reconnaissance study to
determine the Federal interest in an improvement project for Freeport
Harbor, Texas. The USACE, in cooperation with the Brazos River Harbor
Navigation District as the local sponsor, has completed that study. The
report indicates that ``transportation savings in the form of National
Economic Development Benefits (NED) appear to substantially exceed the
cost of project implementation'', thus confirming ``a strong Federal
interest in conducting the feasibility study of navigation improvements
at Freeport Harbor''. Congress has to date appropriated over $ 4
million for the study phase of the channel improvement project. This
last phase of study for PED will move the project to completion of the
feasibility report and ready the channel for construction.
Port Freeport has the opportunity to solidify significant new
business for Texas with this improvement project. In addition, the
improvement to the environment by taking a huge number of trucks off of
the road, transporting goods more economically and environmentally
sensitive by waterborne commerce is infinitely important to the
community, the State, and the Nation. Moreover, the enhanced safety of
a wider channel cannot be overstated. The emergence of an LNG facility
at Port Freeport--a joint venture of Conoco-Philips and Cheniere Energy
further solidifies the importance of keeping this critical waterway at
optimum depth and width.
ECONOMIC IMPACT OF PORT FREEPORT
Port Freeport is 13th in foreign tonnage in the United States. It
is responsible for augmenting the Nation's economy by over $9 billion
annually and generating over nearly 24,000 jobs in Texas, over 11,000
direct. It also augments the economy by providing annual State and
local taxes of over $150,000 and an additional of over $300 million in
Federal tax revenues. Its chief import commodities are bananas, fresh
fruit and aggregate while top export commodities are rice and
chemicals. The port's growth has been staggering in the past decade,
becoming one of the fastest growing ports on the gulf coast. Port
Freeport's economic impact and its future growth is justification for
its budding partnership with the Federal Government in this critical
improvement project.
Examples of existing tenants at the Port include:
Dole Fresh Fruit.--Dole has a weekly sailing arriving at Port
Freeport with green fruit and other exotic fruits, mainly from
Guatemala and Honduras. Dole has been a tenant of Port Freeport for the
past 23 years, occupying lease sites comprising of 12 acres and has
just renewed its lease for another 5 years. There are approximately 450
jobs associated with this operation.
Chiquita Fresh North America.--Chiquita is very similar to the Dole
operation. Chiquita also has a weekly sailing and has been a tenant of
Port Freeport for the past 12 years. There are about 400 jobs
associated with this operation.
Turbana Banana & Isabella Shipping.--Turbana and Isabella,
divisions of Uniban, based in Colombia import 2,000 pallet loads of
green fruit and other exotic fruits into Port Freeport weekly. The
fruit is processed in a newly built chiller, which the Port undertook
and built 2 years ago at a cost of $7 million. In addition to their
import activities, they also export general cargo back weekly to ports
in Costa Rica and Colombia. Since moving to Freeport 2 years ago,
Turbana has increased their business 38 percent. This highly labor-
intensive company accounts for 500+ jobs. Turbana and Isabella recently
announced a significant expansion of their Freeport operations that
will double their cargo throughput within the next 4 months.
American Rice Inc./Grupo SOS.--As a 20-year tenant of the Port,
this company has the largest rice milling operation in the United
States located on water. They are one of the largest suppliers to Iraq
in the effort to help rebuild their economy. American Rice was recently
acquired by the Spanish firm Grupo SOS, based in Madrid.
Grupo SOS recently announced an expansion project at the Port
Freeport site totaling $150 million dollars. Once all the new
facilities are built, Port Freeport will be the distribution center for
all North America, sending product out by ship, truck, and rail to
Mexico, Canada, the Tropics, and South America as well as throughout
the United States. With the expansion, there will be approximately
2,000 jobs associated with this operation.
Freeport LNG/ConocoPhillips.--Port Freeport was successful 4 years
ago in attracting Freeport LNG to a site on Quintana Island, owned by
the Port. This facility, the first new liquefied natural gas plant to
be built in the United States in the last 25 years, will begin
operations in the first quarter of 2008. The volume of natural gas
imported in Phase I will be equal to 10 percent of the total gas
production of the State of Texas and Phase II will equal over 20
percent of the entire State's production from this one terminal. The
docks at the terminal are designed to handle the largest LNG ships
being designed for the future, will require a wider ship channel which
will need to be maintained for these larger ships. The investment in
the LNG facility is $1 billion. The importance of this facility cannot
be understated. With gas prices spiking at $13/bcf (from $3) recently,
local petrochemical plants had to shut down some production units, as
an example, Dow Chemical Freeport purchases $1 million of LNG daily to
fire up their various production facilities.
In addition to the Port tenants listed above there a numerous U.S.
and international chemical and crude processing facilities in the
immediate area. Some of the larger international corporations utilizing
the Freeport ship channel are as follows:
Dow Chemical.--A diversified chemical company that offers a broad
range of products and services to customers in more than 175 countries,
helping them to provide everything from fresh water, food and
pharmaceuticals to paints, packaging and personal care products. Dow
has annual sales of $49 billion and employs 43,000 people worldwide,
with 4,000 full time employees in the Texas operations and another
3,000 contract employees. Texas Operations in Freeport is Dow's largest
integrated site where 44 percent of Dow's products are sold in the
United States and more than 21 percent of Dow's products sold globally
are manufactured. Dow's Freeport Marine Terminal and Operations (FMTO)
uses the Freeport Harbor channel and handles the movement of 100
different Dow products at 15 billion pounds annually. Marine vessels
transport 46 percent of Dow's volume through Dow docks on the Freeport
channel.
ConocoPhillips owns and operates a 247,000 bpd refinery at Old
Ocean, Texas, that relies heavily on marine operations for the delivery
of crude oil and other feedstock supplies; and, to a lesser extent, for
product shipments. In particular, ConocoPhillips utilizes both its own
proprietary terminal and the Teppco crude oil terminal at Port
Freeport. Maintaining and improving the Port Freeport channel is
critical to overall refinery operations.
Seaway Crude Pipeline Company is a partnership between wholly owned
subsidiaries of TEPPCO and ConocoPhillips. The pipeline transports
crude oil from the Texas gulf coast to Cushing, OK, a crude
distribution point for the central United States and a delivery point
for the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX). The Seaway system is a
critical link in the crude oil supply chain for Central and Midwest
refining centers. Seaway also provides marine terminaling and storage
services for Texas gulf coast area refineries. TEPPCO is the operator
of Seaway Crude Pipeline. The Freeport, TX, marine terminal is the
origin point for the 30-inch diameter crude pipeline. Three large
diameter lines carry crude oil from Freeport to the Jones Creek Tank
Farm, which has 6 storage tanks capable of handling approximately 3.3
million barrels of crude. This private terminal also acts as the
receiving terminal for crude delivered to the Bryan Mound Strategic
Petroleum Reserve operated by the Department of Energy.
Schenectady Chemical, Shintech, Air Liquide, Nalco, Rhodia, Rhone-
Poulenc, S F Sulfur Corp and Silica Products are other large
international companies in the immediate area. All of these companies
depend on, in some form or fashion the delivery or dispatch of product,
crude or feedstock by vessel. There is well over $100 billion in assets
in the immediate area, assets that are in the ground, provide for
30,000 direct jobs supplying our country with everything from gasoline
for our vehicles to baby diapers.
Recent Port improvements include the Velasco Terminal, which was
launched last October as our first major container terminal. This
facility, presently under construction will boast a berthing line of
2,400 linear feet with 90 acres of backland for development. Phase I,
building Velasco terminal will cost $35 million dollars and should be
completed in 18 months. We have three, large international companies
submitting proposals to act as terminal operators. Overall build out
cost could go as high as $200 million and is designed to handle as many
as 700,000 containers.
DEFENSE SUPPORT OF OUR NATION
Port Freeport is a strategic port in times of National Defense of
our Nation. It houses a critically important petroleum oil reserve--
Bryan Mound. Its close proximity to State Highways 36 and 288 make it a
convenient deployment port for Fort Hood. In these unusual times, it is
important to note the importance of our ports in the defense of our
Nation and to address the need to keep our Federal waterways open to
deep-draft navigation.
COMMUNITY AND INDUSTRY SUPPORT
This proposed improvement project has wide community and industry
support. The safer transit and volume increase capability is an
appealing and exciting prospect for the users of Freeport Harbor and
Stauffer Channel. The anticipated positive benefit to cost ratio that
was indicated from the Corps of Engineers reconnaissance study firmly
solidified the Federal interest.
WHAT WE NEED FROM THE SUBCOMMITTEE IN FISCAL YEAR 2011
The administration included no funding for PED for the widening and
deepening project for Port Freeport; therefore, we need an add on of
$500,000 to initiate PED. The administration did include $3,538,000 in
O&M for maintenance of Freeport Harbor; however, that amount falls
short of the Corps capability. Maintenance dredging of Federal harbors
is a Federal responsibility; therefore, we respectfully request the
additional funding of $7,374,000 to restore the harbor to its
authorized depth. The Corps will need to continue to move this
important project through the system on an optimum schedule and most
cost-efficient timeframe for the Federal Government and the local
sponsor. We respectfully request that the full amount of the Corps
capability for PED and O&M be included in the House mark-up.
Not only is the widening and deepening project currently under
consideration as a feasibility study by the Corps needed to ensure the
continued growth of the port and surrounding industries, we need
continued support from the Federal Government to insure our channel is
maintained at it's Federal authorized depth of 45 feet to assure our
current customers that we will continue to be able to serve them.
______
Prepared Statement of the Chambers County-Cedar Bayou Navigation
District, Texas
HISTORY AND BACKGROUND
The Rivers and Harbor Act of 1890 originally authorized navigation
improvements to Cedar Bayou. The project was reauthorized in 1930 to
provide a 10 foot deep and 100 foot wide channel from the Houston Ship
Channel to a point on Cedar Bayou 11 miles above the mouth of the
bayou. In 1931, a portion of the channel was constructed from the
Houston Ship Channel to a point about 0.8 miles above the mouth of
Cedar Bayou, approximately 3.5 miles in length. A study of the project
in 1971 determined that an extension of the channel to project Mile 3
would have a favorable benefit to cost ratio. This portion of the
channel was realigned from mile 0.1 to mile 0.8 and extended from mile
0.8 to Mile 3 in 1975. In October 1985, the portion of the original
navigation project from project Mile 3 to 11 was deauthorized due to
the lack of a local sponsor.
In 1989, the Corps of Engineers, Galveston District completed a
Reconnaissance Report dated June 1989, which recommended a study for an
improvement to a 12 foot by 125 foot channel from the Houston Ship
Channel Mile 3 to Cedar Bayou Mile 11 at the State Highway 146 Bridge.
Subsequently, at the completion of the feasibility report, the
preferred plan recommendation was to construct a 10 foot by 100 foot
channel. The feasibility report was approved by both the ASA of Civil
Works for the Army Corps of Engineers and the Office of Management and
Budget.
The Texas Legislature created the Chambers County-Cedar Bayou
Navigation District in 1997 as an entity to improve the navigability of
Cedar Bayou. The district was created to accomplish the purpose of
section 59, Article XVI, of the Texas Constitution and has all the
rights, powers, privileges and authority applicable to Districts
created under chapters 60, 62, and 63 of the Water Code--Public Entity.
The Chambers County-Cedar Bayou Navigation District then became the
local sponsor for the Cedar Bayou Channel.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND REAUTHORIZATION
Cedar Bayou is a small coastal stream, which originates in Liberty
County, Texas, and meanders through the urban area near the eastern
portion of the city of Baytown, Texas, before entering Galveston Bay.
The bayou forms the boundary between Harris County on the west and
Chambers County on the east. The project was authorized in section 349
of the Water Resources Development Act 2000, which authorized a
navigation improvement of 12 feet deep by 125 feet wide from mile 2.5
to mile 11 on Cedar Bayou. Corps studies have indicated that the
preferred plan is to widen the channel to 100 feet and deepen it to 10
feet which is the current plan of action.
JUSTIFICATION AND INDUSTRY SUPPORT
First and foremost, the channel must be improved for safety. The
channel is the home to a busy barge industry. The most cost-efficient
and safe method of conveyance is barge transportation. Water
transportation offers considerable cost savings compared to other
freight modes (rail is nearly twice as costly and truck nearly four
times higher). In addition, the movement of cargo by barge is
environmentally friendly. Barges have enormous carrying capacity while
consuming less energy, due to the fact that a large number of barges
can move together in a single tow, controlled by only one power unit.
The result takes a significant number of trucks off of Texas highways.
The reduction of air emissions by the movement of cargo on barges is a
significant factor as communities struggle with compliance with the
Clean Air Act. Several navigation-dependent industries and commercial
enterprises have been established along the commercially navigable
portions of Cedar Bayou. Several industries have docks at the mile
markers that would be affected by this much-needed improvement. These
industries include: Reliant Energy, Bayer Corporation, Koppel Steel,
CEMEX, US Filter Recovery Services and Dorsett Brothers Concrete, to
name a few.
PROJECT COSTS AND BENEFITS
Congress appropriated $100,000 in fiscal year 2001 for the Corps of
Engineers to conduct the feasibility study to determine the Federal
interest in this improvement project. The study indicated a benefit to
cost ratio of the project of 2.8 to 1. The estimated total cost of the
project is $16.8 million with a Federal share estimated at $11.9
million and the non-Federal sponsor share of approximately $4.9
million. Total annual benefits are estimated to be $4.8 million, with a
net benefit of $3 million. Congress thus far has appropriated nearly
$1.7 million for this project.
It has also become an important project for the Port of Houston
Authority--the Nation's busiest port in foreign tonnage. They hope to
institute a container on barge facility as soon as this project is
accomplished. We would appreciate the subcommittee's support of the
required add of the $100,000 to initiate construction of this important
improvement project. The users of the channel deserve to have the
benefits of a safer, most cost-effective Federal waterway.
CURRENT STATUS
In July 2006, the project feasibility report was accepted and
approved by Assistant Secretary of the Army John P. Woodley and OMB as
a viable, economically justified and environmentally accepted project.
The project is ready for construction. The Federal Government has
already invested nearly $1 million for the studies to justify this
project and the local sponsor has advanced the total local share. We
are ready to begin construction.
______
Prepared Statement of The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey;
State of New Jersey, Department of Transportation; State of New York,
Empire State Development Corporation
Endorsed By: APM Terminals; Association of Bi-State Motor Carriers,
Inc.; Board of Commissioners of Pilots of the State of New York;
Business Council of New York State; Cashman Dredging Company;
ConocoPhillips Bayway Refinery; CSX Corporation; Donjon Marine Co.,
Inc.; Environmental Defense Fund; Hudson County Chamber of Commerce;
Great Lakes Dredge and Dock Company; Greater Maritime Port Council of
New York/New Jersey and Vicinity; I.L.A. Local 1235; International
Union of Operating Engineers Local 25 Marine Division; Maher Terminals;
Manhattan Chamber of Commerce; Maritime Association of the Port of NY/
NJ; Marine Engineers Beneficial Association; Maritime Trades Department
AFL-CIO; Matrix Development Group; Nation'sPort; NJ Sandy Hook Pilots
Association; New Jersey Alliance for Action; New Jersey State AFL-CIO;
New York Sandy Hook Pilots; New York Shipping Association; New York-New
Jersey Port Promotion Association; Newark Regional Business
Partnership; Norfolk Dredging Company; Norfolk Southern Corporation;
Seafarers International Union; Weeks Marine Inc.
This subcommittee has consistently supported the Nation's
navigation system, including the Port of New York and New Jersey. We
thank you for your continued support. Now more than ever, we are in
need of your assistance as we near the end of the construction of the
New York and New Jersey Harbor Deepening Project (HDP), but face a $33
million reduction from last year's funding level. The HDP has received
strong financial support since 2004, which has enabled the Federal
Government and us to improve the infrastructure required to handle
cargo growth in our region and the Nation. In order to keep this top
priority project on schedule, we respectfully ask that the President's
request for the NY & NJ Harbor Deepening Project be augmented to
$80,000,000, which is less than the level that was appropriated this
fiscal year. We also respectfully request added funds totaling
$5,000,000 to construct the vital Liberty State Park wetlands
restoration project, $1,500,000 to move forward on other essential
Hudson-Raritan Estuary (HRE) restoration projects, and $50,838,000 to
address critically important operations and maintenance needs.
We understand the fiscal constraints facing the subcommittee and
the Nation, but would like to emphasize that the Federal investment in
the Port has yielded great returns. New York and New Jersey marine
terminals handled over 4 million TEU's in 2009. This freight moved
throughout the region and to most States in the continental United
States accounting for approximately 13 percent of the Nation's
containerized imports and exports and 22 percent of the Nation's import
of refined petroleum products such as heating oil. The Port supports
more than 269,000 on and off-terminal jobs locally and nation-wide, and
the NY/NJ port industry contributed $5.8 billion in local, State and
Federal tax revenues. The Port continues to serve as a critical
economic engine in these trying times of an economic downturn.
The Port and its partners are mindful of the need to balance
commerce with protection of the environment. The Port Authority has
dedicated funds to expand its rail capacity in New York and New Jersey
in order to reduce truck congestion and associated air emissions. The
funds also financed the acquisition of environmentally sensitive land
for preservation and studies to identify and prevent sources of
contamination from entering the harbor estuary. The Port Authority has
also spent over $20 million for emission-offset programs associated
with the HDP. In 2010 we will have reduced 796 tons of NOX
emissions annually in the Harbor due to these efforts; by 2013, we will
have reduced NOX emissions by over 1,100 tons per year.
These improvements and emissions reductions are a legacy to this
region; their benefits continuing long after the HDP is completed. Over
40 million cubic yards of dredged material will be removed in
association with the HDP. To date 100 percent of the material dredged
has been beneficially reused within the region to improve the Historic
Area Remediation Site, enhance artificial reefs within the coastal
waters of New York and New Jersey, and support upland activities such
as landfill closures and brownfield remediation projects. Additionally,
terminal operators have voluntarily installed electric cranes, switched
to ultra-low sulfur diesel and replaced cargo-handling equipment with
cleaner models--a strong signal of private sector commitment toward
greening the Port. In addition the Port Authority, together with its
sister agencies and port partners, has developed and is implementing a
Clean Air Strategy for the Port of New York and New Jersey. The HDP,
including our partnership with the Corps, is the centerpiece of a
commitment to make this important American gateway internationally
competitive while restoring the harbor estuary and protecting our
environment. We invite all members of the subcommittee and staff to
visit the Port to learn more about its role in the environment and the
U.S. transportation system. Below are our comments on the fiscal year
2011 budget request. We respectfully request that the subcommittee
appropriate additional funds for the specific projects as discussed
below.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
President's
Construction Fiscal Year 2011 Port Request
Budget
------------------------------------------------------------------------
New York and New Jersey Harbor...... $57,000,000 $80,000,000
Liberty State Park.................. ................ 5,000,000
-----------------------------------
TOTAL......................... 57,000,000 85,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
New York and New Jersey Harbor.--This project was authorized by
section 101(a)(2) of WRDA 2000 (Public Law 106-541). We respectfully
request that the President's request for the NY and NJ Harbor Deepening
Program be augmented to $80,000,000, which while higher than the budget
request would be 12 percent lower than the appropriated level for the
current year. The continuing NY and NJ Harbor Deepening Project will
improve transportation efficiency and benefit the national markets
served by this port. In order to complete the 50-foot deepening of the
pathways to the container-handling facilities in the Harbor by fiscal
year 2013 and reap the full benefits of the Federal Government's
investment, a significant number of contracts must be awarded over the
next 2 years. Project slippage will have serious negative impacts on
maritime commerce and the regional and national economy. The
President's budget allows for the construction of this project to
continue, but does jeopardize the timeline at a critical juncture. The
project currently stands near the 50 percent completion mark. With only
3 years remaining in the schedule, reduced funding at this time hampers
construction efficiencies, delays the benefits of sections already
constructed, and subjects the project to possible further delays and
increased cost as the price of labor and construction inevitably rises
in the next years. Any hindrance to the timely completion of this
project risks the possible delay of the realization of first year
economic benefits to the Nation in the range of $140 million. In
addition, a delay in funding could mean that this nationally important
project would not be completed by the opening of the Panama Canal's
third set of locks. For these reasons, we urge adoption of our
$80,000,000 funding recommendation, which is a continuation of the
funding levels the subcommittee has approved in previous fiscal years.
This approach is consistent with the stated goal of the administration
of placing priority and resources on the completion of Corps projects
already underway.
Liberty State Park.--We also request $5,000,000 to execute the
Project Partnership Agreement with the State of New Jersey and
construct the critical wetlands restoration project within Liberty
State Park. The project was authorized for construction in WRDA 2007.
This project will both restore critical habitat within the estuary and
also provide significant public access and education opportunities.
Continuing Authority Program (CAP).--We request that CAP sections
1135 and 204 are funded to fund the following ongoing projects within
the Jamaica Bay complex: Plumb Island, NY ($500,000) and Spring Creek,
NY ($50,000).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
President's
Surveys (Studies) Fiscal Year 2011 Port Request
Budget
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HRE, Hackensack-Meadowlands, NJ..... $200,000 $250,000
HRE, Lower Passaic River, NJ........ 200,000 250,000
HRE New York & New Jersey........... 200,000 1,000,000
-----------------------------------
TOTAL......................... 600,000 1,500,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HRE-Hackensack Meadowlands.--We respectfully request an increase in
funding of an additional $50,000 for a total of $250,000 to continue
design work. The area's wildlife habitat preserves are threatened by
dwindling open marshes. In April 2003, the Corps executed the FCSA with
the NJ Meadowlands Commission, and initiated the feasibility study.
HRE-Lower Passaic.--An increase in funding by $50,000 for a total
of $250,000 is needed for the HRE-Lower Passaic River to complete a
Draft Comprehensive Restoration Plan for the entire lower 17-mile
watershed. The plan is critical component of the integrated Remedial
Investigation/Feasibility Study underway with EPA as a pilot project of
the joint Corps-EPA Urban Rivers Restoration Initiative. Many changes
have occurred over the last year and it is important that the positive
momentum gained not be lost on this critical project.
HRE (overall), NY and NJ.--There is a critical need to increase
funding to $1,000,000 to allow the Corps to complete the Comprehensive
Restoration Plan (CRP) that will outline the unified vision of a
restored estuary based on specific science based and stakeholder
endorsed ecosystem targets. It will also continue the feasibility study
and programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, which is needed to
implement the CRP. This study, as well as the Hackensack Meadowlands
and Lower Passaic River studies, were authorized by House Resolution
dated April 25, 1999 and are critical components to achieving the
common stakeholder vision of a World Class Harbor estuary that
recognizes ecological restoration as being of equal importance with
economic development. This project directly aligns with other
administration initiatives and focus for the Corps in fiscal year 2011.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
President's
Operation and Maintenance Fiscal Year 2011 Port Request
Budget
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newark Bay, Hackensack and Passaic $100,000 $10,200,000
Rivers, NJ.........................
Project Condition Surveys, NJ....... 1,506,000 1,953,000
Raritan River to Arthur Kill Cut- 100,000 1,450,000
off, NJ............................
Raritan River, NJ................... 80,000 120,000
Buttermilk Channel, NY.............. 8,600,000 10,000,000
East River, NY...................... 2,800,000 3,350,000
East Rockaway Inlet, NY............. 200,000 1,750,000
Eastchester Creek, NY............... 150,000 150,000
Flushing Bay and Creek, NY.......... 100,000 100,000
Hudson River Channel, NY............ 100,000 200,000
Jamaica Bay, NY..................... 120,000 120,000
New York and New Jersey Channels, NY 6,150,000 6,150,000
New York Harbor, NY................. 3,796,000 3,998,000
Portchester Harbor, NY.............. 60,000 60,000
Project Condition Surveys, NY....... 1,928,000 2,092,000
Westchester Creek, NY............... 100,000 100,000
New York Harbor, NY and NJ (Drift 7,200,000 7,900,000
Removal)...........................
New York Harbor, NY and NJ (Prevent 1,045,000 1,145,000
Obstructive Deposits)..............
-----------------------------------
TOTAL......................... 34,135,000 50,838,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operation & Maintenance.--Maintenance projects are critical to the
commerce, navigation and security of this National Priority port
system, its channels and the Nation. Billions of public and private
dollars are continuing to be spent to deepen the Port's channels and
improve landside infrastructure. The considerable investment in
deepening the network of channels is devalued if the system is not
adequately maintained, especially in one of the most highly utilized
ports in the country. Additionally, the risk of groundings will
increase. The new budget continues the unfortunate pattern of past
budgets that enable only partial channel maintenance, leaving
significant areas and in some cases whole shipping lanes at inefficient
and potentially unsafe depths. The Port is the Nation's busiest
petroleum port, and the Arthur Kill (under NY and NJ Channels) is
critical to that trade, which serves the greater NY/NJ Metropolitan
area and much of the Northeast. Channel maintenance in this National
Strategic Port is needed to support the industry and military.
Maintenance also protects and perpetuates the Federal infrastructure
investment. We identified several critical projects with pressing
channel safety concerns and it is important to state for the record
that this part of the fiscal year 2011 budget is insufficient to meet
the practical needs of commerce. The irony is that the budget proposes
using only around 50 percent of the estimated Harbor Maintenance Trust
Fund receipts for the fiscal year. As such the Harbor Maintenance Trust
Fund is fully capable of covering the full cost of dredging in our port
and a good many others. To provide additional perspective, a January
2010 report from the Congressional Research Service (7-5700) notes that
the NY/NJ port is a ``large net generator'' of Harbor Maintenance Tax
revenue. It also illustrates how the NY/NJ port is one of most
efficient ports when measured in HMTF maintenance expenditures per ton
of cargo. We respectfully request the budget be increased as shown in
the above list.
Conclusion.--The Port of New York and New Jersey continues to be a
major international gateway for the Nation and a significant producer
of Harbor Maintenance Tax revenue to support the Nation's port system.
Furthermore we would be remiss if we did not highlight the importance
of continuing contracts as a valuable tool in managing the complexities
of channel deepening and maintenance. National projects, like the NY
and NJ Harbor Deepening Project, are better served with 2-year
continuing contracts supported by a 5 and 10 year Corps priority
project schedule. The Corps' Civil Works Program, coupled with public
and private sector investments, has served the Nation's economic and
security interests well for the better part of two centuries. We are
proud of our part in that history. We commit to continuing our
productive partnership with the Federal Government and to ensuring that
continued development and use of the Port and its supporting
infrastructure is balanced between commerce and the environment.
______
Prepared Statement of the City of Maricopa (Arizona)
Chairman Dorgan, Ranking Member Bennett, and distinguished members
of the subcommittee, thank you for allowing me to testify in support of
$150,000 for the city of Maricopa, Arizona for a Flood Plain Management
Services (FPMS) study under General Investigations for the Army Corps
of Engineers in the fiscal year 2011 Energy and Water Development bill.
Maricopa is a small but thriving community 35 miles south of
Phoenix. Incorporated in 2003 with a population of approximately 1,000
people, Maricopa is now a burgeoning community of more than 40,000 and
growing at the rate of approximately 200 people per month. Maricopa is
located in Pinal County, which is one of the fastest growing regions in
one of the fastest growing States in the Nation. With this newfound
growth has brought increased risk of death and the loss of public and
private property due to flooding of the Santa Cruz River that splits
the city. Mitigating this potential flood hazard is critical to this
area's growth and prosperity. A major flood today would devastate
homes, businesses, schools, infrastructure and more. It is only a
matter of time before another devastating flood hits this area. Flood
control improvements are urgent and necessary to protect the public
health and safety.
The Santa Cruz River Basin consists of 8,200 square miles in
southern Arizona and 400 square miles in Sonora, Mexico. The Basin has
a long history of damaging floods. Damages included a broad range of
categories, including agricultural, commercial and residential
structures, utility lines, and transportation facilities. These
flooding problems have been studied repeatedly by Federal, State, and
local agencies, but no comprehensive solution has been implemented due
to a lack of economic viability.
The Bureau of Reclamation had previously carried out appraisal
investigations of the Santa Cruz River in 1965 when the city and areas
within the basin were largely agricultural. It became apparent at that
time that the municipal and industrial water-supply needs of the Santa
Cruz River Basin were of far greater magnitude and urgency than had
been previously estimated.
In 1976, Congress, under the authority of the Flood Control Act of
1938 funded a Corps of Engineers/Bureau of Reclamation study of the
Lower Santa Cruz River from the Red Rock area to the river's confluence
with the Gila River. The Corps was tasked with evaluating the flood
control problems, and the Bureau of Reclamation was tasked with
evaluating the development potential of water resources. The results of
this study, released in August 1983 found no economically justified
solution. Benefits to cost ratios (BCR) ranged from 0.3 to 0.7 for
three different alternatives for diversion of floodwaters from the
Greene's Canal area to the Tat Momolikot Dam reservoir. In October
1983, a flood along the Santa Cruz River caused over $45 million (1994
dollars) in damages, including extensive damage to many of the channel
and dike improvements constructed by the agricultural flood control
districts in the area. A similar devastating flood occurred in 1993. At
this time, the city of Maricopa had very little residential or
commercial infrastructure and less than 1,000 residents.
After the floods, the Corps reevaluated the alternatives in their
study and were able to develop a BCR of 1.03. Since the 1983 and 1993
floods, construction of the Central Arizona Project lateral canals, and
associated irrigation infrastructure, have added additional potential
damages from future events due to changes in the hydraulic
characteristics of the flood prone areas. In addition, extreme land
subsidence is extensive over portions of the Santa Cruz River Basin.
In June 1989, Pinal County requested a flood control study of the
Lower Santa Cruz River from the Corps of Engineers. The Corps released
the Lower Santa Cruz River Feasibility Analysis Summary Report in
September 1994. This report developed several alternative plans and
found that the best alternative was still diversion to the Tat
Momolikot Dam with a BCR of 1.05. The 1994 report concluded that
additional engineering work was needed due to geotechnical issues in
the area and also the altered hydraulic characteristics of the area due
to the Central Arizona Project and irrigation district infrastructure.
The study was terminated without a recommendation.
With the recent influx of residential growth into Maricopa and most
of Pinal County since 2001, the flood prone areas of the Lower Santa
Cruz River had become candidates for development. Several large master
planned residential projects have been proposed along the Lower Santa
Cruz River from the Red Rock area to the city of Maricopa, which has,
at this point, the largest and most expansive development. These
projects have been planned in Maricopa, Casa Grande, and many other
flood prone locations in Pinal County's Santa Cruz River Basin. The
loss of life and property has increased exponentially since the Corps
conducted its initial studies. The time to act is now.
Maricopa is one of the fastest growing communities in Arizona. By
2020, it is estimated to have nearly 200,000 residents. Similarly,
other cities, such as Eloy and Casa Grande are expected to see similar
growth of their communities. Larger communities will translate into
larger damages and loss of life in the event of a catastrophic flood
event. An FPMS study would help us begin to address this problem before
its too late.
It is important to note that a large stakeholder group is being
formed to work on a collaborative solution for this growing problem.
Stakeholders include the city of Maricopa, the Ak-Chin Indian
Community, the Gila River Indian Community, Pinal County, numerous
irrigation and flood control districts, and the University of Arizona.
Realizing the importance of this endeavor, the city of Maricopa has
committed $9 million over the next 3 years to begin this important
project.
Therefore, I respectfully request that the subcommittee includes
$150,000 for the city of Maricopa, Arizona for a Flood Plain Management
Services (FPMS) study under General Investigations for the Army Corps
of Engineers in the fiscal year 2011 Energy and Water Development bill.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify, as well as your time and
attention to this important matter.
______
Prepared Statement of the Association of State Floodplain Managers
The Association of State Floodplain Managers (ASFPM) is submitting
comments on three items in the budget request: under Investigations--
Planning Assistance to States and Flood Plain Management Services and
under Operation and Maintenance--National (Levee) Flood Inventory.
ASFPM and its 29 Chapters represent over 14,000 State and local
officials and other professionals who are engaged in all aspects of
managing and mitigating flood risk to address the loss of life and
property from natural hazards. These aspects include land management,
hazard mitigation, mapping, engineering, planning, building codes and
permits, community development, hydrology, forecasting, emergency
response, water resources and insurance. Most of our members work with
the Nation's 21,000 flood prone communities to reduce losses from all
flood related hazards.
ASFPM strongly believes that the USACE can contribute significantly
to better informed flood hazard reduction decisions in our Nation's
communities through providing technical advice and assistance. As the
Corps moves toward helping States and local governments with a
comprehensive approach to flood risk management, the Flood Plain
Management Services (FPMS) and Planning Assistance to States (PAS)
programs are essential. For many years, these valuable programs have
been funded at about one-half of their authorized levels. The budget
request for fiscal year 2011 would continue that level of funding. The
request for FPMS is $8 million. The request for PAS is $7 million.
ASFPM recommends funding both programs at a significantly higher level
and at their fully authorized amounts if possible.
We support the budget request of $15 million for the National
(Levee) Flood Inventory. We urge that the inventory proceed
expeditiously and that it include not only Corps built, owned and
maintained levees, but all levees. Information on the number and
location of levees in the Nation and a general assessment of their
condition is critical as the Congress and Federal Government move to
develop a national levee safety program. Because of its importance to
addressing the hazards to public safety and property associated with
levee failure or overtopping, it is important that the levee inventory
proceed with deliberate speed.
The Association of State Floodplain Managers appreciates this
opportunity to share our views on these important Army Corps programs.
______
Prepared Statement of the Stockton Port District, CA
The Port of Stockton (``Port'') appreciates the opportunity to
submit this testimony for the record in support of the fiscal year 2011
appropriations for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works
Operations and Maintenance and Construction General Programs. The
funding amounts are detailed in the paragraphs below.
Stockton has an unemployment rate of 21.9 percent (Source: CA
Economic Development Dept., Jan. 2010). San Joaquin County has an
unemployment rate of 18.4 percent. With the highest home foreclosure
rate in the Nation, this region continues to suffer the hardest impacts
of the national and global economic recession.
The Port of Stockton is widely viewed as one of the primary
economic engines for the recovery of this distressed region. The
positive economic outlook for the Port includes introduction of new
container facilities at the Port in year 2011, thanks to the DOT TIGER
grant for marine highways. Significant developments are also expected
for Rough and Ready Island. The Port has been, and will continue, to
focus on jobs creation at a family wage level for this region.
The Port of Stockton's recovery, and the regional recovery, is
dependent on adequate funding of the four projects shown below in the
Army Corps of Engineers civil works budget.
The San Joaquin River--Stockton Channel is our highest priority
appropriations request in the Corps O&M budget. Federal
responsibilities include annual maintenance dredging of the Federal
channel and maintaining existing riverbank protection. This project is
consistently under funded so that the authorized 35-foot ship channel
has been blocked at depths of 32-33 foot feet. These blockages, often
last 6 months or more, have denied a stable 35-foot ship channel for
much of the past 5 years. Past O&M appropriations have been primarily
in the $2.6 million to $3.1 million range, insufficient for the State's
largest inland port and fourth busiest California port.
An amount of $9.8 million is requested for the San Joaquin River--
Stockton Channel project in fiscal year 2011 to adequately maintain the
ship channel at a safe year round Federal depth and satisfy additional
State water quality requirements for environmental sampling, testing,
and disposal of maintenance dredged material.
The San Francisco Bay to Stockton (John F. Baldwin and Stockton
Channels) is our second highest priority request in the Corps
Construction General budget. This $141 million project would deepen the
Stockton ship channel to 40-feet. The State Transportation Commission
has designated this project for a $17.5 million construction grant;
construction must begin in year 2012. Last year, our appropriations
request for $2 million was zeroed out of the fiscal year 2010 budget
for reasons unknown to us. With a zero appropriation for the project,
the Port must recapture the schedule, including possible reprogramming
of funds.
Two million dollars in Construction General funding is requested
for the San Francisco Bay to Stockton project in fiscal year 2011. We
have recently added strong cost sharing partners with the Western
States Petroleum Association, along with our long time partner, Contra
Costa County.
The Rough and Ready Island Storm Water Drainage Project is our
third priority request in the Corps Construction General budget. The
current storm water system on Rough and Ready Island is obsolete and
must be replaced. The EPA is demanding a replacement. Based on WRDA
2007, Public Law 110-114, section 5158, $3 million is authorized for
this storm water system, which includes drainage detention and lift
facility. The project will also minimize environmental problems,
increase flood protection and create more usable land for economic
growth.
An amount of $925,000 is requested in the Corps fiscal year 2011
Construction General budget for the Rough and Ready Island, Storm Water
Drainage Project. This project is authorized in accordance with Public
Law 102-580, 1992, section 219 Environmental Infrastructure and
subsequent Water Resources Development Acts.
The Pinole Shoal, CA Management Study (Delta Long Term Management
Strategy) is an ongoing study that we support with Contra Costa County
and many regulatory resources agencies. Authorized in Public Law 108-
447, page 905 of Conference Report (Consolidated Appropriations Act,)
this study has been funded since fiscal year 2005. Funding would be
used to develop and approve a joint agency permit and general regional
water quality control board order for dredging and beneficial reuse of
dredged material; implement a Delta Dredging and Reuse Management Team
with a MOU, charter, and operating principles; develop regional
disposal and reuse of dredged sediment alternatives; initiate a
programmatic biological assessment, and conduct a pilot project. Fiscal
year 2011 Federal funds would be used as follows: salaries $300,000,
A&E and professional service contracts $2,200,000.
An amount of $2.5 million is requested in the Corps fiscal year
2011 O&M budget for the Pinole Shoal, CA Management Study.
Thank you for your consideration.
______
Prepared Statement of the Red River Valley Association
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I am Wayne Dowd,
President, and pleased to represent the Red River Valley Association,
629 Spring St., Shreveport, Louisiana. Our organization was founded in
1925 with the express purpose of uniting the citizens of Arkansas,
Louisiana, Oklahoma and Texas to develop the land and water resources
of the Red River Basin.
The resolutions contained herein were adopted by the Association
during its 85th Annual Meeting in Shreveport, Louisiana, on February
18, 2010 and represent the combined concerns of the citizens of the Red
River Basin area as they pertain to the goals of the Association. A
summary of the civil works projects and requested funding is included
in this testimony.
The President's fiscal year 2011 budget included $4.9 billion for
the civil works programs. This is a drastic 10 percent cut from what
Congress appropriated in fiscal year 2010. The administration fails to
recognize the Corps' critical role as stewards of our Nation's water
resources, and the vital importance of our water resources
infrastructure to our economic and environmental well-being. The
problem is also how the administration distributes funds. A few
projects received the full ``Corps Capability'' to the detriment of
many projects that receive no funding. The $4.9 billion level does not
come close to the real needs of our Nation. A more realistic funding
level to meet the existing needs of the civil works program is $6
billion for fiscal year 2011. The traditional civil works programs
remain at the low, unacceptable level as in past years. These projects
are the backbone to our Nation's infrastructure for waterways, flood
prevention, water supply, recreation and ecosystem restoration. We
remind you that civil works projects are a true ``jobs program'' in
that up to 85 percent of project funding is contracted to the private
sector; 100 percent of the construction, as well as much of the
architect and engineering work. Not only do these projects provide
jobs, but provide economic development opportunities for our
communities to grow and prosper, creating permanent jobs.
Congress did appropriate funding for the civil works program
through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. The
majority of those funds went toward backlog maintenance (O&M) at
completed Corps projects, no construction funds were received in the
Red River Valley. Many critical maintenance items were addressed;
however, that should not be a reason to reduce the Corps' fiscal year
2011 budget. We have the opportunity to truly reduce our maintenance
backlog, but a reduced Corps budget will allow those issues to increase
and hinder our ability to catch up.
We want to point out that we appreciate the funding Congress
enacted in fiscal year 2010 and that an appropriation bill was enacted
in November 2009. We encourage Congress to increase the ``water'' share
of the total Energy and Water bill closer to the $6 billion Corps
capability.
We have a serious issue for the J. Bennett Johnston Waterway O&M in
the President's budget. The administration allocated $7,745,000 for
fiscal year 2011, $3,733,000 less than appropriated in fiscal year 2010
($11,478,000)! This drastic reduction will directly impact the ability
to conduct maintenance dredging and the authorized 9 foot channel will
not be maintained. It is difficult to understand why the administration
would fund the O&M at the $11 million range for 5 years and suddenly
make a drastic reduction that will have such a negative impact on a
Waterway that has yearly increased its tonnage. If the required funding
level of at least $11 million is not appropriated the Waterway may
actually shut down to all traffic and industry will see the Waterway as
unreliable and choose alternative modes of transportation, impacting
ports and jobs.
A national issue that must be addressed is levee certification.
FEMA has mandated that all levee systems go through a certification
process. If a levee district does not meet their designated deadline
their levee will be taken off the flood plain maps. This will greatly
increase the current flood insurance paid by landowners and discourage
economic development. The requirements of the engineering analysis for
levee certification are cost prohibitive by most all districts.
Considering that many of these levees were constructed over 80 years
ago construction criteria then do not meet current methods and
procedures. Additionally, levees have deteriorated and weathered over
time. Levee districts can not be expected to absorb the expense to
upgrade their levees to meet current criteria. There must be a national
program to address this issue. It is too large an expense to be
absorbed in the civil works underfunded budget. We recommend Congress
address this issue and develop a program that would be funded through
FEMA and executed by the Corps of Engineers and cost shared with levee
districts.
We have great concerns over the issue of ``earmarks''. Civil Works
projects are not earmarks. Civil Works projects go through a process;
reconnaissance study, feasibility study, benefit to cost ratio test,
EIS, peer review, review by agencies, public review and comment, final
Chief of Engineer approval, authorization by all of Congress in a WRDA
bill and signed by the President. WRDA 2007 added an independent review
of major projects. No other Federal program goes through such a
rigorous approval process. Each justified project ``stands alone'', are
proven to be of national interest and should be funded by project. For
most projects there is local sponsor cost sharing during the
feasibility study, construction and for O&M. Those who have
contributed, in most cases--millions of dollars--to the process, must
have the ability to have a say for their projects to get funded. That
voice is through their Congressional delegation. We believe that
earmarks are not in the national interest, but it does not pertain to
the civil works program. For civil works it is an issue of priority of
projects to be funded and who will determine that, OMB or Congress. We
hope Congress keeps their responsibility to set civil works priorities
and to determine how its citizen's tax dollars are spent.
The Inland Waterways Trust Fund (IWTF) is inadequately funded by
the existing fuel tax rate. There is no doubt that something must be
done to increase the revenue in the fund. The needs of the IWTF should
be analyzed and determine what increase to the existing fuel tax would
maintain the necessary income flow to keep projects funded from the
Inland Waterway Trust Fund. The final proposal must be fair to
tributary waterways and be applied equally to all industries using the
waterways.
I would now like to comment on some of our specific requests for
the future economic well being of the citizens residing in the four
State Red River Basin regions.
Navigation.--The J. Bennett Johnston Waterway is living up to the
expectations of the benefits projected. We are extremely proud of our
public ports, municipalities and State agencies that have created this
success. This upward ``trend'' in usage will continue as new industries
commence operations. A major power company, CLECO, has invested $1
billion in its Rodemacher Plant near Boyce, Louisiana, on the lower Red
River and has started moving over 3 million tons of ``petroleum coke''
and limestone, by barge. This project is a reality and there are many
more industries considering using our Waterway and locating at the
ports.
You are reminded that the Waterway is not complete, 12 percent
remains to be constructed, $246 million. We appreciate Congress'
appropriation level in fiscal year 2010 of $6,613,000. There is a
capability for $20 million of work, but we realistically request $12
million to keep the project moving toward completion, ``J. Bennett
Johnston Waterway (CG)''.
Now that the J. Bennett Johnston Waterway is reliable year round we
must address efficiency. Presently a 9-foot draft is authorized for the
J. Bennett Johnston Waterway. All waterways below Cairo, Illinois are
authorized at 12-feet, to include the Mississippi River, Atchafalaya
River, Arkansas River and Gulf Intracoastal Waterway. A 12-foot channel
would allow an additional one-third capacity, per barge, which will
greatly increase the efficiency of our Waterway and further reduce
transportation rates. This one action would have the greatest, positive
impact to reduce rates and increase competition, bringing more
industries to use waterborne transportation. We request a 1-year
reconnaissance study be funded to evaluate this proposal, at a cost of
$100,000. Fact: Approximately 95 percent is already at 12-feet year
round.
The feasibility study to continue navigation from Shreveport-
Bossier City, Louisiana, into the State of Arkansas will be completed
in CY 2012. This region of SW Arkansas and NE Texas continues to suffer
major unemployment and this navigation project, although not the total
solution, it will help revitalize the economy. Due to the time lapsed
in the study the ``freight rates'' calculated a number of years ago
they must be re-evaluated this year. We request funding of $50,000 to
conduct the re-evaluation of freight rates, ``Navigation into SW
Arkansas Study''.
Flood Prevention.--What will happen when we ignore our levee
systems? We know the Red River levees in Arkansas do not meet Federal
standards, which is why we have the authorized project, ``Red River
Below Denison Dam, TX, AR & LA''. Now is the time to bring these levees
up to standards, before a major flood event.
We continue to consider flood control a major objective and request
you continue funding the levee rehabilitation projects ongoing in
Arkansas. Five of 11 levee sections have been completed and brought to
Federal standards. The Red River Levee District (AR) is prepared to
provide lands, easements and rights of way for the next major
rehabilitation of the Lafayette County levees.
The levees in Louisiana have been incorporated into the Federal
system; however, they do not meet current safety standards. These
levees do not have a gravel surface roadway, threatening their
integrity during times of flooding. It is essential for personnel to
traverse the levees during a flood to inspect them for problems.
Without the gravel surface the vehicles will cause rutting, which can
create conditions for the levees to fail. A gravel surface will insure
inspection personnel can check the levees during the saturated
conditions of a flood.
Appropriations of $12 million will construct one more levee section
in Lafayette County, Arkansas and continue the rock surfacing of levees
in Louisiana, ``Red River Below Denison Dam, AR & LA''.
Bank Stabilization.--One of the most important, continuing
programs, on the Red River is bank stabilization in Arkansas and North
Louisiana. We must stop the loss of valuable farmland that erodes down
the river and interferes with the navigation channel. In addition to
the loss of farmland is the threat to public utilities such as roads,
electric power lines and bridges; as well as increased dredging cost in
the navigable waterway in Louisiana. These bank stabilization projects
are compatible with subsequent navigation into Arkansas and we urge
that they be continued in those locations designated by the Corps of
Engineers to be the areas of highest priority. We appreciated the
congressional funding in past fiscal years and request you fund this
project at a level of $11.3 million in fiscal year 2011, ``Red River
Emergency Bank Protection''.
Water Quality.--The Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works),
in October 1998, agreed to support a re-evaluation of the Wichita River
Basin tributary of the project. The re-evaluation report was completed
and the Director of Civil Works signed the Environmental Record of
Decision. The plan was found to be economically justified. Then the ASA
(CW) directed that construction would not proceed until a local sponsor
was found to assume 100 percent of the O&M for the project. The 2007
WRDA bill included language that clarified that all aspects of this
project will be at full Federal expense, to include O&M.
Over the past years there has been a renewed interest by the
Lugart-Altus Irrigation District to evaluate construction of Area VI,
of the Chloride Control Project, in Oklahoma. They have obtained the
support of many State and Federal legislators, as well as the Oklahoma
Governor in support of a re-evaluation report.
Total request for the ``Chloride Control Project'': $8,300,000 for
the Texas and Oklahoma areas.
Studies.--We have a number of General Investigation (GI) studies
that have been funded and have local sponsors prepared to cost share
feasibility studies. Some of those important studies include: Bossier
Parish Flood Control Study, LA--$250,000; Cross Lake Water Supply
Study, LA--$100,000; SE Oklahoma Water Resource Study, OK--$500,000; SW
Arkansas Study, AR--$50,000; Washita River Basin, OK--$500,000 and
Wichita River Basin, TX--$100,000. These studies are important to have
projects ready for future construction.
Operation & Maintenance.--Full O&M capability levels are not only
important for our Waterway project but for all our Corps projects and
flood control lakes. The backlog of critical maintenance only becomes
worse and more expensive with time. We request that the Corps O&M
projects be funded at the expressed, full Corps capability.
Thank you for the opportunity to present this testimony and project
details of the Red River Valley Association on behalf of the
industries, organizations, municipalities and citizens we represent
throughout the four State Red River Valley region. The Civil Works
program directly relates to national security by investing in economic
infrastructure. If waterways are closed companies will not relocate to
other parts of the country--they will move over seas. If we do not
invest now there will be a negative impact on our ability to compete in
the world market threatening our national security.
Grant Disclosure.--The Red River Valley Association has not
received any Federal grant, sub-grant or contract during the current
fiscal year or either of the two previous fiscal years.
RED RIVER VALLEY ASSOCIATION FISCAL YEAR 2011 APPROPRIATIONS CIVIL WORKS
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RRVA Fiscal President
Fiscal Year Year 2011 Fiscal Year Local Sponsor Requirements
2010 Approp Request 2011 Budget
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Studies (GI)
Navigation into SW Arkansas: Feasibility... ........... $50 ........... (ARRC)
Red River Waterway, LA--12 foot Channel, ........... 100 ........... (RRWC)
Recon.
Bossier Parish, LA......................... $278 250 ........... (Bossier Levee)
Cross Lake, LA Water Supply Supplement..... 90 50 ........... (Shreveport)
SE Oklahoma Water Resource Study: 233 500 ........... (OWRB)
Feasibility.
SW Arkansas Ecosystem Restoration: Recon 170 47 ........... (ANRC/AR Game & Fish)
Study.
Cypress Valley Watershed, TX............... 90 175 ........... (NETWD)
Sulphur River Basin, TX.................... ........... 1,000 ........... (Sulphur Auth)
Washita River Basin, OK.................... 171 500 ........... (L)
Wichita River Basin above Lake Kemp, TX: ........... 100 ........... (L)
Recon.
Red River Above Denison Dam, TX & OK: Recon ........... 100 ........... (L)
Red River Waterway, Index, AR to Denison ........... 44 ........... (?)
Dam.
Mountain Fork River Watershed, OK & AR, ........... ........... ........... (?)
Recon.
Walnut Bayou, Little River, AR............. ........... 100 ........... (ANRC)
Little River County/Ogden Levee, AR, Recon. ........... 100 ........... (ANRC)
Red River Waterway, Index to Denison, ........... ........... ........... (?)
Bendway Weir.
Construction General (CG)
Red River Waterway: J. B. Johnston 6,613 20,000 $1,500 (RRWC)
Waterway, LA.
Chloride Control Project, TX & OK Texas- 1,332 8,300 ........... N/A
7,500/Oklahoma-800.
Red River Below Denison Dam; AR & LA....... 2,035 12,000 ........... (Levee Districts)
Bowie County Levee, TX................. ........... ........... ........... ............................
Red River Emergency Bank Protection........ 1,986 11,300 ........... (Levee Dist.)
Big Cypress Valley Watershed, TX: Section 1,450 ........... ........... (Jefferson)
1135.
Palo Duro Creek, Canyon, TX: Section 205... ........... 90 ........... (Canyon, TX)
Millwood, Grassy Lake, AR: Section 1135.... 181 100 ........... (ANRC)
McKinney Bayou, AR, PED.................... ........... ........... ........... (?)
Miller County Levee, AR, Section 1135...... ........... ........... ........... (Miller Levee)
Operation and Maintenance (O&M)
J. Bennett Johnston Waterway, LA........... 11,478 23,864 7,745 ............................
Lake Kemp, TX--Total Need.................. 311 817 467
Basic Annual O&M....................... ........... 214 ........... ............................
Reallocation Study..................... ........... 350 ........... ............................
Service Bridge & Gate Repair........... ........... 253 ........... ............................
Lake Texoma, TX & OK--Total Need........... 8,740 31,617 10,057 ............................
Basic Annual O&M....................... ........... 7,000 ........... ............................
Shoreline Management Plan.............. 1,158 ........... ........... ............................
Backlog Maintenance.................... ........... 24,617 ........... ............................
Chloride Control Project, TX & OK.......... 1,481 2,025 1,439 ............................
Old River Lock, LA (MR&T).................. 9,854 12,755 9,255 ............................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTE.--Local Sponsor Column--Sponsor indicated in ( ); (?) indicates No Sponsor identified and need one to
continue (L) indicates Sponsor not required now but need one for feasibility; N/A--No Sponsor required.
______
Prepared Statement of The Missouri River Association of States and
Tribes
Dear Chairman Dorgan and Ranking Member Bennett: We are requesting
your support for four items in the fiscal year 2011 budget for the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), related to the Missouri River Basin.
These include: (1) $78.4 million to continue implementation of the
Missouri River Recovery Program, (2) $5.5 million to continue funding
for the Missouri River Authorized Purposes Study, (3) $10 million to
increase the operations and maintenance budget for the Northwestern
Division, Omaha District, for protection of cultural and historical
sites impacted by the operation of the Missouri River Mainstem
Reservoir System and (4) inclusion of a provision in the fiscal year
2011 budget to allow reimbursement of travel expenses by tribal, State
and non-governmental members of the Missouri River Recovery
Implementation Committee to attend its meetings. No new funds are
required for this action as the travel reimbursement can be paid with
funds appropriated for the Missouri River Recovery Program, if the
prohibition against reimbursement of travel in section 5018 WRDA 2007
is amended by a provision in the budget bill.
The Missouri River Association of States and Tribes (MoRAST) is an
association of representatives of the Governors of the States of
Wyoming, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Iowa and Kansas
and many of the American Indian tribes in the Missouri River Basin.
MoRAST is interested in the proper management and protection of natural
resources, including water resources, fish and wildlife and other
related issues of interest to the States and tribes in the basin,
including cultural resources. The programs and operations of the USACE
are very important to our members, especially due to the legal
responsibilities of the States and tribes related to water and the fish
and wildlife resources in the basin, as well as the trust
responsibilities of the USACE to the tribes. The following paragraphs
provide detailed information regarding the bases for our support of the
four items referred to above for fiscal year 2011 budget of the USACE,
as outlined below:
Funding for Missouri River Recovery Program.--$119 million is
needed for compliance with the Biological Opinion (BiOP). We strongly
support the $78.4 million in the President's budget as the minimum
necessary for current year compliance with the BiOP. The Missouri River
Recovery Program (MRRP) was established by the USACE as a collaborative
program to protect, recover and restore the Missouri River ecosystem
and its native species, including the endangered pallid sturgeon, least
tern and piping plover. This program is authorized by sections 3109,
3176 and 5018 of the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) 2007.
Support for this program is critical to ensure at least enough funding
is available for compliance with the Biological Opinion, as amended in
2003. Compliance with the BiOP also protects economic uses as failure
to comply with the Biological Opinion could require changes to
reservoir operations and negatively impact other purposes.
The USACE, various tribal, State and Federal cooperating agencies
and the Missouri River Recovery Implementation Committee (MRRIC) that
includes various Stakeholders, are also in the process of developing a
collaborative study and plan known as the Missouri River Ecosystem
Restoration Plan (MRERP) to identify and guide long term actions
required to restore ecosystem functions, mitigate habitat losses, and
recover native fish and wildlife on the Missouri River, while seeking
to balance social, economic, and cultural values for future
generations.
In addition to recovery and mitigation projects on the Missouri
River Mainstem, a project to provide for fish passage through a
diversion dam on the Yellowstone River near Intake, Montana is
especially important to the recovery of the endangered Pallid Sturgeon,
as it will open up a large segment of free flowing river. Work on this
important tributary project is underway with fiscal year 2010 funding
and is being implemented through a cooperative effort of the U.S.
Bureau of Reclamation, USACE, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
and the State of Montana.
In summary, funding the Missouri River Recovery Program at a
minimum of $78.4 million for fiscal year 2011 is essential to ensure
compliance with the Biological Opinion on the Missouri River and to
implement the project on the Yellowstone River near Intake, Montana,
both of which are of critical importance to the recovery of endangered
species and the restoration of the ecosystem.
Funding for the Missouri River Authorized Purposes Study (MRAPS).--
We strongly support appropriation of $ 5.5 million to continue funding
for MRAPS in fiscal year 2011. Congress appropriated $4.483 million in
fiscal year 2010. MRAPS was authorized to study the Missouri River
Projects under the 1944 Flood Control Act (FCA) to determine whether
changes to the purposes and existing Federal infrastructure may be
needed. The study was authorized for a total cost of $25 million at
full Federal expense.
The Missouri River Basin Project (Pick-Sloan Program) envisioned a
comprehensive system of projects and facilities in the Missouri River
basin constructed by both the Bureau of Reclamation and the USACE. The
plan was only partially completed and there continue to be water needs
and related issues in the basin, many of which are different than they
were in 1944. This study is important for many reasons. It has been
about 65 years since the 1944 FCA was enacted and many changes have
occurred. The Missouri River Mainstem Reservoir System continues to be
operated in accordance with the 1944 FCA for various authorized
purposes including flood control, water supply, water quality,
irrigation, hydropower, navigation, recreation and fish and wildlife.
However, while the construction of the reservoir system and other works
have resulted in large project benefits from some of the authorized
purposes and much less for others, it has also created substantial
negative impacts on the economies and resources of Indian tribes and
others, as well as large environmental losses, such as wetlands and
habitat for a number of native species, including three that are
threatened or endangered.
In summary, there have been many changes in the physical, economic
and environmental conditions that affect the Missouri River Projects
and the basin since 1944. The USACE needs $5.5 million for the study in
fiscal year 2011. That amount should be provided so the study can
objectively determine whether changes are needed to the 1944 FCA in
order to best meet the contemporary needs of the Missouri River Basin.
Once the study is complete, Congress can decide whether the law should
be changed or not.
Funding to Protect Tribal Cultural Resources.--It is requested that
Congress specifically appropriate $10 million for fiscal year 2011 as a
line item for the Omaha District, Northwestern Division, USACE for the
stabilization of cultural and historic sites that continue to be
negatively impacted by the operation of the Missouri River Mainstem
Reservoir System. Funding for the protection of cultural and historic
sites within the Omaha District has remained at $3 million for the past
several years. Past funding through the USACE operation and maintenance
budget has been woefully inadequate to address the ongoing damage to
sites from operation of the Missouri River Mainstem Reservoir System.
The USACE has identified over 400 historic and cultural sites
protected by Federal law that will be potentially damaged by the
current annual operations plan and the tribal nations in the Missouri
River Basin have identified many more sites that could be impacted.
However, there have only been funds to mitigate damage to a few sites
each year. The USACE has a unique trust responsibility to the 28
Missouri River Basin tribes arising from the government-to-government
relationship between the tribes and the United States Government, as
well as an obligation under section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act, applicable Executive orders, and other Federal laws,
which require the USACE to either halt any Federal undertaking that
will damage or destroy sites protected, or to mitigate the potential
damage.
Funding for Travel and Participation in MRRIC and MRRP
Activities.--We support inclusion of a provision in the fiscal year
2011 budget bill to remove the prohibition on Federal reimbursement of
travel expenses for non-Federal members of the Missouri River Recovery
Implementation Committee (MRRIC) to attend its meetings. No new funds
are required for this action as it can be funded through the Missouri
River Recovery Program (MRRP), but this action is needed to improve the
functionality and chances for success of MRRIC.
Section 5018 of WRDA 2007 authorized the creation of MRRIC, but
prohibited Federal reimbursement of travel expenses for non-Federal
members of the committee. The same section of WRDA 2007 also authorized
the development of a Missouri River Ecosystem Restoration Plan (MRERP),
which is a part of the MRRP. The failure to reimburse travel expenses
is a hardship for some MRRIC members. It also hinders participation and
prevents balanced representation by tribal, State and non-governmental
members on the committee. Lack of travel reimbursement also makes
participation difficult by States and tribes difficult as cooperating
agencies for the MRERP study, especially during these trying economic
times and budget shortfalls for States, tribes and others.
The USACE has a unique trust responsibility to the 28 Missouri
River Basin tribes and their participation in both MRRIC and MRERP
activities is vital to the success of efforts to restore the ecosystem
of the Missouri River consistent with the social, cultural and economic
needs in the Basin. The failure to fund travel for the tribes to attend
these meetings will not save money and may result in delay or the need
for more extensive government-to-government consultations if the tribes
are not able to participate adequately during the course of efforts by
MRRIC to make recommendations to the USACE regarding recovery programs
and the development MRERP.
We recognize that section 5018 could also be amended by the next
WRDA bill to remove the prohibition on travel reimbursement for
attendance at MRRIC meetings. However, that may take more time, while
the need to fund travel reimbursement should begin as soon as possible
so that all members can participate, receive the background materials,
develop relationships and provide meaningful recommendations to the
USACE and other agencies regarding Missouri River Recovery programs as
may be appropriate through the MRRIC process.
In summary, we believe each of these programs is essential to the
success of efforts to properly manage and protect the natural resources
of the Missouri River Basin, satisfy the USACE trust responsibilities
to the Indian nations in the basin and operate its projects in
accordance with applicable Federal law. We would appreciate your help
in providing adequate funding for these important programs and
projects. Please let David Pope, MoRAST executive director, or me know
if you have questions.
______
Prepared Statement of the Louisiana Department of Transportation and
Development
On behalf of LADOTD, Office of Public Works and Intermodal
Transportation, we present recommendations for fiscal year 2011
appropriations for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works Projects in
Louisiana.
Louisiana contains the terminus of the Mississippi River, third
largest drainage basin in the world, draining 41 percent, or 1\1/4\
million square miles, of the contiguous United States and parts of two
Canadian provinces. Consequently, a comprehensive and extensive flood
control system is required to ensure that these drainage flows are
contained and safely passed to the gulf. Almost 3,000 miles of levees
(1,500 in the MR&T system) constructed jointly by Federal, State and
local entities allow Louisiana to be habitable year-round. Concentrated
behind these levees are the vast majority of Louisiana's urban centers
and petro-chemical complexes. Nearly 75 percent of the population lives
and works in those same areas. Approximately 60 percent of the State's
agricultural products are produced in these protected areas. Louisiana
has the second largest refining capacity in the Nation, producing 15
billion gallons of gasoline annually at 19 refineries. Louisiana ranks
second in produced natural gas and third for oil production. The
pipeline system which supplies much of this Nation with natural gas and
refined petroleum products originates in Louisiana. It is important to
note that the petrochemical, oil and gas industries in Louisiana that
contribute significantly to the economic well being of the entire
Nation are almost totally dependent on this Federal constructed flood
control system to protect their facilities.
It is equally important to note that this same river drainage
system forms the backbone of the Federal constructed Inland Waterway
System which provides the Nation's heartland cost effective access to
the global marketplace via the 230 mile deepwater channel of the lower
Mississippi River from Baton Rouge to the gulf. This strategic gateway
to international markets is the largest port complex in the world. The
Inland Waterway System--the whole system--allowed industrial facilities
scattered throughout the central portion of the Nation to obtain raw
materials and fuel from distant locations and to reach worldwide
markets. These industries, and most of the agricultural industries in
mid-America, are heavily dependent on the Federal maintained navigable
waterways to remain globally competitive in transporting their
products. Unfortunately, the administration's budget proposals in
recent years indicate a lack of concern for the preservation and
efficient operation of this system which is rapidly deteriorating due
to lack of maintenance and is in desperate need of renovation and
modernization.
The Mississippi River and Tributaries Project (MR&T), which
encompass both flood control and navigation features, has been underway
since 1928 and isn't scheduled for completion until beyond 2031. We
strongly support the Mississippi Valley Flood Control Association's
request for the MR&T Project and urge your support of this level of
funding.
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED APPROPRIATIONS FISCAL YEAR 2011 FOR LOUISIANA
FLOOD CONTROL, NAVIGATION, HURRICANE PROTECTION & WATER RESOURCES
PROJECTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LOUISIANA
LOUISIANA PROJECTS REQUEST
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS STUDIES
Amite River-Ecosystem Restoration, LA................... $500,000
Calcasieu Lock, LA...................................... 2,000,000
Red River (JBJWW) Recon Study........................... 100,000
Southwest Coastal LA Hurricane Protection, LA........... 1,500,000
St. Charles Parish Urban Flood Control, LA.............. 445,000
West Shore--Lake Pontchartrain, LA...................... 500,000
Bossier Parish Levee & FC............................... 250,000
Cross Lake Water Supply................................. 50,000
Ouachita River and Tribs................................ 200,000
Ouachita and Black...................................... 100,000
PED
Bayou Sorrel Lock, LA................................... 2,239,000
Calcasieu River Basin, LA............................... 250,000
Calcasieu River & Pass Navigation, LA................... 1,000,000
Port of Iberia, LA...................................... 1,000,000
NEW STUDIES
South Central LA Coastal Protection..................... 100,000
Port Fourchon Enlargement, LA........................... 100,000
Cameron Loop, Calcasieu Pass............................ 100,000
East Fork, Calcasieu Pass............................... 100,000
University Lakes........................................ 200,000
Bayou Rigaud Ext. Dredging & Breakwater Prot............ 100,000
Chenier Caminada Levee Ext. & Levee Armoring Grand Isle, 100,000
LA.....................................................
Laurel Ridge Levee Ext., Ascension Parish............... 100,000
CAP
Kenner Environmental Infrastructure..................... 500,000
Lafourche Parish Environmental Infrastructure........... 500,000
Plaquemines Parish Environmental Infrastructure......... 500,000
St. Bernard Environmental Infrastructure................ 500,000
St. Charles Environmental Infrastructure................ 500,000
St. James Environmental Infrastructure.................. 500,000
St. John the Baptist Environmental Infrastructure....... 500,000
St. Tammany Environmental Infrastructure................ 500,000
West Baton Rouge Environmental Infrastructure........... 500,000
CONSTRUCTION GENERAL
Comite River, LA........................................ 25,000,000
East Baton Rouge Parish, LA............................. 25,000,000
Larose to Golden Meadow................................. 5,500,000
IHNC Lock............................................... 13,000,000
Red River Below Den Dam (AR, LA)........................ 12,000,000
Ouachita River Levees................................... 2,600,000
J Bennett Johnston WW, Miss. R. to Shreveport........... 20,000,000
Calcasieu River & Pass, Dredged Material Management 12,000,000
Program................................................
Southeast Louisiana..................................... 21,200,000
Violet Freshwater Diversion............................. 5,500,000
West Bank & Vicinity, LA................................ 5,000,000
Ascension Parish Environmental Infrastructure........... 2,000,000
East Baton Rouge Environmental Infrastructure........... 2,000,000
Livingston Parish Environmental Infrastructure.......... 2,000,000
OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE GENERAL
Atchafalaya River, Bayous Chene, Boeuf & Black.......... 36,700,000
Barataria Bay Waterway.................................. 135,000
Bayou Lafourche......................................... 4,300,000
Bayou Segnette.......................................... 37,000
Bayou Teche............................................. 8,900,000
Bayou Teche & Vermilion................................. 650,000
Calcasieu River & Pass.................................. 57,233,000
Freshwater Bayou........................................ 14,875,000
Gulf Intracoastal Waterway.............................. 41,000,000
Houma Navigation Canal.................................. 7,100,000
Mermentau River......................................... 11,410,000
Mississippi River, Baton Rouge to the Gulf.............. 170,169,000
Mississippi River Gulf Outlet at Venice................. 8,338,000
Waterway Empire to the Gulf............................. 47,000
WW. IWW to Bayou Dulac.................................. 30,000
Ouachita & Black Rivers (AR, LA)........................ 24,135,000
Bayou Bodcau............................................ 6,922,000
Caddo Lake.............................................. 347,000
Wallace Lake............................................ 886,000
Bayou Pierre............................................ 49,000
J Bennett Johnston Waterway............................. 23,864,000
Lake Providence Harbor.................................. 1,200,000
Madison Parish Port..................................... 150,000
Inspection of Completed Works (N.O.).................... 1,161,000
Inspection of Completed Works (V)....................... 1,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED APPROPRIATIONS FISCAL YEAR 2010 FOR LOUISIANA
MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LOUISIANA
LOUISIANA PROJECTS REQUEST
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FC, MR&T GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS
Alexandria to the Gulf (PED)............................ ..............
Donaldsonville to the Gulf.............................. $1,200,000
Houma Navigation Canal Deepening (PED).................. 500,000
Morganza to the Gulf (PED).............................. 3,000,000
Spring Bayou Area, LA................................... 50,000
FC, MR&T CONSTRUCTION
Atchafalaya Basin....................................... 25,000,000
Atchafalaya Basin Floodway System....................... 2,631,000
Channel Improvement (N.O. Dist.)........................ 11,861,000
Mississippi Delta Region................................ ..............
Mississippi River Levees, LA (N.O. Dist.)............... 15,338,000
Mississippi River Levees (LA) (V. Dist.)................ 30,000,000
Channel Improvement (LA) (V. Dist.)..................... 27,930,000
FC, MR&T MAINTENANCE
Atchafalaya Basin....................................... 39,900,000
Atchafalaya Basin Floodway System....................... 1,878,000
Baton Rouge Harbor (Devil's Swamp)...................... 42,000
Bayou Cocodrie and Tributaries.......................... 47,000
Bonnet Carre Spillway................................... 5,300,000
Channel Improvement (N.O. Dist.)........................ 14,128,000
Dredging (N.O. Dist.)................................... 700,000
MS Delta Region......................................... 1,921,000
Old River............................................... 12,755,000
Mississippi River Levees (LA) (N.O. Dist.).............. 6,500,000
Mississippi River Levees (LA) (V. Dist.)................ 4,400,000
Revetments & Dikes (LA) (V. Dist.)...................... 21,052,000
Dredging (LA) (V. Dist.)................................ 5,023,000
Boeuf & Tensas Rivers................................... 3,244,000
Red River Backwater..................................... 9,496,000
Lower Red River......................................... 498,000
Inspection of Completed Works (V)....................... 681,000
Inspection of Completed Works (N.O.).................... 940,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
______
Prepared Statement of the Mississippi Valley Flood Control Association
The Mississippi Valley Flood Control Association respectfully
requests that the sum of $550 million be appropriated in fiscal year
2011 for the Mississippi River and Tributaries Project.
In view of the fact that there are some new members of the
subcommittee, it seems appropriate to very briefly explain a little of
the history of the Flood Control Association that was first organized
in 1922 by a group of interested citizens from the States of Arkansas,
Mississippi and Louisiana. From that first meeting, held in Memphis,
Tennessee, a group was selected to come to Washington in an attempt to
convince both the Congress and the executive branch that the prevention
of catastrophic floods in the lower Mississippi River Valley was beyond
the capabilities of the local people and was in fact too large for any
group other than the United States Government. This group of dedicated
citizens was without luck until the record flood of 1927 swept through
the Mississippi River Valley with the fury of devastation not seen
before. An unknown number of people perished along with thousands of
heads of livestock and all manner and large numbers of wildlife. Some 7
percent of all the productive land on this planet was under water for a
period of almost half a year. The Congress, after extensive hearings,
passed the Flood Control Act of May 15, 1928 that was signed into law
by then President Calvin Coolidge.
The Flood Control Association, acting under the erroneous
assumption that the United States Government would provide all that was
needed to prevent flooding in the valley, disbanded. In 1935 it became
apparent that additional legislation was required and the association,
under the leadership of then Senator John Overton from Louisiana, was
re-organized and has been in continuous and active existence since.
This is our 75th year to hold a meeting in Washington, to request funds
for the Mississippi River and Tributaries Project.
We have been fortunate since 1935 to have as our President and two
Vice Presidents, Members of the United States Congress with Congressman
Ed Whitfield from the Commonwealth of Kentucky serving as our president
and Congressmen Mike Ross from Arkansas and Phil Hare from Illinois
serving as our vice presidents.
We appear before you today after having carefully considered the
President's fiscal year 2011 budget for the Mississippi River and
Tributaries Project. We find, as usual, that the executive department
has sadly un-funded the Corps of Engineers civil works budget for the
up-coming fiscal year. We also note that the Corps has stated that they
have a capability under the Mississippi River and Tributaries Project
to use $550 million in fiscal year 2011. We would respectfully request
that the Congress appropriate the amount of $550 million for the
Mississippi River and Tributaries Project.
This Nation is still faced with a war on terror and the economic
situation is poor to say the least. We are ever mindful of these facts
but we feel that we are justified in requesting additional
appropriations for the Mississippi River and Tributaries Project
because the assets and resources of this great Nation must not be
neglected at this time. We are unaware of any other appropriation that
contributes as much to national wealth and resources as does flood
control and navigation for the major rivers of this country and that is
certainly true for the mightiest of them all, the Mississippi, the
third largest watershed on the planet.
Millions of acres of what were once overflow lands are now highly
productive and contributes to our national wealth. These lands by
reason of their geographic location are the most fertile of the Nation
and ample water is available so that they can produce an abundance of
food and fiber for the general welfare and prosperity of the country.
This is only possible because of the coordinated work performed by the
triad of the United States Corps of Engineers, the United States
Congress and the local people. The appropriations made by the Congress
for the Mississippi River and Tributaries Project are investments in
this Nation's future.
We are aware of the ever increasing demand on the Federal dollars
and the many complex problems that the Congress is confronted with, but
we believe that this project is economically sound, environmentally
necessary, and we urge its completion with all deliberate haste. Our
request of $550 million is required to meet this goal.
The ultimate goal to be accomplished with the passage of the act of
1928 was that the lower valley would never again be destroyed by a
flood such as that of the fateful year of 1927. By law, the Mississippi
River and Tributaries Project provides protection against the
``greatest possible flood'' even though not yet completed. For over 80
years the project has worked to perfection with not one acre flooded
that was designed not to be flooded. The project has also insured the
permanency of location for harbor facilities and industrial sites and
to obtain a more reliable navigation channel. With the help of the
Congress we have made great strides in the Mississippi River Valley but
the job is not yet completed. All the people of the valley will not
feel or be safe until the job is completed.
______
Prepared Statement of The Nature Conservancy
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to present The Nature Conservancy's recommendations for
fiscal year 2011 appropriations for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(Corps) and Bureau of Reclamation.
Our recommendations represent a priority set of efforts that are
both individually important and collectively designed to demonstrate
innovations in restoration to help guide future resource allocation. If
done well, ecosystem restoration projects pay dividends through
services such as provision of more reliable and higher quality water,
natural flood attenuation, sustaining commercial fisheries, and
supporting economically-important outdoor recreation. Moreover, the
Nation's resiliency to climate change will be substantially dictated by
the health of our ecosystems. We believe the public investments we are
requesting now will pay dividends for decades to come.
CORPS CONSTRUCTION PRIORITIES
Continuing Authorities Program.--We thank the subcommittee for
continuing its strong support of the section 1135: Project
Modifications for Improvement of the Environment and section 206:
Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration programs. However, demand for these
programs continues to outstrip funding. The Nature Conservancy (the
Conservancy) requests that the programs be fully funded by
appropriating $40 million for section 1135 and $50 million for section
206.
The Conservancy seeks funding for two projects under the Continuing
Authorities Program in fiscal year 2011: Spunky Bottoms (sec. 1135),
and Emiquon East (sec. 206). Both are model projects to restore
floodplain wetlands by reconnecting them to the Illinois River. Each
project needs funding to complete its respective feasibility study,
develop a project partnership agreement, and begin designs for the next
phase. The Conservancy is the non-Federal cost share partner for both
projects, and we request $500,000 for the Spunky Bottoms project and
$185,000 for the Emiquon East project. Additional funds will be
necessary for the planning, specification, construction and monitoring
phases.
We continue to be concerned about the subcommittee's guidance for
these programs. The prioritization requirements and ``no new starts''
rule included in the fiscal year 2009 report and renewed in fiscal year
2010 block the implementation of important conservation priorities that
enjoy strong support from their local communities. We urge the
subcommittee to adopt a more flexible approach. Appropriating the
requested amounts will help address the backlog in these programs.
Upper Mississippi River Navigation and Ecosystem Sustainability
Program.--The Navigation and Ecosystem Sustainability Program (NESP) is
a dual purpose authority for integrated management of the Upper
Mississippi River (UMR) system's habitat and navigation facilities. All
activities implemented under the existing Environmental Management
Program (EMP) can be transitioned into NESP, but it is critical to fund
both programs until the transition is complete. In recognition of the
current budgetary constraints, we request a NESP fiscal year 2011 new
start of $15 million. The Conservancy also supports $25 million for EMP
in fiscal year 2011.
Illinois River Basin Restoration Program.--This Federal-State
partnership sustains the health of the entire Illinois River Basin
through projects that restore habitats, species, and the natural
processes that sustain them. It complements other Federal programs such
as EMP and NESP, but is unique in its basin-wide approach to
restoration. The Conservancy supports $7.9 million in Construction
funding and $1 million in Investigation funding for this program in
fiscal year 2011.
Aquatic Nuisance Species Dispersal Barrier.--The Conservancy
supports funding for the construction and maintenance of the Dispersal
Barriers on the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal (CSSC) at no less than
$12,650,000 in fiscal year 2011. Additionally, we request at least $1
million in fiscal year 2011 to conduct an expedited feasibility study
of the comprehensive set of permanent solutions to prevent the movement
of all invasive species though the CSSC. We note that the Corps has the
capacity to effectively expend up to $23,650,000 on construction and
$2,500,000 on the separation study, and we encourage the subcommittee
to consider this greater investment to address this urgent problem.
Missouri River Fish and Wildlife Recovery Program (MRRP).--Under
this program, the Corps has completed 30 projects in the lower Missouri
Basin States to assist in the recovery of three listed species,
restoring more than 40,000 acres of habitat. New authority allows
expenditures in the upper basin States as well. Construction of fish
passage and screens at Intake Dam is a priority for the recovery of the
endangered pallid sturgeon and other warm-water fish. The Conservancy
supports $119 million for the MRRP in fiscal year 2011, including $20
million to continue progress on the design and construction of fish
passage and screens at Intake Dam.
Cartersville Diversion Dam Fish Passage.--This project would
construct a fish passage at Cartersville Dam, allowing fish, including
the Federal listed endangered pallid sturgeon, to reach the upstream
portions of the Yellowstone River. This project, along with its
companion project at Intake Dam, would open an additional 296 miles of
habitat, which is critically needed for successful recovery of the
sturgeon population. The Conservancy supports $300,000 for this project
in fiscal year 2011.
South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Program.--Corps flood control
projects, coupled with agricultural and urban development, have
degraded the Everglades, one of the most diverse and ecologically rich
wetlands ecosystems in the world. WRDA 2007 authorized construction of
the first projects under the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan
(CERP), and we support funding for the Indian River Lagoon South,
Picayune Strand, and the Site 1 Impoundment. We place priority on
funding the Kissimmee River Restoration Project, which is almost 75
percent complete and already a success story. The Conservancy requests
$246 million for the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration program in
fiscal year 2011.
Hamilton City Flood Damage Reduction and Ecosystem Restoration.--
This project will increase flood protection for Hamilton City, CA and
surrounding agricultural lands and restore approximately 1,500 acres of
riparian habitat. The PED phase for this project was completed in 2009,
the non-Federal sponsor is in place and the project received
construction authorization in WRDA 2007. The Conservancy supports $15
million in fiscal year 2011 to complete the first phase of
construction.
Chesapeake Bay Oyster Recovery.--Native oyster populations in the
Chesapeake Bay have been decimated from historical levels by a century
of overfishing, disease and pollution. This project will help move
oyster populations toward sustainable levels. The requested
appropriation will create more than 60 acres of oyster habitat. The
Conservancy supports $6 million in fiscal year 2011.
SUSTAINABLE RIVERS PROJECT
The Sustainable Rivers Project (SRP) is an initiative launched by
the Corps in partnership with the Conservancy that recognizes the
urgent need to update decades-old water management practices to meet
society's needs today and in the coming decades. Currently working in
eight demonstration river basins, the SRP is developing and
demonstrating innovative approaches to reservoir operations that
restore critical ecosystems and valuable ecosystem services, while
continuing to provide for (and often improving) water supply and flood
risk management. The Conservancy supports funding for several
initiatives that will support the SRP:
Global Change Sustainability.--Evolving and accumulating challenges
to water management, such as expanding water and energy demands,
shifting economic and land use patterns and environmental degradation,
require innovation in our water management practices. This project will
allow the Corps to advance a variety of new practices through several
initiatives, including the SRP, working with other Federal agencies to
develop a national strategy for climate change adaptation, updating
drought contingency plans, and others. The Conservancy supports $10
million in fiscal year 2011 for this program.
National Portfolio Assessment for Reallocations.--Launched in
fiscal year 2008, this assessment is a national effort to learn from
past water management techniques and improve upon them. A national
database will incorporate data from water supply surveys, climate
studies, drought contingency plans, and other sources, helping the
Corps assess its past practices and make project- and basin-scale
predictions for the future. The SRP will be part of this effort,
developing new methods that can be used at Corps dams nationwide. The
Conservancy supports $1 million in fiscal year 2011 for this program.
Willamette River Floodplain Restoration Study.--The Corps and the
Conservancy are working together to identify ecological flow
requirements downstream of Corps dams, and to incorporate those flows
into dam operations. The ultimate goal of this study is to enable
system-wide changes in dam operation and floodplain management that
improve fish and wildlife habitat and community flood protection. The
Conservancy supports $153,000 in fiscal year 2011 to continue this
study.
Connecticut River Watershed Study.--This project will restore 410
miles of river flow and thousands of acres of natural habitat in the
Connecticut River Basin. The basin is a priority landscape for the
Conservancy due to its high quality tributary systems, unique natural
communities and multitude of ESA-listed species. The study identifies
dam management modifications for environmental benefits while
maintaining beneficial human uses. We support $750,000 in fiscal year
2011 for this project.
White River Basin-wide Comprehensive Study.--The ecology of the
White River Basin is impacted by Federal impoundments, water
withdrawals for agriculture, power generation, and modifications for
navigation. This project will help determine the condition of the basin
and its future ecological and human needs. The Conservancy supports
$1,500,000 in fiscal year 2011 for this study.
Big Cypress Basin Watershed Study.--This study, part of a project
to restore the natural river flow of Big Cypress Bayou to enhance
aquatic ecosystem health and the globally significant Caddo Lake
wetlands, would allow the Corps to evaluate the potential ecosystem
restoration benefits and impacts of flow recommendations developed with
the Conservancy. It would also develop sediment and nutrient load
guidelines and consider modifying the Caddo Lake weir to allow
manipulation of lake levels for bald cypress regeneration and aquatic
plant control. We support $175,000 in fiscal year 2011 for this study.
OTHER CORPS INVESTIGATION PRIORITIES
Puget Sound Nearshore Ecosystem Restoration Project.--The recovery
of Puget Sound is a top priority for Washington State and the Corps'
Puget Sound Nearshore Ecosystem Restoration Project (PSNERP) comprises
one of the most important pieces of the Governor's recovery plan. The
Conservancy requests $1.5 million in fiscal year 2011 (in the
Investigations account) to advance this critical project. The
Conservancy also requests $7 million (in the Construction account) in
fiscal year 2011 for the Puget Sound and Adjacent Waters Program--a
program that provides funding for early action projects to restore
Puget Sound.
Long Island Sound Oyster Restoration.--This project will develop a
comprehensive Master Plan for the restoration of oysters and other
shellfish in Long Island Sound, supporting both ecological and economic
well-being by providing a sustainable oyster fishery and creating
habitat for other coastal and marine species. The Conservancy supports
$250,000 in fiscal year 2011 for this important effort.
Lower Mississippi River Resource Assessment.--Flood control and
drainage systems have accelerated erosion and habitat loss along the
954-mile Lower Mississippi River and its tributaries. Working with the
U.S. Department of Interior, the Corps will evaluate the state of river
management, habitat and public access along the Lower Mississippi and
recommend action to address current and future needs. The Conservancy
supports $200,000 in fiscal year 2011 for this project.
West Pearl River Navigation Study.--The aquatic communities of the
Pearl, West Pearl and Bogue Chitto Rivers are severely disrupted by old
and disused navigation structures. This study will allow the Corps to
consider removing them or repurposing the structures to accommodate
environmental and recreational needs. The Conservancy supports $100,000
in fiscal year 2011 for the Reconnaissance study.
Thames River Basin Watershed Study.--The Thames River Basin
ecosystem depends on naturally variable water flow, good water quality
and suitable habitat. This study will determine which research and
measures are necessary to improve the management of water control
structures in the basin. We support $100,000 in fiscal year 2011 to
complete the reconnaissance phase.
Middle Potomac River Watershed Comprehensive Study.--This study
will develop a comprehensive, multi-jurisdictional sustainable
management plan for the Middle Potomac watershed, balancing the
ecological functions and services provided by the river with the human
demands upon it. To help complete the watershed assessment, we support
$68,000 in fiscal year 2011.
Yellowstone River Corridor Comprehensive Study.--Funding this
ongoing study of economics, fisheries, and wetlands studies will help
ensure that the longest free-flowing river in the lower 48 States
maintains its natural functions while supporting irrigation and other
economic uses of its waters. The Conservancy supports $750,000 for
fiscal year 2011.
Susquehanna River Basin Low Flow Management and Environmental
Restoration.--Drought conditions, combined with current and projected
demands for water use, have the potential to impact natural ecosystems
in the Susquehanna River basin and the upper Chesapeake Bay. This
basin-wide study will investigate low flow conditions and establish
goals and standards for low flow management. The Conservancy supports
$400,000 in fiscal year 2011 for this project.
CORPS EXPENSES
Mid-Atlantic River Basin Commissions.--The Delaware, Potomac, and
Susquehanna River Basin Commissions are essential to advancing and
coordinating the water management and conservation interests of the
Federal Government, the affected States, and the Conservancy. Funding
was restored in fiscal year 2009, but it was not continued in fiscal
year 2010. The Conservancy requests that the Federal Government
continue support of the Commissions' work by appropriating $2,365,000
in fiscal year 2011.
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery and San Juan River
Basin Recovery Programs.--These programs take a balanced approach to
restore four endangered fish species in the Colorado River system while
allowing water use to continue in the arid West. A full appropriation
will fund work on remaining major capital projects. The Conservancy
supports $8,354,000 in fiscal year 2011 for these Programs.
Platte River Recovery Implementation Program.--An agreement between
the Governors of Wyoming, Nebraska and Colorado and the Secretary of
Interior sets forth a plan to restore habitat for five endangered or
threatened species in the Platte River basin. The Conservancy supports
$12,707,000 for this recovery effort in fiscal year 2011.
Basin Studies and WaterSMART.--Basin Studies are a component of the
new WaterSMART program that helps the Bureau of Reclamation address the
threat of climate change across our Nation's western waters. The Basin
Study being conducted on the Colorado River will assess and work to
resolve water supply and demand issues that may be exacerbated by
climate change, while considering impacts on the basin's ecological
resiliency. The WaterSMART program can complement that study by
delivering grants to local stakeholders developing mechanisms to
improve both water supply imbalances and environmental flows. The
Conservancy supports a $62 million appropriation to the Bureau of
Reclamation for the WaterSMART program in fiscal year 2011, including
$6 million for its Basin Studies.
Thank you for the opportunity to present our comments on the Energy
and Water Appropriations bill.
______
Prepared Statement of the Ventura Port District of California
Mr. Chairman: Thank you for the opportunity to present testimony on
behalf of the Ventura Port District of California. My name is Richard
W. Parsons. I am the Dredging Program Manager of the Port. The
President's fiscal year 2011 request within the operations, maintenance
and dredging component of the civil works budget for the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers is $2,840,000 for the annual dredging of Ventura
Harbor. Informal communications with the Corps indicate that $4,300,000
will be required to meet dredging needs of the port between October 1,
2010 and September 30, 2011. This higher amount is consistent with the
dredging requirements of the past several years. Accordingly, it is
respectfully requested that the Congress appropriate an additional
$1,460,000 beyond the President's request to meet anticipated Corps of
Engineer requirements. It is worthy of note that employment associated
with the commercial fishing industry in the Port of Ventura area is
directly related to the dredging activities of the Corps. An estimated
71 million pounds of seafood were unloaded at the facilities associated
with the Port of Ventura which provides significant employment in the
area. Thank you very much for your favorable consideration of this
request.
______
Prepared Statement of the City of Santa Barbara, California
OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE DREDGING--FUNDING REQUEST
As your distinguished subcommittee writes the fiscal year 2011
Energy and Water Resources Appropriations bill, I would like to bring a
very important Corps of Engineers' project to your attention. The city
of Santa Barbara requests $3,700,000 from the Army Corps of Engineers'
(ACOE) Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Account in fiscal year 2011
Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill for essential annual
maintenance dredging of Santa Barbara Harbor's Federal Navigational
Channel.
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION
In 1970 Congress authorized (Public Law 91-611, sec. 114) full
funding for ACOE maintenance dredging for the Harbor's Federal Channel
to reduce storm damage, shoaling and navigational hazards. Today more
than ever, the Harbor continues to serve and support our National
interests. The Harbor is home port for the 87 foot U.S. Coast Guard
Cutter Blackfin and NOAA R/V Shearwater serving Channel Islands
National Marine Sanctuary (CINMS). Blackfin's harbor location is
crucial to its mission of patrolling waters all the way to Morro Bay
(100 miles north) and is critical to ocean safety and rescue, together
with emerging Homeland Security Defense System (USCG) requirements
along the California coastline. Santa Barbara Harbor also provides a
staging area, facilities and resources required for oil spill
prevention and response, and is a designated harbor of safe refuge.
Santa Barbara Harbor was constructed in the late 1920's providing
the closest harbor of refuge to the notoriously dangerous waters off
Pt. Conception. Various improvements over the years have created an
all-weather harbor with 1,133 slips for vessels ranging from 20 feet to
150 feet in length serving hundreds of thousands of people annually.
The Harbor serves as a key economic engine for the city. In addition,
the Harbor both directly and indirectly creates several thousand jobs,
which are vital to the local economy, commercial fishing, businesses
and maritime industry.
Santa Barbara Harbor impedes the transport of sand downcoast
resulting in shoaling of the Federal Channel and potential coastal
erosion at several nearby coastal communities. The Corps of Engineers
conducted comprehensive studies of the harbor in the 1950's and
determined that annual dredging of the harbor was necessary to maintain
navigability and nourish downcoast beaches preventing erosion. It is
essential to dredge approximately 250,000 cubic meters (c.m.) of sand
from the Federal Channel every year to maintain access for the
commercial fishing fleet (annual catch is valued at $25 million), U.S.
Coast Guard Cutter Blackfin, NOAA R/V Shearwater serving Channel
Islands National Marine Sanctuary as well as thousands of recreational
vessels.
Annual dredging costs of the Federal Channel have recently been as
low as $1,650,000 for minimal critical maintenance dredging and can
cost over $3 million depending on winter storms and sand accumulation.
Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) contracts with a private dredge company
to undertake annual dredging between October and March of the fiscal
year.
A recap of the last several years demonstrates the continuing trend
of reduced dredge funding, which could impact Harbor operations and
eventually accumulated sand could close the channel during winter
storms.
Fiscal Year 2008: Conference.--$1,940,000
Fiscal Year 2009: Omnibus Bill.--$1,940,000
Fiscal Year 2010: Conference Report.--$1,606,000
FUNDING REQUEST
The President's fiscal year 2011 budget recommendation includes
$2,040,000 for operations and maintenance dredging for Santa Barbara
Harbor. I respectfully request that the U.S. Senate, through your
subcommittee, support that level of funding contained in the
President's budget submittal for dredging of the Harbor. In addition,
the city of Santa Barbara is requesting that the subcommittee recommend
an additional, $1.7 million for maintenance dredging for fiscal year
2011 (Total $3.7 million).
Dredging costs per cubic yards removed, have increased dramatically
in recent years. Due to these escalating costs, the Corp of Engineers
has increased the project costs to $3.7 million for maintaining the
Federal Channel in Santa Barbara Harbor.
We respectfully request your support for this requirement to
maintain the Federal Channel and thank you for the opportunity to
submit this statement.
______
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Reclamation
Prepared Statement of the Perkins County Rural Water System, Inc.
Perkins County Rural Water System, Inc. respectfully submits this
written testimony to the Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and
Water Development for appropriations of $3.142 million for fiscal year
2011. This project was authorized under Public Law 106-136.
Perkins County Rural Water System, Inc. (PCRWS) gained the approval
of the Office of Management and Budget and the Bureau of Reclamation to
proceed with construction in 2004. With funding for 2010, we have been
appropriated to date $16.9 million. In 2009 and 2010, we received $2.65
million and $1.0 million respectively. Three million dollars is
basically the lowest amount that we could receive and still do enough
construction to move our project forward. Cost share for the System is
75 percent Federal, 25 percent State and local funds. The State of
South Dakota has legislated to loan PCRWS the local share for 40 years
at 3 percent interest to keep costs down to the consumer. We have used
all of our State of South Dakota funds. With local and State funds to
date, we would now be able to cost share up to $36.4 million. Total
project funds are projected at $32.0 million to finish with $24 million
of that amount to be Federal funds.
BREAKDOWN FOR THE PROJECT FOR 2011 IS AS FOLLOWS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2010 BUDGET:
INCOME:
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION........................... $3,142,000
STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA........................... ..............
LOCAL FUNDS..................................... 25,000
---------------
TOTAL......................................... 3,167,000
EXPENSE:
NORTH DAKOTA STATE WATER COMMISSION............. 886,760
FINISH CONSTRUCTION ON DISTRIBUTION............. 2,280,240
---------------
TOTAL......................................... $3,167,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PCRWS would need $3.167 million for the next year to complete the
project by 2011. This consists of 250 miles of various pipe sizes
ranging from 1.5 inch to 8 inch, booster stations, and a pump station
capable of moving 800 gallons of water per minute, two or more storage
tanks and telemetry to operate the whole system from one localized
location.
The chart below shows the amount of Federal funds in comparison to
State and local funds. The amount of State and local funds has exceeded
the cost share for both. Therefore, all funds except for approximately
$25,000 per year will have to be Federal funds.
The quality of water in northwest South Dakota is the main concern
for the health and well being of the people. Although the water
typically meets primary standards established by the USEPA, most of the
dissolved solids are exceedingly high by the State of South Dakota
standards. Water quality and quantity in Perkins County, South Dakota
has been a plague for the county over many years.
Droughts, such as the one Perkins County is in now, are a fact of
life for the people in this area. With surface water gone and wells
being depleted, farmers and ranchers are desperately trying to hold
onto their livestock herds. Rains will raise grass and small crops, but
water for drinking is a constant problem for all.
On behalf of the Board of Directors of PCRWS and the people of
Perkins County, South Dakota, thank you for allowing us to enter this
testimony in the subcommittees report.
______
Prepared Statement of the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION--FISCAL YEAR 2011 APPROPRIATION
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum's
Recommendation:
Title II Program (Basinwide Program) Authorized in $17,500,000
1995 (Public Law 104-20)...........................
Colorado River Water Quality Improvement Program.... ( \1\ )
Paradox Valley Unit and Grand Valley Unit........... ( \1\ )
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Administration request.
This testimony is in support of funding for the title II Colorado
River Basin Salinity Control Program. The Congress has designated the
Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), to be
the lead agency for salinity control in the Colorado River Basin. This
role and the authorized program were refined and confirmed by the
Congress when Public Law 104-20 was enacted. A total of $17,500,000 is
requested for fiscal year 2011 to implement the needed and authorized
program. Failure to appropriate these funds will result in significant
economic damage in the United States and Mexico.
In recent years, the President's requests have dropped to below $10
million. The Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum (Forum) finds
this unacceptable. Reclamation has requests for funding of many very
cost-effective proposals through its Basinwide Program that far exceed
this funding level. In the judgment of the Forum, this amount is
inappropriately low. Water quality commitments to downstream United
States and Mexican water users must be honored while the Basin States
continue to develop their Colorado River Compact-apportioned waters.
Concentrations of salts in the river cause about $353 million in
quantified damage in the United States with significantly greater
unquantified damages. Damages occur from:
--A reduction in the yield of salt sensitive crops and increased
water use for leaching in the agricultural sector;
--A reduction in the useful life of galvanized water pipe systems,
water heaters, faucets, garbage disposals, clothes washers, and
dishwashers, and increased use of bottled water and water
softeners in the household sector;
--An increase in the use of water for cooling, and the cost of water
softening, and a decrease in equipment service life in the
commercial sector;
--An increase in the use of water and the cost of water treatment,
and an increase in sewer fees in the industrial sector;
--A decrease in the life of treatment facilities and pipelines in the
utility sector;
--Difficulty in meeting wastewater discharge requirements to comply
with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit
terms and conditions, and an increase in desalination and brine
disposal costs due to accumulation of salts in groundwater
basins; and
--Increased use of imported water for leaching and the cost of
desalination and brine disposal for recycled water.
The Forum, therefore, believes implementation of the program needs
to be accelerated to a level beyond that requested by the President in
the past.
The program authorized by the Congress in 1995 has proven to be
very successful and very cost effective. Proposals from the public and
private sector to implement salinity control strategies have far
exceeded the available funding and Reclamation has a backlog of
proposals. Reclamation continues to select the best and most cost-
effective proposals. Funds are available for the Colorado River Basin
States' cost sharing for the level of Federal funding requested by the
Forum. Water quality improvements accomplished under title II of the
Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act also benefit the quality of
water delivered to Mexico. Although the United States has always met
the commitments of the International Boundary & Water Commission's
(Commission) Minute No. 242 to Mexico with respect to water quality,
the United States Section of the Commission is currently addressing
Mexico's request for better water quality at the International
Boundary.
Some of the most cost-effective salinity control opportunities
occur when Reclamation can improve irrigation delivery systems at the
same time that the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) program is
working with landowners (irrigators) to improve the on-farm irrigation
systems. Through the USDA Environmental Quality Incentives Program,
adequate on-farm funds appear to be available and adequate Reclamation
funds are needed to maximize the effectiveness of the effort. These
salinity control efforts have secondary water conservation benefits at
the point of use and downstream at other points of use.
OVERVIEW
In 2000, the Congress reviewed the program as authorized in 1995.
Following hearings, and with administration support, the Congress
passed legislation that increased the ceiling authorized for this
program by $100 million. Reclamation has received cost-effective
proposals to move the program ahead and the Basin States have funds
available to cost-share up-front.
The Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program was originally
authorized by the Congress in 1974. The title I portion of the Colorado
River Basin Salinity Control Act responded to commitments that the
United States made, through Minute No. 242, to Mexico concerning the
quality of water being delivered to Mexico below Imperial Dam. Title II
of the Act established a program to respond to salinity control needs
of Colorado River water users in the United States and to comply with
the mandates of the then newly legislated Clean Water Act. Initially,
the Secretary of the Interior and Reclamation were given the lead
Federal role by the Congress. This testimony is in support of adequate
funding for the title II program.
After a decade of investigative and implementation efforts, the
Basin States concluded that the Salinity Control Act needed to be
amended. The Congress revised the act in 1984. That revision, while
leaving implementation of the salinity control policy with the
Secretary of the Interior, also gave new salinity control
responsibilities to the USDA and to the Bureau of Land Management
(BLM). The Congress has charged the administration with implementing
the most cost-effective program practicable (measured in dollars per
ton of salt removed). The Basin States are strongly supportive of that
concept as the Basin States cost share is 30 percent of Federal
expenditures up-front for the salinity control program, in addition to
proceeding to implement salinity control activities for which they are
responsible in the Colorado River Basin.
The Forum is composed of gubernatorial appointees from Arizona,
California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming. The Forum
has become the seven-State coordinating body for interfacing with
Federal agencies and the Congress to support the implementation of the
program necessary to control the salinity of the river system. In close
cooperation with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and pursuant
to requirements of the Clean Water Act, every 3 years the Forum
prepares a formal report analyzing the salinity of the Colorado River,
anticipated future salinity, and the program elements necessary to keep
the salinities at or below the concentrations in the river system in
1972 at Imperial Dam, and below Parker and Hoover Dams.
In setting water quality standards for the Colorado River system,
the salinity concentrations at these three locations have been
identified as the numeric criteria. The plan necessary for controlling
salinity and reducing downstream damages has been captioned the ``Plan
of Implementation.'' The 2008 Review of water quality standards
includes an updated Plan of Implementation. The level of appropriation
requested in this testimony is in keeping with the agreed upon plan. If
adequate funds are not appropriated, significant damages from the
higher salt concentrations in the water will be more widespread in the
United States and Mexico.
JUSTIFICATION
The $17.5 million requested by the Forum on behalf of the seven
Colorado River Basin States is the level of funding necessary to
proceed with Reclamation's portion of the Plan of Implementation. In
July 1995, the Congress amended the Colorado River Basin Salinity
Control Act. The amended act gives Reclamation new latitude and
flexibility in seeking the most cost-effective salinity control
opportunities, and it provides for utilization of proposals from
project proponents, as well as more involvement from the private as
well as the public sector. The result is that salt loading is being
prevented at costs often less than one-half the cost under the previous
program. The Congress recommitted its support for the revised program
when it enacted Public Law 106-459. The Basin States' cost sharing up-
front adds 43 cents for every Federal dollar appropriated. The
federally chartered Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Advisory
Council, created by the Congress in the Salinity Control Act, has met
and formally supports the requested level of funding. The Basin States
urge the Energy and Water Development Subcommittee to support the
funding as set forth in this testimony.
ADDITIONAL SUPPORT OF FUNDING
In addition to the funding identified above for the implementation
of the most recently authorized program, the Forum urges the Congress
to appropriate funds requested by the administration to continue to
maintain and operate salinity control facilities as they are completed
and placed into long-term operation. Reclamation has completed the
Paradox Valley unit which involves the collection of brines in the
Paradox Valley of Colorado and the injection of those brines into a
deep aquifer through an injection well. The continued operation of this
project and the Grand Valley Unit will be funded primarily through the
Facility Operations activity.
The Forum also supports funding to allow for continued general
investigation of the Salinity Control Program as requested by the
administration for the Colorado River Water Quality Improvement
Program. It is important that Reclamation have planning staff in place,
properly funded, so that the progress of the program can be analyzed,
coordination between various Federal and State agencies can be
accomplished, and future projects and opportunities to control salinity
can be properly planned to maintain the water quality standards for
salinity so that the Basin States can continue to develop their
Colorado River Compact-apportioned waters.
______
Prepared Statement of the Colorada River Commission of Nevada
Dear Chairman Dorgan: As a Nevada representative of the Colorado
River Basin Salinity Control Forum, the Colorado River Commission of
Nevada (CRCN) submits this written testimony in support of $17.5
million for funding the fiscal year 2011 budget for the Bureau of
Reclamation's Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program. The CRCN
urges the Congress to appropriate funds requested by the administration
to continue to maintain and operate salinity control facilities as they
are completed and placed into long-term operations. Reclamation has
completed the Paradox Valley Unit which involves the collection of
brines in the Paradox Valley of Colorado and the injection of those
brines into a deep aquifer through an injection well. The continued
operation of this project and the Grand Valley Unit will be funded
primarily through the Facility Operations activity. The CRCN also
supports funding to allow for continued general investigation of the
Salinity Control Program as requested by the administration for the
Colorado River Water Quality Improvement Program.
Salinity remains one of the major problems in the Colorado River.
Congress has recognized the need to confront this problem with its
passage of Public Law 93-320 and Public Law 98-569. Your support of the
Forum's current funding recommendations in support of the Colorado
River Basin Salinity Control Program is essential to move the program
forward so that the congressionally directed salinity objectives
embodied in Public Law 93-320 and Public Law 98-569 are achieved.
______
Prepared Statement of the Grand Valley Water Users Association
Dear Chairman Dorgan and Senator Bennett: We are requesting your
support for an appropriation in the President's recommended budget for
fiscal year 2011 of $8,354,000 to the Bureau of Reclamation within the
budget line item entitled ``Endangered Species Recovery Implementation
Program'' for the Upper Colorado Region. The funding designation we
seek is as follows: $7,154,000 for construction activities for the
Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program; $800,000 for
construction activities for the San Juan River Basin Recovery
Implementation Program; and $400,000 for Fish and Wildlife Management
and Development activities to avoid jeopardy. This funding is
authorized by Public Law 106-392, as amended.
These highly successful, cooperative programs are ongoing
partnerships among the States of New Mexico, Colorado, Utah and
Wyoming, Indian tribes, Federal agencies and water, power and
environmental interests. The programs' objectives are to recover
endangered fish species while water use and development proceeds in
compliance with the Endangered Species Act.
I appreciate the subcommittee's past support and request the
subcommittee's assistance for fiscal year 2011 funding to ensure the
Bureau of Reclamation's continuing financial participation in these
vitally important programs.
______
Prepared Statement of the Tri-County Water Conservancy District
Dear Chairman Dorgan and Senator Bennett: The Tri-County Water
Conservancy District Board respectfully requests your support for an
appropriation in the President's recommended budget for fiscal year
2011 of $8,354,000 to the Bureau of Reclamation within the budget line
item entitled ``Endangered Species Recovery Implementation Program''
for the Upper Colorado Region. The funding designation we seek is as
follows: $7,154,000 for construction activities for the Upper Colorado
River Endangered Fish Recovery Program; $800,000 for construction
activities for the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation
Program; and $400,000 for Fish and Wildlife Management and Development
activities to avoid jeopardy. This funding is authorized by Public Law
106-392, as amended.
These highly successful, cooperative programs are ongoing
partnerships among the States of New Mexico, Colorado, Utah and
Wyoming, Indian tribes, Federal agencies and water, power and
environmental interests. The programs' objectives are to recover
endangered fish species while water use and development proceeds in
compliance with the Endangered Species Act.
We appreciate the subcommittee's past support and request the
subcommittee's assistance for fiscal year 2011 funding to ensure the
Bureau of Reclamation's continuing financial participation in these
vitally important programs.
______
Prepared Statement of the Wyoming Water Association
Dear Chairman Dorgan and Senator Bennett: We are requesting your
support for an appropriation in the President's recommended budget for
fiscal year 2011 of $8,354,000 to the Bureau of Reclamation within the
budget line item entitled ``Endangered Species Recovery Implementation
Program'' for the Upper Colorado Region. The funding designation we
seek is as follows: $7,154,000 for construction activities for the
Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program; $800,000 for
construction activities for the San Juan River Basin Recovery
Implementation Program; and $400,000 for Fish and Wildlife Management
and Development activities to avoid jeopardy. This funding is
authorized by Public Law 106-392, as amended.
These highly successful, cooperative programs are ongoing
partnerships among the States of New Mexico, Colorado, Utah and
Wyoming, Indian tribes, Federal agencies and water, power and
environmental interests. The programs' objectives are to recover
endangered fish species while water use and development proceeds in
compliance with the Endangered Species Act.
I appreciate the subcommittee's past support and request the
subcommittee's assistance for fiscal year 2011 funding to ensure the
Bureau of Reclamation's continuing financial participation in these
vitally important programs.
______
Prepared Statement of The Nature Conservancy and Western Resources
Advocates
Dear Chairman Dorgan and Senator Bennett: We are requesting your
support for an appropriation in the President's recommended budget for
fiscal year 2011 of $8,354,000 to the Bureau of Reclamation within the
budget line item entitled ``Endangered Species Recovery Implementation
Program'' for the Upper Colorado Region. The funding designation we
seek is as follows: $7,154,000 for construction activities for the
Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program; $800,000 for
construction activities for the San Juan River Basin Recovery
Implementation Program; and $400,000 for Fish and Wildlife Management
and Development activities to avoid jeopardy. This funding is
authorized by Public Law 106-392, as amended.
These highly successful, cooperative programs are ongoing
partnerships among the States of New Mexico, Colorado, Utah and
Wyoming, Indian tribes, Federal agencies and water, power and
environmental interests. The programs' objectives are to recover
endangered fish species while water use and development proceeds in
compliance with the Endangered Species Act.
We appreciate the subcommittee's past support and request the
subcommittee's assistance for fiscal year 2011 funding to ensure the
Bureau of Reclamation's continuing financial participation in these
vitally important programs.
______
Prepared Statement of PNM Resources, Inc.
Dear Chairman Dorgan and Senator Bennett: We are requesting your
support for an appropriation in the President's recommended budget for
fiscal year 2011 of $8,354,000 to the Bureau of Reclamation within the
budget line item entitled ``Endangered Species Recovery Implementation
Program'' for the Upper Colorado Region. The funding designation we
seek is as follows: $7,154,000 for construction activities for the
Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program; $800,000 for
construction activities for the San Juan River Basin Recovery
Implementation Program; and $400,000 for Fish and Wildlife Management
and Development activities to avoid jeopardy. This funding is
authorized by Public Law 106-392, as amended.
These highly successful, cooperative programs are ongoing
partnerships among the States of New Mexico, Colorado, Utah and
Wyoming, Indian tribes, Federal agencies and water, power and
environmental interests. The programs' objectives are to recover
endangered fish species while water use and development proceeds in
compliance with the Endangered Species Act.
I appreciate the subcommittee's past support and request the
subcommittee's assistance for fiscal year 2011 funding to ensure the
Bureau of Reclamation's continuing financial participation in these
vitally important programs.
______
Prepares Statement of the Orchard Mesa Irrigation District
Dear Chairman Dorgan and Senator Bennett: We are requesting your
support for an appropriation in the President's recommended budget for
fiscal year 2011 of $8,354,000 to the Bureau of Reclamation within the
budget line item entitled ``Endangered Species Recovery Implementation
Program'' for the Upper Colorado Region. The funding designation we
seek is as follows: $7,154,000 for construction activities for the
Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program; $800,000 for
construction activities for the San Juan River Basin Recovery
Implementation Program; and $400,000 for Fish and Wildlife Management
and Development activities to avoid jeopardy. This funding is
authorized by Public Law 106-392, as amended.
These highly successful, cooperative programs are ongoing
partnerships among the States of New Mexico, Colorado, Utah and
Wyoming, Indian tribes, Federal agencies and water, power and
environmental interests. The programs' objectives are to recover
endangered fish species while water use and development proceeds in
compliance with the Endangered Species Act.
I appreciate the subcommittee's past support and request the
subcommittee's assistance for fiscal year 2011 funding to ensure the
Bureau of Reclamation's continuing financial participation in these
vitally important programs.
______
Prepared Statement of the State of Wyoming
Dear Chairman Dorgan and Senator Bennett: I am Requesting your
support for the appropriation of $8,354,000 to the Bureau of
Reclamation included in the Presidents fiscal year 2011 recommended
budget in the Upper Colorado Region budget line-item entitled
``Endangered Species Recovery Implementation Program.'' This budget
line-item designates $800,000 for construction and construction
management activities for the San Juan River Basin Recovery
Implementation Program; $7,154,000 for construction and construction
management activities for the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish
Recovery Program; and $400,000 for Fish and Wildlife Management and
Development activities to avoid jeopardy.
The Upper Colorado and San Juan recovery programs are highly
successful collaborative conservation partnerships working to recover
the four species of endemic Colorado River fish on the Federal
endangered species list; while at the same time water use and
development has been able to continue in our growing western
communities. These programs are unique efforts involving the States of
New Mexico, Colorado, Utah and Wyoming, Indian tribes, Federal agencies
and water, power and environmental interests. They are achieving
Endangered Species Act (ESA) compliance for water projects and fully
complying with interstate river compacts and the participating States'
water law.
Since 1988, the two programs, collectively, have provided ESA
section 7 compliance (without litigation) for over 1,850 Federal,
tribal, State and privately managed water projects depleting more than
3.7 million acre-feet of water per year. The Department of the Interior
recognized these programs with its nation-wide Cooperative Conservation
Award in April 2008 as outstanding collaborative partnerships
accomplishing substantial on-the-ground conservation results.
Substantial non-Federal cost-sharing funding exceeding 50 percent is
embodied in both programs.
As we do each year in support of these two region-wide cooperative
recovery programs, the State of Wyoming again requests the
subcommittee's assistance: it is absolutely essential that fiscal year
2011 funding be provided within the Bureau of Reclamation's budget
appropriation to assure that agency's continued financial participation
as directed by Public Law 106-392, as amended.
The State of Wyoming thanks you for the past support and assistance
of your subcommittee; it has greatly facilitated the ongoing and
continued success of these multi-state, multi-agency programs.
______
Prepared Statement of the State of Colorado
Dear Chairman Dorgan and Senator Bennett: I am Requesting your
support for the appropriation of $8,354,000 to the Bureau of
Reclamation included in the Presidents fiscal year 2011 recommended
budget in the Upper Colorado Region budget line-item entitled
``Endangered Species Recovery Implementation Program.'' This budget
line-item designates the following: $800,000 for construction and
construction management activities for the San Juan River Basin
Recovery Implementation Program; $7,154,000 for construction and
construction management activities for the Upper Colorado River
Endangered Fish Recovery Program; and $400,000 for Fish and Wildlife
Management and Development activities to avoid jeopardy.
The Upper Colorado and San Juan recovery programs are highly
successful collaborative conservation partnerships working to recover
the four species of endemic Colorado River fish on the Federal
endangered species list; while at the same time water use and
development has been able to continue in our growing western
communities. These programs involve New Mexico, Colorado, Utah and
Wyoming, Indian tribes, multiple Federal agencies and water, power and
environmental interests in providing Endangered Species Act (ESA)
compliance for water projects in the region. They also fully complying
with interstate river compacts and the participating States' water law.
Since 1988, the two programs have collectively provided ESA section
7 compliance (without litigation) for over 1,850 Federal, tribal, State
and privately managed water projects. The Department of the Interior
recognized these programs as outstanding collaborative partnerships
with its nation-wide Cooperative Conservation Award in April 2008
accomplishing substantial on-the-ground conservation results.
Substantial non-Federal cost-sharing funding, exceeding 50 percent, is
embodied in both programs.
As I have done in the past, I am writing to support these two
region-wide cooperative recovery programs. On behalf of the State of
Colorado, I request the subcommittee's assistance. It is essential that
fiscal year 2011 funding be provided within the Bureau of Reclamation's
budget appropriation to assure that agency's continued financial
participation, as directed by Public Law 106-392.
On behalf of the State of Colorado, I thank you for the continued
support and assistance of your subcommittee; it has greatly facilitated
the ongoing and continued success of these multi-state and multi-agency
programs.
______
Prepared Statement of the State of New Mexico
Dear Chairman Dorgan and Senator Bennett: I am Requesting your
support for the appropriation of $8,354,000 to the Bureau of
Reclamation included in the Presidents fiscal year 2011 recommended
budget in the Upper Colorado Region budget line-item entitled
``Endangered Species Recovery Implementation Program.'' This budget
line-item designates $800,000 for construction and construction
management activities for the San Juan River Basin Recovery
Implementation Program; $7,154,000 for construction and construction
management activities for the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish
Recovery Program; and $400,000 for Fish and Wildlife Management and
Development activities to avoid jeopardy.
The Upper Colorado and San Juan recovery programs are highly
successful collaborative conservation partnerships working to recover
the four species of endemic Colorado River fish on the Federal
endangered species list. These programs are unique efforts involving
the States of New Mexico, Colorado, Utah and Wyoming, Indian tribes,
Federal agencies and water, power and environmental interests. The
programs provide Endangered Species Act (ESA) compliance for historic
and developing water projects throughout the Upper Colorado River and
San Juan River basins, and respect State water laws and interstate
compacts. The requested fiscal year 2011 appropriation for the San Juan
River recovery program includes funding to construct a fish screen to
prevent entrainment of endangered fish by diversions for historic
Navajo tribal water uses in New Mexico.
Since 1988, the two programs, collectively, have provided ESA
section 7 compliance (without litigation) for over 1,850 Federal,
tribal, State and privately managed water projects depleting more than
3.7 million acre-feet of water per year. The Department of the Interior
recognized these programs with its nation-wide Cooperative Conservation
Award in April 2008 as outstanding collaborative partnerships
accomplishing substantial on-the-ground conservation results.
Substantial non-Federal cost-sharing funding exceeding 50 percent is
embodied in both programs.
The past support and assistance of your subcommittee has greatly
facilitated the success of these multi-state, multi-agency programs.
The State of New Mexico gratefully thanks you for that support. We
again request the subcommittee's assistance for fiscal year 2011
funding to ensure the Bureau of Reclamation's continuing financial
participation in these two region-wide cooperative recovery programs as
authorized and directed by Public Law 106-392, as amended.
______
Prepared Statement of the San Juan Water Commission
Dear Chairman Dorgan and Senator Bennett: We are requesting your
support for an appropriation in the President's recommended budget for
fiscal year 2011 of $8,354,000 to the Bureau of Reclamation within the
budget line item entitled ``Endangered Species Recovery Implementation
Program'' for the Upper Colorado Region. The funding designation we
seek is as follows: $7,154,000 for construction activities for the
Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program; $800,000 for
construction activities for the San Juan River Basin Recovery
Implementation Program; and $400,000 for Fish and Wildlife Management
and Development activities to avoid jeopardy. This funding is
authorized by Pulic Law 106-392, as amended.
These highly successful, cooperative programs are ongoing
partnerships among the States of New Mexico, Colorado, Utah and
Wyoming, Indian tribes, Federal agencies and water, power and
environmental interests. The programs' objectives are to recover
endangered fish species while water use and development proceeds in
compliance with the Endangered Species Act.
I appreciate the subcommittee's past support and request the
subcommittee's assistance for fiscal year 2011 funding to ensure the
Bureau of Reclamation's continuing financial participation in these
vitally important programs.
______
Prepared Statement of the Central Utah Water Conservancy District
Dear Chairman Dorgan and Senator Bennett: We are requesting your
support for an appropriation in the President's recommended budget for
fiscal year 2011 of $8,354,000 to the Bureau of Reclamation within the
budget line item entitled ``Endangered Species Recovery Implementation
Program'' for the Upper Colorado Region. The funding designation we
seek is as follows: $7,154,000 for construction activities for the
Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program; $800,000 for
construction activities for the San Juan River Basin Recovery
Implementation Program; and $400,000 for Fish and Wildlife Management
and Development activities to avoid jeopardy. This funding is
authorized by Public Law 106-392, as amended.
These highly successful, cooperative programs are ongoing
partnerships among the States of New Mexico, Colorado, Utah and
Wyoming, Indian tribes, Federal agencies and water, power and
environmental interests. The programs' objectives are to recover
endangered fish species while water use and development proceeds in
compliance with the Endangered Species Act.
I appreciate the subcommittee's past support and request the
subcommittee's assistance for fiscal year 2011 funding to ensure the
Bureau of Reclamation's continuing financial participation in these
vitally important programs.
______
Prepared Statement of the Colorado Water Congress
Dear Chairman Dorgan and Senator Bennett: We are requesting your
support for an appropriation in the President's recommended budget for
fiscal year 2011 of $8,354,000 to the Bureau of Reclamation within the
budget line item entitled ``Endangered Species Recovery Implementation
Program'' for the Upper Colorado Region. The funding designation we
seek is as follows: $7,154,000 for construction activities for the
Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program; $800,000 for
construction activities for the San Juan River Basin Recovery
Implementation Program; and $400,000 for Fish and Wildlife Management
and Development activities to avoid jeopardy. This funding is
authorized by Public Law 106-392, as amended.
These highly successful, cooperative programs are ongoing
partnerships among the States of New Mexico, Colorado, Utah and
Wyoming, Indian tribes, Federal agencies and water, power and
environmental interests. The programs' objectives are to recover
endangered fish species while water use and development proceeds in
compliance with the Endangered Species Act.
I appreciate the subcommittee's past support and request the
subcommittee's assistance for fiscal year 2011 funding to ensure the
Bureau of Reclamation's continuing financial participation in these
vitally important programs.
______
Prepared Statement of the Southern Ute Indian Tribe
Dear Chairman Dorgan and Senator Bennett: On behalf of the Southern
Ute Indian Tribe, I am requesting your support for an appropriation in
the President's recommended budget for fiscal year 2011 of $8,354,000
to the Bureau of Reclamation (``Reclamation'') within the budget line
item entitled ``Endangered Species Recovery Implementation Program''
for the Upper Colorado Region. The funding designation the tribe seeks
on behalf of Reclamation is as follows: $7,154,000 for construction
activities for the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery
Program; $800,000 for construction activities for the San Juan River
Basin Recovery Implementation Program; and $400,000 for Fish and
Wildlife Management and Development activities to avoid jeopardy. This
funding is authorized by Public Law 106-392, as amended.
These highly successful, cooperative programs are ongoing
partnerships among the States of New Mexico, Colorado, Utah and
Wyoming, the Southern Ute Indian Tribe, the Ute Mountain Ute Indian
Tribe, the Navajo Nation, and the Jicarilla Apache Nation, Federal
agencies and water, power and environmental interests. The programs'
objectives are to recover endangered fish species while water use and
development proceeds in compliance with the Endangered Species Act.
The tribe appreciates the subcommittee's past support and requests
the subcommittee's assistance for fiscal year 2011 funding to ensure
Reclamation's continuing financial participation in these vitally
important programs.
______
Prepared Statement of Denver Water
Dear Chairman Dorgan and Senator Bennett: We are requesting your
support for an appropriation in the President's recommended budget for
fiscal year 2011 of $8,354,000 to the Bureau of Reclamation within the
budget line item entitled ``Endangered Species Recovery Implementation
Program'' for the Upper Colorado Region. The funding designation we
seek is as follows: $7,154,000 for construction activities for the
Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program; $800,000 for
construction activities for the San Juan River Basin Recovery
Implementation Program; and $400,000 for Fish and Wildlife Management
and Development activities to avoid jeopardy. This funding is
authorized by Public Law 106-392, as amended.
These highly successful, cooperative programs are ongoing
partnerships among the States of New Mexico, Colorado, Utah and
Wyoming, Indian tribes, Federal agencies and water, power and
environmental interests. The programs' objectives are to recover
endangered fish species while water use and development proceeds in
compliance with the Endangered Species Act.
I appreciate the subcommittee's past support and request the
subcommittee's assistance for fiscal year 2011 funding to ensure the
Bureau of Reclamation's continuing financial participation in these
vitally important programs.
______
Prepared Statement of the Colorado River Energy Distributors
Association (CREDA)
Dear Chairman Dorgan and Senator Bennett: We are requesting your
support for an appropriation in the President's recommended budget for
fiscal year 2011 of $8,354,000 to the Bureau of Reclamation within the
budget line item entitled ``Endangered Species Recovery Implementation
Program'' for the Upper Colorado Region. The funding designation we
seek is as follows: $7,154,000 for construction activities for the
Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program; $800,000 for
construction activities for the San Juan River Basin Recovery
Implementation Program; and $400,000 for Fish and Wildlife Management
and Development activities to avoid jeopardy. This funding is
authorized by Public Law 106-392, as amended.
CREDA is a non-profit organization representing the majority of the
firm electric service customers of the Colorado River Storage Project.
CREDA has participated in these programs since inception, and power
revenues have been a key funding source of the programs. These ongoing
partnerships among the States of New Mexico, Colorado, Utah and
Wyoming, Indian tribes, Federal agencies and water, power and
environmental interests are intended to recover endangered fish species
while water use and development proceeds in compliance with the
Endangered Species Act.
We appreciate the subcommittee's past support and request the
subcommittee's assistance for fiscal year 2011 funding to ensure the
Bureau of Reclamation's continuing financial participation in these
vitally important programs.
______
Prepared Statement of The Jicarilla Apache Nation
Dear Chairman Dorgan and Senator Bennett: On behalf of the
Jicarilla Apache Nation, I am requesting your support for an
appropriation in the President's recommended budget for fiscal year
2011 of $8,354,000 to the Bureau of Reclamation within the budget line
item entitled ``Endangered Species Recovery Implementation Program''
for the Upper Colorado Region. The funding designation is as follows:
$7,154,000 for construction activities for the Upper Colorado River
Endangered Fish Recovery Program; $800,000 for construction activities
for the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program; and
$400,000 for Fish and Wildlife Management and Development activities to
avoid jeopardy. This funding is authorized by Public Law 106-392, as
amended.
The Nation has been a voluntary participant in the highly
successful and widely supported program to recover endangered fish
species in the San Juan River basin since 1992 and fully supports the
same effort underway in the Upper Colorado River. More than 1,800
Federal, tribal and non-Federal water projects are involved in the
recovery efforts, these actions have resulted in compliance with the
Endangered Species Act.
I appreciate the subcommittee's past support and request the
subcommittee's assistance for fiscal year 2011 funding to ensure the
Bureau of Reclamation's continuing financial participation in these
vitally important programs.
______
Prepared Statement of The Southwestern Water Conservation District
Dear Chairman Dorgan and Senator Bennett: We are requesting your
support for an appropriation in the President's recommended budget for
fiscal year 2011 of $8,354,000 to the Bureau of Reclamation within the
budget line item entitled ``Endangered Species Recovery Implementation
Program'' for the Upper Colorado Region. The funding designation we
seek is as follows: $7,154,000 for construction activities for the
Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program; $800,000 for
construction activities for the San Juan River Basin Recovery
Implementation Program; and $400,000 for Fish and Wildlife Management
and Development activities to avoid jeopardy. This funding is
authorized by Public Law 106-392, as amended.
These highly successful, cooperative programs are ongoing
partnerships among the States of New Mexico, Colorado, Utah and
Wyoming, Indian tribes, Federal agencies and water, power and
environmental interests. The programs' objectives are to recover
endangered fish species while water use and development proceeds in
compliance with the Endangered Species Act.
I appreciate the subcommittee's past support and request the
subcommittee's assistance for fiscal year 2011 funding to ensure the
Bureau of Reclamation's continuing financial participation in these
vitally important programs.
______
Prepared Statement of the Uncompahgre Valley Water Users Association
Dear Chairman Dorgan and Senator Bennett: We are requesting your
support for an appropriation in the President's recommended budget for
fiscal year 2011 of $8,354,000 to the Bureau of Reclamation within the
budget line item entitled ``Endangered Species Recovery Implementation
Program'' for the Upper Colorado Region. The funding designation we
seek is as follows: $7,154,000 for construction activities for the
Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program; $800,000 for
construction activities for the San Juan River Basin Recovery
Implementation Program; and $400,000 for Fish and Wildlife Management
and Development activities to avoid jeopardy. This funding is
authorized by Public Law 106-392, as amended.
These highly successful, cooperative programs are ongoing
partnerships among the States of New Mexico, Colorado, Utah and
Wyoming, Indian tribes, Federal agencies and water, power and
environmental interests. The programs' objectives are to recover
endangered fish species while water use and development proceeds in
compliance with the Endangered Species Act.
I appreciate the subcommittee's past support and request the
subcommittee's assistance for fiscal year 2011 funding to ensure the
Bureau of Reclamation's continuing financial participation in these
vitally important programs.
______
Prepared Statement of the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District
Dear Chairman Dorgan and Senator Bennett: On behalf of the Board of
Directors of the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District (Northern
Water), I am requesting your support for an appropriation in the
President's recommended budget for fiscal year 2011 of $8,354,000 to
the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation within the budget line item entitled
``Endangered Species Recovery Implementation Program'' for the Upper
Colorado Region. The funding designation we seek is as follows:
$7,154,000 for construction activities for the Upper Colorado River
Endangered Fish Recovery Program; $800,000 for construction activities
for the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program; and
$400,000 for Fish and Wildlife Management and Development activities to
avoid jeopardy. This funding is authorized by Public Law 106-392, as
amended.
These highly successful, cooperative programs are ongoing
partnerships among: the States of New Mexico, Colorado, Utah and
Wyoming; Indian tribes; Federal agencies; and water, power and
environmental interests. The programs' objectives are to recover
endangered fish species while water usage and development continue in
compliance with the Endangered Species Act.
Northern Water appreciates the subcommittee's past support and
requests the subcommittee's assistance for fiscal year 2011 funding to
ensure the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation's continuing financial
participation in these vitally important programs.
______
Prepared Statement of Aurora Water
Dear Chairman Dorgan and Senator Bennett: We are requesting your
support for an appropriation in the President's recommended budget for
fiscal year 2011 of $8,354,000 to the Bureau of Reclamation within the
budget line item entitled ``Endangered Species Recovery Implementation
Program'' for the Upper Colorado Region. The funding designation we
seek is as follows: $7,154,000 for construction activities for the
Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program; $800,000 for
construction activities for the San Juan River Basin Recovery
Implementation Program; and $400,000 for Fish and Wildlife Management
and Development activities to avoid jeopardy. This funding is
authorized by Public Law 106-392, as amended.
These highly successful, cooperative programs are ongoing
partnerships among the States of New Mexico, Colorado, Utah and
Wyoming, Indian tribes, Federal agencies and water, power and
environmental interests. The programs' objectives are to recover
endangered fish species while water use and development proceeds in
compliance with the Endangered Species Act.
I appreciate the subcommittee's past support and request the
subcommittee's assistance for fiscal year 2011 funding to ensure the
Bureau of Reclamation's continuing financial participation in these
vitally important programs.
______
Prepared Statement of the Colorado River Board of California
This testimony is in support of fiscal year 2011 funding for the
Department of the Interior for the title II Colorado River Basin
Salinity Control Program (Public Law 93-320). By statute, Congress
designated the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation
(Reclamation) to be the lead agency for salinity control in the
Colorado River Basin. This successful and cost effective program is
carried out pursuant to the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act
and the Clean Water Act (Public Law 92-500). California's Colorado
River water users are presently suffering economic damages in the
hundreds of million of dollars per year due to the River's salinity.
The Colorado River Board of California (Colorado River Board) is
the State agency charged with protecting California's interests and
rights in the water and power resources of the Colorado River system.
In this capacity, California and the other six basin States through the
Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum (Forum), the interstate
organization responsible for coordinating the basin States' salinity
control efforts, established numeric criteria in June 1975 for salinity
concentrations in the River. These criteria were established to lessen
the future damages in the Lower Basin States, as well as, assist the
United States in delivering water of adequate quality to Mexico in
accordance with Minute 242 of the International Boundary and Water
Commission.
To date, Reclamation has been successful in implementing projects
for preventing salt from entering the River system; however, many more
potential projects for salt reduction have been identified that could
be implemented through Reclamation's Basin-wide Salinity Control
Program. In the past, the Forum has presented testimony to Congress in
which it has stated that the rate of implementation of the program
beyond that which has been funded in the past is essential. This is
still the case, and California urges the Congress to fully fund
Reclamation's continuing implementation of this critical program.
In 2000, Congress reviewed the salinity control program as
authorized in 1995. Following hearings, and with the administration's
support, the Congress passed legislation (Public Law 106-459) that
increased the ceiling authorization for this program from $75 million
to $175 million. Reclamation has received proposals to move the program
ahead and the seven basin States have agreed to up-front cost sharing
on an annual basis, which adds 43 cents for every Federal dollar
appropriated.
In recent years, the Bureau of Reclamation's Basin-wide Salinity
Control Program funding has dropped to below $10 million. In the
judgment of the Forum, this amount is inappropriately low. Water
quality commitments to downstream U.S. and Mexican water users must be
honored while the basin States continue to develop their Compact
apportioned waters from the Colorado River. Concentrations of salts in
the River cause about $376 million in quantified damage in the United
States. However significant un-quantified damages also, occur. For
example, damages occur from:
--A reduction in the yield of salt sensitive crops and increased
water use for leaching in the agricultural sector;
--A reduction in the useful life of galvanized water pipe systems,
water heaters, faucets, garbage disposals, clothes washers, and
dishwashers, and increased use of bottled water and water
softeners in the household sector;
--An increase in the use of water for cooling, and the cost of water
softening, and a decrease in equipment service life in the
commercial sector;
--An increase in the use of water and the cost of water treatment,
and an increase in sewer fees in the industrial sector;
--A decrease in the life of treatment facilities and pipelines in the
utility sector;
--Difficulty in meeting wastewater discharge requirements to comply
with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit
terms and conditions, an increase in desalination and brine
disposal costs due to accumulation of salts in groundwater
basins, and fewer opportunities for recycling and reuse of the
water due to groundwater quality deterioration; and
--Increased use of imported water for leaching and the cost of
desalination and brine disposal for recycled water.
For every 30 milligram per liter increase in salinity
concentrations, there are $75 million in additional damages in the
United States. The Forum, therefore, believes implementation of the
program needs to be accelerated to a level beyond that which has been
requested by the administration for the past recent years.
Some of the most cost-effective salinity control opportunities
occur when Reclamation can improve irrigation delivery systems in a
coordinated fashion with the activities of the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's (USDA) program through working with landowners
(irrigators) to improve on-farm irrigation systems. With the USDA's
Environmental Quality Incentive Program, more on-farm funds are
available and adequate funds for Reclamation are needed to maximize
Reclamation's effectiveness in addressing water delivery system
improvements. The Advisory Council, at its meeting in October 2009, in
Phoenix, Arizona, recommended a funding level of $17,500,000 for
Reclamation's Basin-wide Salinity Control Program to continue
implementation of needed projects.
In addition, the Colorado River Board recognizes that the Federal
Government has made significant commitments to the Republic of Mexico
and to the seven Colorado River Basin States with regard to the
delivery of quality water to Mexico. In order for those commitments to
be honored, it is essential that in fiscal year 2011, and in future
fiscal years, that Congress provide funds to the Bureau of Reclamation
for the continued operation of completed projects.
The Colorado River is, and will continue to be, a major and vital
water resource to the 18 million residents of southern California,
including municipal, industrial, and agricultural water users in
Ventura, Los Angeles, San Bernardino, Orange, Riverside, San Diego, and
Imperial counties. Preservation and improvement of Colorado River water
quality through an effective salinity control program will avoid the
additional economic damages to users in California and the other States
that rely on the Colorado River.
______
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 2011 proposed budgets for the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation)
and the Western Area Power Administration (Western).
IEDA is an Arizona nonprofit association whose 26 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 other public power providers and their
consumers.
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
IEDA has reviewed the Reclamation budget and found, not
unexpectedly, that it does not address the enormous backlog of needs of
the agency's aging infrastructure. We are aware, for example, that the
Imperial Dam Electrification Project needs $5 million, money that will
be repaid to the Treasury with interest. However, we do support
important projects and programs that are included in the proposed
budget. We are especially mindful that the Yuma Desalting Plant is
undergoing a pilot project, which is an essential 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 improved by using the plant as a
management element.
We also wish to call to the subcommittee's attention the issue
concerning increased security costs at Reclamation facilities post-9/
11. Legislation has passed Congress addressing that issue and a budget
approved for Reclamation for fiscal year 2011 should reflect that this
legislation became law and affects Reclamation operations. We believe
security costs under that legislation should be reduced because of a
declining Consumer Price Index.
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 over the limited appropriation for
construction funding proposed for fiscal year 2011. 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. Moreover, the region
is projected, by all utilities operating in the region, to be short of
available generation in the 10-year planning window that utilities and
Western use.
The appropriation proposed 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, 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 proposed by the Arizona Power Authority in a
partnership with Western died because it was enmeshed in bureaucratic
red tape at the Department of Energy. There is no way that Western
customers can develop contracts, have them reviewed, gain approval of
these contracts from Western and their own governing bodies, find
financing on Wall Street and have monies available for the next fiscal
year. It is just impossible, especially in this economy.
There are impediments to using existing Federal laws to facilitate
non-Federal financing for construction of Federal electric transmission
facilities and Congress should eliminate them. In the meantime,
artificially designating customer funding for construction, in lieu of
real solutions, is bad public policy and should not be countenanced. We
urge the subcommittee to restore a reasonable amount of additional
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 APS
Dear Chairman Dorgan and Senator Bennett: We are requesting your
support for an appropriation in the President's recommended budget for
fiscal year 2011 of $8,354,000 to the Bureau of Reclamation within the
budget line item entitled ``Endangered Species Recovery Implementation
Program'' for the Upper Colorado Region. The funding designation we
seek is as follows: $7,154,000 for construction activities for the
Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program; $800,000 for
construction activities for the San Juan River Basin Recovery
Implementation Program; and $400,000 for Fish and Wildlife Management
and Development activities to avoid jeopardy. This funding is
authorized by Public Law 106-392, as amended.
These highly successful, cooperative programs are ongoing
partnerships among the States of New Mexico, Colorado, Utah and
Wyoming, Indian tribes, Federal agencies and water, power and
environmental interests. The programs' objectives are to recover
endangered fish species while water use and development proceeds in
compliance with the Endangered Species Act.
I appreciate the subcommittee's past support and request the
subcommittee's assistance for fiscal year 2011 funding to ensure the
Bureau of Reclamation's continuing financial participation in these
vitally important programs.
______
Prepared Statement of the Dolores Water Conservancy District
Dear Chairman Dorgan and Senator Bennett: We are requesting your
support for an appropriation in the President's recommended budget for
fiscal year 2011 of $8,354,000 to the Bureau of Reclamation within the
budget line item entitled ``Endangered Species Recovery Implementation
Program'' for the Upper Colorado Region. The funding designation we
seek is as follows: $7,154,000 for construction activities for the
Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program; $800,000 for
construction activities for the San Juan River Basin Recovery
Implementation Program; and $400,000 for Fish and Wildlife Management
and Development activities to avoid jeopardy. This funding is
authorized by Public Law 106-392, as amended.
These highly successful, cooperative programs are ongoing
partnerships among the States of New Mexico, Colorado, Utah and
Wyoming, Indian tribes, Federal agencies and water, power and
environmental interests. The programs' objectives are to recover
endangered fish species while water use and development proceeds in
compliance with the Endangered Species Act.
I appreciate the subcommittee's past support and request the
subcommittee's assistance for fiscal year 2011 funding to ensure the
Bureau of Reclamation's continuing financial participation in these
vitally important programs.
______
Prepared Statement of Colorado Springs Utilities
Dear Chairman Dorgan and Senator Bennett: We are requesting your
support for an appropriation in the President's recommended budget for
fiscal year 2011 of $8,354,000 to the Bureau of Reclamation within the
budget line item entitled ``Endangered Species Recovery Implementation
Program'' for the Upper Colorado Region. The funding designation we
seek is as follows: $7,154,000 for construction activities for the
Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program; $800,000 for
construction activities for the San Juan River Basin Recovery
Implementation Program; and $400,000 for Fish and Wildlife Management
and Development activities to avoid jeopardy. This funding is
authorized by Public Law 106-392, as amended.
These highly successful, cooperative programs are ongoing
partnerships among the States of New Mexico, Colorado, Utah and
Wyoming, Indian tribes, Federal agencies and water, power and
environmental interests. The programs' objectives are to recover
endangered fish species while water use and development proceeds in
compliance with the Endangered Species Act.
I appreciate the subcommittee's past support and request the
subcommittee's assistance for fiscal year 2011 funding to ensure the
Bureau of Reclamation's continuing financial participation in these
vitally important programs.
______
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
FISCAL YEAR 2011 REQUEST
The Mni Wiconi Project beneficiaries respectfully request $37.222
million in appropriations for construction and $11.093 million for
operation and maintenance (OMR) activities for fiscal year 2011, a
total request of $48.315 million:
FISCAL YEAR 2011 TOTAL REQUEST
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Construction............................................ $37,222,000
OMR..................................................... 11,093,000
---------------
Total............................................. 48,315,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The construction request includes $1.0 million for Bureau of
Reclamation oversight, and the OMR request includes $1.447 million for
Bureau of Reclamation oversight.
construction funds
Construction funds would be utilized as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Construction
Project Area Request Fiscal
Year 2011
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oglala Sioux Rural Water Supply System:
Core................................................ ( \1\ )
Distribution........................................ $22,069,000
Wesr River/Lyman-Jones RWS.............................. 3,719,000
Rosebud RWS............................................. 11,434,000
---------------
Total............................................. 37,222,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Complete.
As shown in the table below, the project will be 88 percent
complete at the end of fiscal year 2010. Construction funds remaining
to be spent after fiscal year 2010 will total $54.518 million within
the current authorization (in October 2009 dollars). Additional
administrative and overhead costs of extending the project, additional
construction costs, and inflation at 3.7 percent over the next 3 years
are expected to increase remaining project costs to $111.667 million
after fiscal year 2010.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Federal Construction Funding (Oct 2009 dollars)... $460,014,364
Estinated Federal Spent Through Fiscal Year 2010........ $405,496,000
Percent Spent Through Fiscal Year 2010.................. 88.15
Amount Remaining after 2010:
Total Authorized (Oct 2009 dollars)................. $54,518,364
Adjusted for Extension to Fiscal Year 2013 and Other $103,958,000
Cost...............................................
Adjusted for Annual Inflation....................... $111,667,000
Completion Fiscal Year (Statutory Fiscal Year 2013; 2013
Public Law 111-161)....................................
Year to Complete........................................ 3
Average Annual Required for Finish in Fiscal Year 2013.. $37,222,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost indexing over the last 5 years has averaged 3.66 percent for
pipelines, primarily due to a 7.7 percent reduction last year during
recession. Pipelines are the principal components yet to be completed
(see chart below). Assuming average 3.66 percent inflation in
construction costs over the remaining 3 years, average funding of
$37.222 million is required.
This is an increase in the annual rate of appropriations needed to
complete the project since last year's estimate of $31.4 million.
Appropriations were limited to $22 million last year, which increases
the average annual rate of funding needed to complete in 2013 on the
statutory schedule.
The request will create an estimated 298 full-time equivalent (FTE)
construction jobs and 89 OMR jobs in an area of the Nation with the
lowest per capita income and deepest poverty.
OGLALA SIOUX RURAL WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM (OSRWSS)
Core System
The Oglala Sioux Tribe has completed the core system. The
completion of the OSRWSS core system was an historic milestone and
permits greater focus in remaining years of the Project on completion
of the distribution systems.
Distribution System
The Pine Ridge Indian Reservation will receive significantly more
water from the OSRWSS core system in fiscal year 2010. This is another
historic year, but considerable work remains to distribute the water
supply throughout the reservation. Over 40 percent of the project's
population resides on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation, and only 52
percent of the distribution system is complete. The reservation public
received its first Missouri River supply in small amounts in 2009 after
waiting 15 years for construction of core facilities to the
reservation.
Project funds in fiscal year 2011 will continue building the on-
reservation transmission system between the community of Wounded Knee
and Pine Ridge Village. The latter community is the largest on the
reservation and the point of greatest demand. Funding will also be used
for transmission and service line development east of Pine Ridge
Village toward Wakpamni, Batesland and Allen and south toward the
Nebraska State line where groundwater is the most feasible water source
for the future. This area has been deferred in the past due to funding
constraints.
Delivery of Missouri River water to Kyle in fiscal year 2010,
delayed due to funding, will allow distribution to completed OSRWSS
pipelines 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.
Fiscal year 2011 funds will be used to extend service south of Wanblee
to Hisle.
As set forth above, activity on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation
in fiscal year 2011 continues to focus on constructing the transmission
system that serves as the ``backbone'' of the project on the
reservation from the White River in the northeast corner of the
reservation to Pine Ridge Village. The tribe will continue focus on the
disinfection requirements to blend Missouri River water and high
quality groundwater without creating harmful contaminants. State-of-
the-art designs are being implemented for water quality control and
SCADA systems, and the project will serve as a model for other projects
requiring these facilities.
The Oglala Sioux Tribe is supportive of the funding request of
other sponsors.
WEST RIVER/LYMAN-JONES RURAL WATER SYSTEM
West River/Lyman-Jones RWS projects for fiscal year 2011 include
standby generation facilities, conversion of community water systems,
storage reservoirs, SCADA, and cold storage additions.
The Upper Midwest and specifically the Mni Wiconi Project area
regularly experience power outages as the result of winter weather
conditions. Regulatory authorities in South Dakota have recommended
standby generation as the result of statewide power outages experienced
during the winters of 2005-2006 and 2009-2010. The Bureau of
Reclamation has concurred in the addition of standby generation to the
Mni Wiconi plan of work. WR/LJ has outlined a 3 year standby generation
project schedule.
The WR/LJ project includes four areas in which area ranchers are
served by a common well of limited capacity and unacceptable water
quality. The construction of WR/LJ facilities to serve them as
individual members of WR/LJ will provide the pipeline capacity and
water quality meeting Mni Wiconi project design standards.
Water storage needs include an elevated tower in the Reliance
service area, a ground storage reservoir in Mellette County and
supplemental storage in the Elbon service area.
System Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) capability provides
accurate and efficient transmission of data and allows remote control
of pumping and storage facilities. The WR/LJ SCADA system will be
completed using the requested funding.
Storage facilities at the Murdo and Philip operations centers will
complete the building components of the WR/LJ project.
Previous Federal appropriations to the Mni Wiconi Project have made
possible the delivery of much needed quality water to members of the
West River/Lyman-Jones RWS and to the livestock industry in the project
area. This would not have been possible with State and Federal
assistance.
ROSEBUD SIOUX RURAL WATER SYSTEM--FISCAL YEAR 2011
In fiscal year 2011 work on the Rosebud Sioux Rural Water System
(RSRWS or Sicangu Mni Wiconi) focuses on supplying high quality water
to southern Todd County. It was hoped that this area of the Rosebud
Reservation would not need to be connected to the Mni Wiconi Project
because of the presence of the Ogallala aquifer. The estimated demands
for the area were however included in system planning and it now
appears this foresight was beneficial because portions of the aquifer
have high nitrates and other areas are not as high yielding as
originally thought.
Because of quality and quantity limitations of the aquifer, high
quality surface water from the OSRWSS will be conveyed by a
transmission pipeline to a new elevated storage reservoir at Sicangu
Village. The elevated reservoir is being constructed in fiscal year
2010 with ARRA funds. Sicangu Village is an expanding housing area and
the local wells cannot meet the demands associated with expansion. The
transmission line and elevated reservoir will provide a reliable supply
of high quality water to the development corridor centered on Highway
83 between Mission and Sicangu Village.
The other major projects will extend service to two schools in
southern Todd County. The wells that supply water to the schools have
high nitrates. The Mni Wiconi Project will ensure that future
generations on the Rosebud Reservation, both Indians and non-Indians
alike, will be supplied with water that meets safe drinking water
standards.
While supply to meet the demands in southern Todd County was
included as a contingency in the tribe's Needs Assessment and the Mni
Wiconi Final Engineering Report, costs of infrastructure were not. In
order to supply these schools, other areas may not be served unless an
amendment authorizing an increase in the project ceiling and extending
the sunset date is enacted.
The ongoing effort to connect rural homes to transmission and
distribution lines will also continue in 2011. This work is undertaken
through the tribe's force account program that not only provides a
reliable source of high quality water to rural homes but also provides
employment to numerous tribal members and helps circulate dollars on
the reservation thereby stimulating the local economy.
OMR
The Sponsors 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 to ensure that the
limited funds can best be balanced between Construction and OMR.
The project is treating and delivering more water each year from
the OSRWSS Water Treatment Plant near Fort Pierre as construction
advances in the Rosebud, WRLJ and Oglala service areas. 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 88
percent completion. The OMR budget must be adequate to keep pace with
the system that is placed in operation.
The Lower Brule Rural Water System (LBRWS) is essentially complete
with all major components such as the water treatment plant, booster
stations and tanks/reservoirs in full operation. As a result, LBRWS's
operation and maintenance portion of the budget has reached a baseline
amount to which only slight adjustments along with inflation should be
made each year. The portion of the LBRWS OM&R budget that is somewhat
variable is the Replacement Additions and Extraordinary (RAX)
maintenance items. LBRWS will continue to work with the Bureau of
Reclamation and the other sponsors to prioritize their needs and ensure
that their system is operating to the standards that have been
established over the past several years. With that in mind, the LBRWS
request for OMR for fiscal year 2011 is $1,550,000.
The Mni Wiconi Project tribal beneficiaries (as listed below)
respectfully request appropriations for OMR in fiscal year 2011 in the
amount of $11.093 million.
FISCAL YEAR 2011 OMR
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project Area Request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oglala Sioux Rural Water Supply System:
Core................................................ $2,719,000
Distribution........................................ 3,100,000
Lower Brule............................................. 1,550,000
Rosebud RWS............................................. 2,277,000
Reclamation............................................. 1,447,000
---------------
Total............................................. 11,093,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TRUST RESPONSIBILITY
Public Law 100-516, the Mni Wiconi Project Act, provides that ``. .
. United States has a trust responsibility to ensure that adequate and
safe water supplies are available to meet the economic, environmental,
water supply, and public health needs of the . . . Indian
reservation[s] . . .''
The field staff and the Regional Office of the Bureau of
Reclamation have been extremely helpful in advancing this project, but
there is growing concern that Reclamation mid-managers are making
unilateral decisions that harm the trust relationship. We are also
concerned with the manner of budgeting. The following are specific
instances:
--Reclamation has re-distributed funds allocated to the Oglala Sioux
Tribe to West River/Lyman Jones without the urging of West
River Lyman Jones to further Reclamation performance
objectives. While OSRWSS has consistently carried funds over
from one fiscal year to another, there has never been an
instance or a threat of an instance of not spending funding
appropriated in the same year and the year that follows. The
Oglala Sioux Tribe strongly feels that this hampers the ability
of the OSRWSS to complete the OSRWSS distribution system
prescribed by the statutory completion date.
--To our complete satisfaction on construction, Reclamation has
yielded to the leadership of the Indian and non-Indian sponsors
to permit their collaborative development of annual funding
allocations and budgets. On the other hand, Reclamation has
imposed its structure and budget specifics in lieu of Indian
leadership on the formulation of annual OMR allocations and
budgets;
--Reclamation has prioritized total budgeted funds with a separation
between Construction and OMR accounts based on its trust
responsibility for OMR, which constrains the budgeted funds
available to complete construction. OMR budgeting has been held
relatively constant with higher percentages of construction
completion, and construction budgeting has decreased. The fixed
level of OMR funding has constrained the activities needed on
the Indian distribution systems. The construction budget is
diminishing at a time when acceleration of construction is
needed to deliver the benefits of the project to the Indian
people. At a minimum, the construction budget should be a
priority and should be held at a level needed to complete the
project on the statutory schedule in 2013 while providing an
adequate OMR budget. The trust responsibility for ensuring
adequate and safe water supplies for the reservations involved
necessarily includes both the construction and OMR activities;
--Mid-level managers often view the project as a Reclamation project,
rather than as an Indian project as provided by Public Law 100-
516, and their vision is affected.
______
Prepared Statement of the Colorado River Water Conservation District
Dear Chairman Dorgan and Senator Bennett: I am requesting your
support for an appropriation in the President's recommended budget for
fiscal year 2011 of $8,354,000 to the Bureau of Reclamation within the
budget line item entitled ``Endangered Species Recovery Implementation
Program'' for the Upper Colorado Region. The funding designation we
seek is as follows: $7,154,000 for construction activities for the
Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program; $800,000 for
construction activities for the San Juan River Basin Recovery
Implementation Program; and $400,000 for Fish and Wildlife Management
and Development activities to avoid jeopardy. This funding is
authorized by Public Law 106-392, as amended.
These highly successful, cooperative programs are ongoing
partnerships among the States of New Mexico, Colorado, Utah and
Wyoming, Indian tribes, Federal agencies and water, power and
environmental interests. The programs' objectives are to recover
endangered fish species in compliance with the Endangered Species Act,
while maintaining water use and development.
I appreciate the subcommittee's past support and request the
subcommittee's assistance for fiscal year 2011 funding to ensure the
Bureau of Reclamation's continuing financial participation in these
vitally important programs.
______
Prepared Statement of the San Diego County Water Authority
Dear Chairman Dorgan: Your support is needed to secure adequate
fiscal year 2011 funding for the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation's
participation in the Federal/State Colorado River Basin Salinity
Control Program. Reclamation is the lead agency for this successful and
cost-effective program, which mitigates problems caused by excess
salinity in the Colorado River.
The Colorado River is the primary source of drinking and irrigation
water for more than 3 million people in San Diego County. Excess
salinity causes economic damages in the San Diego region worth millions
of dollars annually. It also hinders local water agency efforts to
stretch limited supplies by recycling and reusing water. The local
impacts of excess salinity include:
--Reduced crop yields for farmers, who produce more than $1 billion
of agricultural products in the San Diego region;
--Reduced useful life of commercial and residential water pipe
systems, water heaters, faucets, garbage disposals, clothes
washers, and dishwashers;
--Increased household use of expensive bottled water and water
softeners;
--Increased water treatment facility costs;
--Difficulty meeting Federal and California wastewater discharge
requirements; and
--Fewer opportunities for water recycling due to excess salt in the
product water, which limits usefulness for commercial and
agricultural irrigation.
Reclamation has been successful in implementing projects that
prevent salt from entering the river system. Additional projects for
salt reduction have been identified that could further improve river
water quality. Some of the most cost-effective salinity control
opportunities occur when Reclamation can improve irrigation delivery
systems at the same time that the U.S. Department of Agriculture's
(USDA) program is working with landowners (irrigators) to improve the
on-farm irrigation systems. Adequate funding is needed to maximize
Reclamation's effectiveness.
The Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum, the interstate
organization responsible for coordinating the seven Colorado River
Basin States' salinity control efforts, in October 2009 recommended a
funding level of $17,500,000 for Reclamation's Basin-wide salinity
control program for fiscal year 2011. This funding would allow
Reclamation to continue its coordinated efforts to reduce salinity in
the Colorado River. The Water Authority agrees with the Forum's
recommendation, and urges your support for these needed funds. The
seven Colorado River Basin States are sharing costs for salinity
control, contributing 43 cents for every appropriated Federal dollar.
The Water Authority appreciates your support of the Colorado River
Basin Salinity Control Program and asks for your assistance in securing
adequate funding for fiscal year 2011.
______
Prepared Statement of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern
California
Dear Senator Dorgan: The Metropolitan Water District of Southern
California (Metropolitan) has adopted a position supporting funding for
the Bureau of Reclamation's Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Title
II Program.
For 70 years Metropolitan has provided imported water to the
Southern California region from the Colorado River and the State Water
Project originating in Northern California. Our mission is to provide
high quality, reliable drinking water supplies primarily for municipal
and industrial use. Metropolitan is the Nation's largest provider of
imported water to an urban area. The population today in our service
area is 19 million and it is projected to rise to 25 million within the
next 25 years. Metropolitan is comprised of 26 member public agencies
that serve an area spanning 5,200 square miles and 6 southern
California counties.
Water imported via the Colorado River Aqueduct (CRA) has the
highest salinity of Metropolitan's imported sources of supply,
averaging around 630 milligrams per liter since 1976 and causing
economic damages. For example, damages occur from:
--A reduction in the yield of salt sensitive crops and increased
water use for leaching in the agricultural sector;
--A reduction in the useful life of galvanized water pipe systems,
water heaters, faucets, garbage disposals, clothes washers, and
dishwashers, and increased use of bottled water and water
softeners in the household sector;
--An increase in the use of water for cooling, and the cost of water
softening, and a decrease in equipment service life in the
commercial sector;
--An increase in the cost of water treatment and sewer fees in the
industrial sector;
--A decrease in the life of treatment facilities and pipelines in the
utility sector;
--Difficulty in meeting wastewater discharge requirements to comply
with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit
terms and conditions, and an increase in desalination and brine
disposal costs due to accumulation of salts in groundwater
basins, and fewer opportunities for recycling due to
groundwater quality deterioration;
--Increased use of imported water for leaching; and
--Increased cost of desalination and brine disposal for recycled
water.
Concern over salinity levels in the Colorado River has existed for
many years. To deal with the concern, the International Boundary and
Water Commission approved Minute No. 242, Permanent and Definitive
Solution to the International Problem of the Salinity of the Colorado
River in 1973, and the President approved the Colorado River Basin
Salinity Control Act in 1974. High total dissolved solids in the
Colorado River as it entered Mexico and the concerns of the seven
Colorado River Basin States regarding the quality of Colorado River
water in the United States drove these initial actions. To foster
interstate cooperation on this issue and coordinate the Colorado River
Basin States' efforts on salinity control, the seven basin States
formed the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum (Forum).
The salts in the Colorado River system are indigenous and
pervasive, mostly resulting from saline sediments in the basin that
were deposited in prehistoric marine environments. They are easily
eroded, dissolved, and transported into the river system.
The Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program reduces salinity
by preventing salts from dissolving and mixing with the River's flow.
Irrigation improvements (sprinklers, gated pipe, lined ditches) and
vegetation management reduce the amount of salt transported to the
Colorado River. Point sources such as saline springs are also
controlled. The Federal Government, basin States, and contract
participants spend close to $50 million annually on salinity control
programs.
The Program, as set forth in the act, benefits both the Upper
Colorado River Basin water users through more efficient water
management and the Lower Basin water users, hundreds of miles
downstream from salt sources in the Upper Basin, through reduced
salinity concentration of Colorado River water. California's Colorado
River water users are presently suffering economic damages in the
hundreds of millions of dollars per year due to the river's salinity.
By some estimates, concentrations of salts in the Colorado River
cause approximately $350 million in quantified damages in the lower
Colorado River Basin States each year and significantly more in
unquantified damages. Salinity control projects have reduced salinity
concentrations of Colorado River water on average by over 100
milligrams per liter with an economic benefit of $264 million per year
(2005 dollars) in avoided damages.
In recent years, the Bureau of Reclamation Basin-wide Salinity
Control Program funding has dropped to below $10 million. In the
judgment of the Forum, this amount is inappropriately low. Water
quality commitments to downstream U.S. and Mexican water users must be
honored while the Upper Basin States continue to develop their Compact
apportioned waters from the Colorado River.
Metropolitan urges this subcommittee to support funding for the
Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program for fiscal year 2011 of
$17.5 million for the Department of the Interior--Bureau of
Reclamation's Basin-wide Salinity Control Program for the Colorado
River Basin Salinity Control Program.
Over the past years, the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control
program has proven to be a very cost effective approach to help
mitigate the impacts of increased salinity in the Colorado River.
Continued Federal funding of this important basin-wide program is
essential.
I would appreciate it if you make this statement a part of the
formal hearing record concerning fiscal year 2011 appropriations for
the Bureau of Reclamation. I thank you for your subcommittee's support
of this program in years past and hope that you will again support
funding to continue this valuable program.
______
Prepared Statement of the New Mexico State Engineer and Secretary, New
Mexico Interstate Stream Commission
SUMMARY
This statement is submitted in support of fiscal year 2011
appropriations for the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program of
the Department of the Interior's Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation).
Congress designated Reclamation to be the lead agency for salinity
control in the Colorado River Basin by the Colorado River Basin
Salinity Control Act of 1974, and reconfirmed Reclamation's role by
passage of Public Law 104-20. A total of $17.5 million is requested for
fiscal year 2011 to implement the authorized salinity control program
of the Bureau of Reclamation. Recent years have followed a trend of
inadequate funding for the needs of the program. An appropriation of
$17.5 million for Reclamation's salinity control program is necessary
to restore the program to the level needed to protect water quality
standards for salinity and to prevent unnecessary levels of economic
damage from increased salinity in water delivered to the Lower Basin
States of the Colorado River. In addition, funding for operation and
maintenance of existing projects and sufficient general investigation
funding is required to identify new salinity control opportunities.
STATEMENT
The water quality standards for salinity of the Colorado River must
be protected while the basin States continue to develop their compact
apportioned waters of the river. The salinity standards for the
Colorado River have been adopted by the seven basin States and approved
by the Environmental Protection Agency. While currently the standards
have not been exceeded, salinity control projects must be brought on-
line in a timely and cost-effective manner to prevent future effects
that could result in unnecessary damages from higher levels of salinity
in the water delivered to the Lower Basin States of the Colorado River.
The Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act was authorized by
Congress and signed into law in 1974. The seven Colorado River Basin
States, in response to the Clean Water Act of 1972, formed the Colorado
River Basin Salinity Control Forum (Forum), a body comprised of
gubernatorial representatives from the seven States. The Forum was
created to provide for interstate cooperation in response to the Clean
Water Act and to provide the States with information necessary to
comply with sections 303(a) and (b) of the act. The Forum has become
the primary means for the basin States to coordinate with Federal
agencies and Congress to support the implementation of the salinity
control program for the Colorado River Basin.
Bureau of Reclamation studies show that quantified damages from the
Colorado River to U.S. water users are about $350 million per year.
Unquantified damages are significantly greater. Damages are estimated
at $75 million per year for every additional increase of 30 milligrams
per liter in salinity of the Colorado River. Control of salinity is
necessary for the States of the Colorado River Basin, including New
Mexico, to continue to develop their compact-apportioned waters of the
Colorado River.
Timely appropriations for the funding of the salinity control
program are essential to comply with the water quality standards for
salinity, prevent unnecessary economic damages in the United States,
and protect the quality of the water that the United States is
obligated to deliver to Mexico. The basin States and Federal agencies
agree that increases in the salinity of the Colorado River will result
in significant increases in damages to water users in the Lower
Colorado River Basin. Although the United States has always met the
water quality standard for salinity of water delivered to Mexico under
Minute No. 242 of the International Boundary and Water Commission, the
United States through the U.S. section of IBWC is currently addressing
a request by Mexico for better quality water. Continued strong support
and adequate funding of the salinity control program is required to
control salinity-related damages in the United States and Mexico.
Congress amended the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act in
July 1995 (Public Law 104-20). The salinity control program authorized
by Congress by the amendment has proven to be very cost-effective, and
the Basin States are standing ready with up-front cost-sharing.
Proposals from public and private sector entities in response to
Reclamation's requests for proposals and funding opportunity
announcements have far exceeded available funding appropriated in
recent years. Basin States cost-sharing funds are available for the
$17.5 million appropriation request for fiscal year 2011. The basin
States' cost-sharing adds 43 cents for each Federal dollar
appropriated.
Public Law 106-459 gave the Bureau of Reclamation additional
spending authority for the salinity control program. With the
additional authority in place and significant cost-sharing available
from the basin States, it is essential that the salinity control
program be funded at the level requested by the Forum and basin States
to protect the water quality of the Colorado River. Some of the most
cost-effective salinity control opportunities occur when Reclamation
improves irrigation delivery systems concurrently with on-farm
irrigation improvements undertaken by the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP). The
basin States cost-share funding is available for both on-farm and off-
farm improvements. The EQIP funding appears to be adequate to
accomplish the on-farm work. Adequate funding for Reclamation's off-
farm work is needed to maintain timely implementation and effectiveness
of salinity control measures.
Maintenance and operation of Reclamation's salinity control
projects and general investigations to identify new cost-effective
salinity control projects are necessary for the continued success of
the salinity control program. Investigation of new opportunities for
salinity control is critical while the basin States continue to develop
and use their compact-apportioned waters of the Colorado River. The
water quality standards for salinity are dependent on timely
implementation of salinity control projects, adequate funding to
maintain and operate existing projects, and sufficient general
investigation funding to determine new cost-effective opportunities for
salinity control.
Continued funding primarily through Reclamation's Facility
Operation activity to support maintenance and operation the Paradox
Valley Unit and the Grand Valley Unit is critically needed. General
Investigation funding through Reclamation's Colorado River Water
Quality Improvement Program needs to be restored to a level that
supports the need for identification and study of new salinity control
opportunities to maintain the levels of salinity control needed to meet
water quality standards and control economic damages in the Lower
Colorado River Basin.
I urge the Congress to appropriate $17.5 million to the Bureau of
Reclamation for the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program, plus
adequate funding for operation and maintenance of existing projects and
adequate funding for general investigations to identify new salinity
control opportunities. Also, I fully support testimony by the Forum's
Executive Director, Jack Barnett, in request of this appropriation, and
the recommendation of an appropriation of the same amount by the
Federal chartered Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Advisory
Council.
______
Prepared Statement of the Wyoming State Engineer's Office
Dear Chairman Dorgan and Ranking Member Domenici: This letter is
sent in support of fiscal year 2011 funding for the Bureau of
Reclamation's Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Project--Title II
Program. A total of $17.5 million is requested for Reclamation's fiscal
year 2011 activities to implement authorized Colorado River Basin
salinity control program programs. Failure to appropriate these funds
will directly result in significant economic damages being accrued by
U.S. and Mexican water users.
The State of Wyoming also supports funding for Salinity Control
Program general investigations as requested within the Colorado River
Water Quality Improvement Program budget line-item. It is important
that Reclamation have properly funded planning staff in place, so that
the program's progress can be monitored, necessary coordination among
Federal and State agencies can be accomplished, and future projects and
opportunities to control salinity can be properly planned. Maintaining
the water quality standards for salinity in the Colorado River is
essential so as to allow the seven Colorado River Basin States to
continue to develop their compact-apportioned waters of the Colorado
River.
In addition to the funding identified above for the implementation
of the most recently authorized program, the State of Wyoming urges the
Congress to appropriate funds, as requested by the administration, to
maintain and operate completed salinity control facilities, including
the Paradox Valley Unit. At facilities located within the Paradox
Valley of Colorado subsurface saline brines are collected below the
Delores River and are injected into a deep aquifer through an injection
well. The continued operation of this project, and the Grand Valley
Unit, are funded primarily through the Facility Operations activity.
The Colorado River provides municipal and industrial water for over
30 million people and irrigation water to nearly 4 million acres of
land in the United States. The River is also the water source for some
2.5 million people and 500,000 acres in Mexico. Limitations on water
users' abilities to make the greatest use of this critically important
water supply on account of the River's high concentration of total
dissolved solids (hereafter referred to as the salinity of the water)
are a major concern in both the United States and Mexico. Salinity in
water supplies affects agricultural, municipal, and industrial water
users.
While economic detriments and damages in Mexico are unquantified,
the Bureau of Reclamation presently estimates direct and computable
salinity-related damages in the United States amount to $376 million
per year. The River's high salt content is in almost equal part due to
naturally occurring geologic features that include subsurface salt
formations and discharging saline springs; and the resultant
concentrating effects of our users man's storage, use and reuse of the
waters of the River system. Over-application of irrigation water by
agriculture is a large contributor of salt to the Colorado River as
irrigation water moves below the crop root zone, seeps through saline
soils and then returns to the river system.
The Environmental Protection Agency's interpretation of the 1972
amendments to the Clean Water Act required the seven basin States to
adopt water quality standards for salinity levels in the Colorado
River. In light of the EPA's regulation to require water quality
standards for salinity in the basin, the Governors of Arizona,
California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming created the
Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum as an interstate
coordination mechanism in 1973. To address these international and
regionally important salinity problems, the Congress enacted the
Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act of 1974. Title I addressed
U.S. obligations to Mexico to control the River's salinity to ensure
the U.S.A.'s water deliveries to Mexico are within the specified
salinity concentration range. Title II of the act authorized control
measures upstream of Imperial Dam and directed the Secretary of the
Interior to construct several salinity control projects, most of which
are located in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming.
Title II of the act was again amended in 1995 and 2000 to direct
the Bureau of Reclamation to conduct a basin-wide salinity control
program. This program awards grants to non-Federal entities, on a
competitive-bid basis, which initiate and carry out salinity control
projects. The basin-wide program has demonstrated significantly
improved cost-effectiveness, as computed on a dollar per ton of salt
basis, as compared to the prior Reclamation-initiated projects. The
Forum was heavily involved in the development of the 1974 Act and its
subsequent amendments, and continues to actively oversee the Federal
agencies' salinity control program efforts.
During the past 37 years, the seven-State Colorado River Basin
Salinity Control Forum has actively assisted the Federal agencies,
including the Bureau of Reclamation, in implementing this unique and
important program. At its October 2009 meeting, the Forum recommended
that the Bureau of Reclamation seek to have appropriated and should
expend $17.5 million for Colorado River Basin salinity control in
fiscal year 2011. We strongly believe the combined efforts of the
salinity control efforts of the Bureau of Reclamation, Department of
Agriculture and the Bureau of Land Management constitute one of the
most successful Federal/State cooperative non-point source pollution
control programs in the United States.
The State of Wyoming greatly appreciates the subcommittee's support
of the Colorado River Salinity Control Program in past years. We
strongly believe this important basin-wide water quality improvement
program merits continued funding and support by your subcommittee.
Thank you in advance for inclusion of this letter in the formal hearing
record concerning fiscal year 2011 appropriations.
______
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Prepared Statement of the State Teachers' Retirement System, State of
California
SUMMARY
Acting pursuant to congressional mandate, and in order to maximize
the revenues for the Federal taxpayer from the sale of the Elk Hills
Naval Petroleum Reserve by removing the cloud of the State of
California's claims, the Federal Government reached a settlement with
the State in advance of the sale. The State waived its rights to the
Reserve in exchange for fair compensation in installments stretched out
over an extended period of time. The State respectfully requests an
appropriation of at least $9.7 million in the subcommittee's bill for
fiscal year 2011, in order to meet the Federal Government's obligations
to the State under the Settlement Agreement.
BACKGROUND
Upon admission to the Union, States beginning with Ohio and those
westward were granted by Congress certain sections of public land
located within the State's borders. This was done to compensate these
States having large amounts of public lands within their borders for
revenues lost from the inability to tax public lands as well as to
support public education. Two of the tracts of State school lands
granted by Congress to California at the time of its admission to the
Union were located in what later became the Elk Hills Naval Petroleum
Reserve.
The State of California applies the revenues from its State school
lands to assist retired teachers whose pensions have been most
seriously eroded by inflation. California teachers are ineligible for
Social Security and often must rely on this State pension as the
principal source of retirement income. Typically the retirees receiving
these State school lands revenues are single women more than 75 years
old whose relatively modest pensions have lost as much as half or more
of their original value to inflation.
STATE'S CLAIMS SETTLED, AS CONGRESS HAD DIRECTED
In the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1996
(Public Law 104-106) that mandated the sale of the Elk Hills Reserve to
private industry, Congress reserved 9 percent of the net sales proceeds
in an escrow fund to provide compensation to California for its claims
to the State school lands located in the Reserve.
In addition, in the act Congress directed the Secretary of Energy
on behalf of the Federal Government to ``offer to settle all claims of
the State of California . . . in order to provide proper compensation
for the State's claims.'' (Public Law 104-106, Sec. 3415). The
Secretary was required by Congress to ``base the amount of the offered
settlement payment from the contingent fund on the fair value for the
State's claims, including the mineral estate, not to exceed the amount
reserved in the contingent fund.'' (Id.)
Over the year that followed enactment of the Defense Authorization
Act mandating the sale of Elk Hills, the Federal Government and the
State engaged in vigorous and extended negotiations over a possible
settlement. Finally, on October 10, 1996 a settlement was reached, and
a written Settlement Agreement was entered into between the United
States and the State, signed by the Secretary of Energy and the
Governor of California, under which the State would receive 9 percent
of the sales proceeds in annual installments over an extended period.
The Settlement Agreement is fair to both sides, providing proper
compensation to the State and its teachers for their State school lands
and enabling the Federal Government to maximize the sales revenues
realized for the Federal taxpayer by removing the threat of the State's
claims in advance of the sale.
FEDERAL REVENUES MAXIMIZED BY REMOVING CLOUD OF STATE'S CLAIM IN
ADVANCE OF THE SALE
The State entered into a binding waiver of rights against the
purchaser in advance of the bidding for Elk Hills by private
purchasers, thereby removing the cloud over title being offered to the
purchaser, prohibiting the State from enjoining or otherwise
interfering with the sale, and removing the purchaser's exposure to
treble damages for conversion under State law. In addition, the State
waived equitable claims to revenues from production for periods prior
to the sale. The Reserve thereafter was sold for a winning bid of $3.53
billion in cash, a sales price that substantially exceeded earlier
estimates.
CONGRESS SHOULD APPROPRIATE $9.7 MILLION FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2011
INSTALLMENT OF ELK HILLS COMPENSATION
The State's 9 percent share of the adjusted Elk Hills sales price
of $3.53 billion is $317.70 million. To date, Congress has appropriated
seven installments of $36 million and one installment of $48 million
that was reduced to $47.52 million by the 1 percent across-the-board
rescission under the fiscal year 2006 Defense Appropriations Act, for
total appropriations to date of $299.52 million of Elk Hills
compensation owed to the State. Accordingly, the Elk Hills School Lands
Fund should have a positive balance of at least $18.18 million.
In the past, Department of Energy personnel have proffered 4
purported grounds for suspending further payments of Elk Hills
compensation to the State. Each of these is a ``red herring'':
Red Herring No. 1.--Finalization of respective equity shares of
Federal Government and ChevronTexaco as selling co-owners of Elk Hills
oil field still not completed. The administration's fiscal year 2011
budget request states that ``the timing and levels of any future budget
request (for Elk Hills compensation) are dependent on the schedule and
results of the equity finalization process'' between the Federal
Government and ChevronTexaco to determine the relative production over
the years from their respective tracts in the Elk Hills field. (fiscal
year 2011 budget appendix, at p. 435). But DOE already has held back
$67 million, including $6.03 million from the State's share, to protect
the Federal Government's interests in a ``worst case scenario'' for
this equity process. The State has agreed to a ``hold-back'' of that
amount to protect the Federal Government's interest. This reduces the
available balance in the Elk Hills School Lands Fund to $12.15 million.
In addition, DOE's fiscal year 2011 budget request detail states that
the equity determination is in its final stages: ``Of the four
applicable zones (in Elk Hills), the Dry Gas Zone and Carneros Zone are
finalized. The Office of Hearings and Appeals is asking for additional
briefs from both parties before rendering their decision on the Stevens
Zone (the largest in Elk Hills). A final recommendation for the Shallow
Zone is pending.'' (p. 754). Accordingly, remaining uncertainty in the
equity process thus provides no basis for withholding further payment
of the State's Elk Hills compensation.
Red Herring No. 2.--There is no money left in the Elk Hills School
Lands Fund right now. The administration's fiscal year 2011 budget
request states: ``Under the Act (that mandated the sale of Elk Hills),
9 percent of the net proceeds were reserved in a contingent fund in the
Treasury for payment to the States. . . . Under the settlement
agreement, $300 million has been paid to the State of California.''
(fiscal year 2011 budget appendix, at p. 435). The fiscal year 1999
budget request at the time of the sale notes that $324 million was
deposited into the Elk Hills School Lands Fund. (fiscal year 1999
budget appendix, at pp. 378-9). A post-sale adjustment to the Elk Hills
sales price reduced this amount to $317.7 million. Accordingly, after
deducting the $300 million in payments to the State to date and the $6
million hold-back to protect the Federal Government's interests in the
``worst case'' scenario for the equity process, the Elk Hills Fund has
ample funds available for appropriation of a further payment of
compensation to the State.
Red Herring No. 3.--No payment can be made to the State because of
pending litigation between ChevronTexaco and DOE. DOE has pointed to
pending litigation brought by ChevronTexaco against DOE in the U.S.
Court of Federal Claims (Docket No. 04-1365C) as a reason to suspend
further payments to the State. This litigation alleges DOE personnel
committed misconduct in the equity finalization process by having
improper ex parte contacts and having the same DOE staff serve as both
advocate for DOE's position and advisor preparing the decision
documents for the decisionmaker. However, the California State Attorney
General has analyzed this litigation and advised that this litigation
is a claim for money damages for DOE staff misconduct that has no
effect on the Federal Government's equity share, and so there is no
effect on the State's share of compensation. Indeed, under the
governing agreement between DOE and Chevron, Chevron had waived any
right to contest the final equity determination in court. In any event,
the trial in this litigation was completed at the end of 2009, and a
decision is expected by Spring.
Hence this litigation provides no basis for withholding the rest of
the State's compensation.
Red Herring No. 4.--No payment can be made to the State because the
State's share must be reduced by the equity finalization costs and
environmental remediation costs and the final amount of such costs is
not yet known. The State's share of compensation is properly reduced by
the ``direct costs of sale'' as required by Congress. Since the sale
took place over a decade ago, those costs are fixed and known. The
State has agreed to bear its share of these sales expenses. However,
DOE is seeking to charge against the State's share two additional
categories of costs--costs of determining the equity ownership and
environmental remediation--that constitute ongoing costs of operating
the oil field, not sales expenses. The California State Attorney
General advises that these do not properly constitute sales expenses
chargeable against the State's share.
More specifically, the Settlement Agreement between the Federal
Government and the State provides that the Federal Government shall pay
the State ``9 percent of the proceeds from the sale of the Federal Elk
Hills Interests that remain after deducting from the sales proceeds the
costs incurred to conduct such sale.'' This reflects the congressional
direction that, ``In exchange for relinquishing its claim, the State
will receive 7 (9 in the final legislation) percent of the gross sales
proceeds from the sale of the Reserve that remain after the direct
expenses of the sale are taken into account.'' (House Rept. No. 104-
131, Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1996, Public Law 104-
106).
The State has agreed that the $27.13 million incurred for
appraisals, accounting expenses, reserves report, and brokers'
commission are appropriate sales expenses. Accordingly, the State's 9
percent share of these proper sales expenses reduces the available
balance of the Elk Hills School Lands Fund by $2.44 million to $9.7
million.
Costs of conducting the equity adjustment are properly viewed as
ongoing costs incurred due to the joint operation of the Elk Hills oil
field by the Federal Government and ChevronTexaco, since the equity
adjustment already was required under their joint operating agreement
and related to pre-sale production revenues. Similarly, costs of
environmental remediation of the Elk Hills field was a cost
attributable to the prior operation of the field, which created any
environmental problems that exist. The ongoing operational nature of
this cost is underscored by the fact that the Federal Government is
currently engaged in the phased environmental remediation of a Naval
Petroleum Reserve that it is not selling--NPR-3 (Teapot Dome), as
evidenced by the fiscal year 2011 budget request.
In conclusion, of the current Elk Hills School Lands Fund balance
of $18.18 million, taking into account the ``hold-back'' for worst case
scenario under equity finalization and deducting the appropriate direct
costs of conducting the sale, the State respectfully requests the
appropriation of at least $9.7 million for Elk Hills compensation in
the subcommittee's bill for the fiscal year 2011 installment of
compensation, in order to meet the Federal Government's obligations to
the State under the Settlement Agreement.
______
Prepared Statement of Precision Custom Components, LLC
Dear Mr. Chairman and ranking member: Precision Custom Components,
LLC (PCC), located in York, PA, is a manufacturer of custom fabricated
pressure vessels, reactors, casks, and heavy walled components for the
nuclear power industry and U.S. Navy. Since 1876 the company has made
large industrial turbines, nuclear reactor internals for the first
commercial nuclear power plant in Shippingport, PA, and spent nuclear
fuel shipping casks for the Navy and commercial power plants. In sum,
PCC has been an integral part of the U.S. manufacturing base for well
over a century.
The President's request for $38.8 million for research, development
and demonstration of small, modular nuclear power reactors is a modest
but well thought out program involving both public and private
investments. This request for funding is coming at just the right time
when engineering and design firms have presented credible new reactor
designs that are well within the capabilities of the U.S. manufacturing
industry, including PCC. But it is the time consuming and costly
regulatory review process at the NRC where joint Federal-private
assistance is needed.
The benefits of small, modular nuclear reactors are well
documented; from creating U.S. jobs, to creating new sources of carbon-
free baseload power, to improving the financial risk otherwise
associated with larger power plants. These innovations will also
incorporate some of the latest safety features and proliferation
resistant technologies bringing additional public benefits and export
opportunities.
If you could make this correspondence part of the record for
outside witness testimony PCC would like to be on record as supporting
the President's budget request for $38.8 million for the Department of
Energy's small, modular reactor program in fiscal year 2011, including
and encompassing light water reactor (LWR) based designs and other
technologies.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Insulation Association and the
International Association of Heat and Frost Insulators and Allied
Workers
FEDERAL FUNDING FOR MECHANICAL INSULATION WILL CREATE SHOVEL READY,
GREEN ENERGY JOBS ALL WHILE SAVING ENERGY AND PROTECTING THE
ENVIRONMENT
Chairman Dorgan, Ranking Member Bennett, and members of the
Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, on behalf of the National
Insulation Association (NIA) and the International Association of Heat
and Frost Insulators and Allied Workers (International Union), we are
writing in support of a programmatic increase to $3.5 million in fiscal
year 2011 for the Department of Energy's Industrial Technologies
Program specifically for a national mechanical insulation education and
awareness program.
NIA represents 95 percent of the products utilized in the
mechanical insulation industry, with members across the country at 800
corporate locations, and the International Union represents more than
25,000 workers and families employed in the mechanical insulation
sector across the country. Together, our members, of which the vast
majority are small businesses, have more than a century-long track
record of providing large- and small-scale, long-term energy
efficiency, emissions reductions, cost savings, and safety benefits at
manufacturing facilities, power plants, refineries, hospitals,
universities, and government buildings across the country.
We have joined together to advocate for a national comprehensive
advocacy program for increased use, maintenance, and retrofits of
mechanical insulation in the commercial and industrial sectors because
of its potential to create tens of thousands of jobs now, reduce carbon
emissions, increase energy savings, and provide a safer working
environment.
Buildings are responsible for 40 percent of U.S. energy demand and
40 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions, making efficiency gains in
this area crucial if we are to markedly reduce America's energy
consumption and effectively combat climate change. The industrial
sector is similar in energy efficiency opportunities. At the
residential level, insulation is well publicized for its efficiency
benefits. However, the same cannot be said in the commercial and
industrial sectors, which together consume 2\1/2\ times more energy
than homes, according to the Energy Information Administration.
Commercial and industrial insulation--collectively known as mechanical
insulation--has the potential to slash the energy demand for the
building and industrial sector.
Congress has already signaled its support for a mechanical
education and awareness program through both the appropriations and
authorization process. Congress directed $500,000 be allocated in the
Department of Energy's budget for a mechanical insulation education and
awareness campaign in the fiscal year 2010 Energy and Water
Appropriations bill (Public Law 111-85). This funding was a critical
start, and we thank members of the Appropriations Committee for
recognizing the value of this program, but more is needed to carry out
a successful campaign. Further evidence of Congress' support for such a
program is the inclusion of language to authorize a 5-year, $3.5
million a year national industrial energy efficiency education and
training initiative focused on mechanical insulation in H.R. 2454, the
American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (section 275, page 521).
By increasing awareness and use of this energy-saving technology,
Congress will both create jobs now and reduce carbon emissions.
Creating jobs, particularly green jobs, is a top priority for Congress
and the administration. Using government data, NIA conservatively
estimates that maintenance of insulation at industrial facilities and
going beyond minimum levels in new construction can generate $4.8
billion in energy savings per year, reduce 43 million metric tons of
carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions, and create 89,000
jobs annually.
Best of all, these jobs don't require additional research and
development. Mechanical insulation opportunities can be easily
identified, with potential energy savings and emissions reduction
determined with proven DOE-utilized software technology, and in many
applications implemented in weeks, making projects truly shovel-ready.
For facility owners and operators, the savings are swift and last
for many years; the return on investment from mechanical insulation is
typically less than 2 years (and sometimes as little as 6 months).
Mechanical insulation also improves infrastructure in the public,
educational, and health-care sectors, among others.
Fiscal year 2010 funding for mechanical insulation education
programs is insufficient to make an economic impact in the industrial
and commercial sector through energy savings, emissions reduction, and
job creation. Increased funding from Congress in fiscal year 2011 would
enable Federal agencies and industry partners to gather more data, work
with engineering schools, and reach out to facility managers and
owners, engineering and design professionals, and others to educate
them about the benefits of increasing their focus on the benefits of
mechanical insulation technology. Congressional funding would also
ensure the promotion of the most energy-efficient uses of mechanical
insulation in new construction, increased education about the energy
savings that can be realized through proper maintenance and a renewed
focus on retrofitting mechanical insulation in older buildings and
manufacturing facilities that together will generate substantial carbon
emissions reductions and sustainable jobs.
NIA and the International Union have cumulatively contributed $3.0
million in developing and beginning the implementation of the campaign
and are committed to matching the fiscal year 2011 funding to a
$500,000 level. As such, we have outlined program elements for a
comprehensive, persuasive awareness campaign to engage and motivate
industrial and commercial decisionmakers to take action.
Elements of the program would include:
--Develop curriculum and conduct NIA-led educational sessions
--Utilize web-based information for educational programs
--Provide educational programs at industry and government conferences
and workshops
--Implement awareness and educational marketing and advertising
campaign
--Develop needed data and seek media coverage of success stories and
the facts
--Engage NIA and Union members and other allies to actively support
the campaign
NIA, its members, and the International Union are committed to
working with Congress, the Department of Energy, other Federal
agencies, and key stakeholder groups on these and other initiatives
that will lead to greater energy efficiency nationwide. We have formed
alliances with engineering and other industry trade organizations and
have offered to work with the Department of Energy to bring together a
coalition to help develop, implement, and provide educational awareness
programs established and funded by Congress.
Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony in support of a
program that is critical to job creation, economic growth, energy
savings, and emissions reductions.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Society of Plant Biologists
On behalf of the American Society of Plant Biologists (ASPB), we
submit this statement for the official record to support the requested
level of $5.12 billion for the Department of Energy's Office of Science
for fiscal year 2011. The testimony highlights the importance of
biology, particularly plant biology, as the Nation seeks to address
vital issues including climate change and energy security. We would
also like to thank the subcommittee for its consideration of this
testimony, for its strong support for the basic research mission of the
Department of Energy's Office of Science, and for recognizing that
funding for the Office of Science is an investment in America's future.
ASPB is an organization of more than 5,000 professional plant
biologists, educators, graduate students, and postdoctoral scientists.
A strong voice for the global plant science community, our mission--
which is achieved through engagement in the research, education, and
public policy realms--is to promote the growth and development of plant
biology and plant biologists and to foster and communicate research in
plant biology. The Society publishes the highly cited and respected
journals Plant Physiology and The Plant Cell, and it has produced and
supported a range of materials intended to demonstrate fundamental
biological principles that can be easily and inexpensively taught in
school and university classrooms by using plants.
FOOD, FUEL, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND HEALTH--PLANT BIOLOGY RESEARCH AND
AMERICA'S FUTURE
Plants are vital to our very existence. They harvest sunlight,
converting it to chemical energy for food and feed; they take up carbon
dioxide and produce oxygen; and they are almost always the primary
producers in the Earth's ecosystems. Indeed, plant biology research is
making many fundamental contributions in the areas of fuel security and
environmental stewardship; the continued and sustainable development of
better foods, fabrics, and building materials; and in the understanding
of basic biological principles that underpin improvements in the health
and nutrition of all Americans. To go further, plant biology research
can help the Nation both predict and prepare for the impacts of climate
change on American agriculture, and it can make major contributions to
our Nation's efforts to combat global warming.
In particular, plant biology is at the center of numerous
scientific breakthroughs in the increasingly interdisciplinary world of
alternative energy research. For example, interfaces among plant
biology, engineering, chemistry, and physics represent critical
frontiers in both basic biofuels research and bioenergy production.
Similarly, with the increase in plant genome sequencing and functional
genomics, the interface of plant biology and computer science is
essential to our understanding of complex biological systems ranging
from single cells to entire ecosystems.
Despite the fact that plant biology research--the kind of research
funded by the DOE--underpins so many vital practical considerations for
our country, the amount invested in understanding the basic function
and mechanisms of plants is relatively small when compared with the
impact it has on multibillion dollar sectors of the economy like energy
and agriculture.
RECOMMENDATIONS
ASPB is in an excellent position to articulate the Nation's plant
science priorities as they relate to bioenergy and, specifically, with
regard to recommendations for bioenergy research funding through the
Department of Energy's Office of Science. Our recommendations, in no
particular order, are as follows:
--We commend the DOE Office of Science, through their Divisions of
Basic Energy Sciences (BES) and Biological and Environmental
Research (BER) for funding the Bioenergy Research Centers (BER)
and the Energy Frontier Research Centers (BES). Although these
efforts are well designed and a significant step forward, these
large centers will not have a monopoly on good ideas.
Therefore, ASPB strongly encourages the appropriation of
additional funds for the DOE Office of Science that would be
specifically targeted to the funding of individual or small
group grants for bioenergy research.
--The DOE Office of Science is the primary funding agency for
physical science research. Past experience teaches us that many
major scientific and technical breakthroughs occur at the
interface between traditional scientific disciplines. Indeed,
the importance of disciplinary integration is a central theme
of the recent National Research Council report ``A New Biology
for the 21st Century: Ensuring the United States Leads the
Coming Biology Revolution.'' Therefore, ASPB recommends
appropriations that would specifically target the interface
between plant biology and the physical sciences to encourage
multidisciplinary and cross-disciplinary research that would
address significant problems in bioenergy research.
--Photosynthetic research is one clear example of an interface
between the physical sciences and biology. The DOE Office of
Science has been the major source of funds for fundamental
studies of photosynthesis, which is the primary source of
chemical energy on the planet. After all, fossil fuels are just
photosynthetic energy that was trapped eons ago and converted
through natural processes into the forms in which we use it
today. However, the current funding available for
photosynthetic research is not commensurate with the central
role that photosynthesis plays in energy capture and carbon
sequestration. Hence, ASPB calls for an increase in
appropriations to the Office of Science to expand its research
portfolio in the area of photosynthesis and carbon capture.
--There are significant questions that must be answered as to how
climate change will impact food production and the environment.
There are also clear opportunities to use biological systems to
ameliorate climate change, such as through carbon sequestration
or modification of plants to resist environmental stress.
Therefore, ASPB calls for additional funding focused on studies
of the effect of climate change on agricultural cropping
systems, basic studies of effects on plant growth and
development, and targeted research focused on modification of
plants to resist climate change and for use in carbon
sequestration.
--Current estimates predict a significant shortfall in the needed
scientific and engineering workforce in the energy area. Given
the expected need for additional scientists and engineers who
are well-grounded in interdisciplinary research and development
activities, ASPB applauds DOE's Early Career Research Program
and calls for additional funding of specific programs (e.g.,
training grants) that are targeted to provide this needed
workforce over the next 10 years and to adequately prepare them
for careers in the interdisciplinary energy research of the
future. It should be noted that this recommendation is also
directly in-line with the above mentioned ``New Biology''
report from the NRC.
--Computational biology is a relatively new discipline that arose
from the interface of computer science and biology. These new
technologies and approaches provide the only means by which
these large biological datasets can be integrated and mined for
new, relevant biological knowledge. Therefore, as discussed in
item 2 above, ASPB calls for additional funding that would
target this interface between biology and computer science.
Specifically, we call for additional funding to develop
computational platforms to develop a systems-level view of
biology through the integration of data obtained from a variety
of functional genomics approaches. This is clearly a ``grand
challenge'' that is currently limiting the utility of this
information. The above mentioned NRC report reinforces this
point through the recommendation that ``priority be given to
the development of new information technologies.'' One means to
address this need would be to expand the BER KnowledgeBase
initiative that is now only a pilot program.
--Considerable research interest is now being paid to the use of
plant biomass for energy production. If biomass crops are to be
used to their full potential, however, considerable effort must
be expended to improve our understanding of their basic biology
and development, as well as their agronomic performance.
Therefore, ASPB calls for additional funding that would be
targeted to efforts to increase the utility and agronomic
performance of bioenergy crops.
Thank you for your consideration of our testimony on behalf of the
American Society of Plant Biologists. Please do not hesitate to contact
the American Society of Plant Biologists if we can be of any assistance
in the future.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Mining Association (NMA)
Excess Uranium Sale.--Under current law, the Department of Energy
(DOE) can sell excess Government uranium inventories only after a
Secretarial Determination that such sales or transfers (1) will not
adversely impact the domestic uranium mining, conversion or enrichment
industries and (2) will obtain fair market value for such sale or
transfer. In December 2008, after obtaining a consensus agreement from
the nuclear industry, DOE published a plan to manage the sale or
transfer of excess Government uranium inventories. Critical to the plan
were (1) gradually ramped up sales in the early years of the plan (2)
sales of initial cores for new domestic reactors and (3) the
establishment of an emergency reserve for current nuclear reactors. In
July 2009, DOE announced plans to not follow the plan and to use
uranium barter transactions to fund accelerated cleanup of the
Portsmouth Ohio Enrichment Plant. Last year, the Energy and Water
Appropriations members responded to DOE's proposal and directed GAO to
evaluate the Department's management of the excess uranium inventories.
The members also increased funding for the Portsmouth cleanup. Over the
domestic mining industry's objections and USEC's acknowledgment that
DOE's proposal would adversely impact the uranium market, DOE initiated
the barter transaction with USEC in the fourth quarter of 2010. The
current budget request for Portsmouth cleanup will remove the need for
adverse excess uranium sales, allow DOE to follow its management plan,
and accelerate cleanup reducing the total amounts required to complete
cleanup of the site.
Loan Guarantee Program.--NMA was pleased to see the DOE move
forward in its request for additional authorizations for the title XVII
loan guarantee program. We firmly believe that this program, in
conjunction with other Federal financial incentives, can be used to
encourage the development of clean energy sources. We are however
concerned that the additional authorizations did not include all clean
energy sources such as coal with advanced technologies and carbon
capture and sequestration. Given the substantial role coal plays in our
energy mix, we encourage the Department of Energy to include them as
they continue to advance funding mechanisms for other clean energy
sources.
Office of Fossil Energy
Background.--NMA is disappointed that the U.S. Department of Energy
(DOE) fiscal year 2011 request severely reduced the overall fossil
energy budget, with steep declines in funding for coal programs. While
we recognize that the economic stimulus package enacted last year
included demonstration project and Clean Coal Power Initiative funding,
we do not believe that such funding justifies the 20 percent cut to all
fossil energy programs, in the fiscal year 2011 budget request.
Reductions of this magnitude will compromise advances in clean coal and
carbon capture and sequestration efforts. Such cuts also jeopardize
future funding of the projects by forcing them to continually rely on
supplemental spending bills. We would encourage the administration to
submit line item requests for these programs through the regular budget
process. In providing greater budgeting stability these programs will
be better equipped to achieve their intended goals within a timely
manner.
--NMA fully supports and urges maximum funding for carbon capture and
storage (CCS) projects that avoid, reduce or store air
pollutants and greenhouse gases while contributing long-term
economic growth and international competitiveness. Substantial
Federal funding for continued research, development and
demonstration of CCS technologies will be required before CCS
can be applied to large-scale commercial power plants. The
construction and operation of near-zero emission and low carbon
projects, such as the proposed FutureGen project in Mattoon,
Illinois are indispensable to demonstrate that the technology
necessary to meet domestic energy demands of the 21st century
are available on a commercial scale. NMA strongly supports the
recent agreement between the DOE and the FutureGen Alliance to
proceed with a reconfigured carbon capture and storage energy
facility at Mattoon, Illinois. We support the $1 billion from
the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act for use in this
endeavor along with the $800 million for the Clean Coal Power
Initiative (CCPI). Although CCPI received the necessary funding
to complete solicitations for the third round of the program,
we believe additional funding is necessary to meet the
administration's programmatic goal of wide scale CCS deployment
by 2016. The number of large scale commercial demonstration
projects that are currently underway is insufficient to meet
this deadline. We remain concerned that DOE continues to not
request any funding for large scale applications of CCS
technology as has been the case in fiscal year 2010 and fiscal
year 2011. NMA encourages DOE to provide support for a strong
domestic CCS program and to initiate a CCPI Round 4 program.
--Funding for basic research and development of new, innovative clean
coal technologies is necessary to continue the progress made
over the last 35 years. Regulated emissions from coal-based
electricity generation have decreased by nearly 40 percent
since the 1970s, while the use of coal has tripled. Well-funded
basic coal research by DOE and clean coal technology
demonstrations undertaken by DOE-private sector partnerships
will continue this significant progress in energy production
and environmental improvement. 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 recently
reconfigured. NMA supports funding several of these programs at
levels higher than the President's request, specifically $80
million for IGCC/gasification (DOE's requested amount: $55
million), $45 million for advanced combustion (DOE's request
does not include direct funding) and $31 million for advanced
turbines (DOE's request: $31 million). We are, however, pleased
that DOE provides nearly $143 million for the Carbon
Sequestration Research & Development program and Carbon
Sequestration Injection Tests combined. We hope that DOE will
work with industry to identify specific programmatic activities
and funding for these programs. The increase in funding for
these and other programs will ensure that the FutureGen project
meets the intended goals outlined in DOE's 2004 report to
Congress, ``FutureGen, Integrated Sequestration and Hydrogen
Research Initiative--Energy Independence through Carbon
Sequestration and Hydrogen from Coal.''
--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, with some having cross-cutting applications
in the minerals industry.
Coal Tax Provisions
NMA objects to the fiscal year 2011 budget singling out coal mining
for $2.3 billion worth of tax increases. U.S. coal producers play an
integral role in fostering the Nation's continued economic prosperity
by meeting much of America's growing energy needs. To maintain
affordable energy prices and preserve jobs, Congress should reject
these unwarranted proposals to eliminate longstanding tax rules
affecting coal mining.
NMA does not support the administration's proposal to eliminate the
capital gains treatment of coal and lignite royalties. Under current
law, royalties received on the disposition of coal or lignite generally
qualify for treatment as long-term capital gain, and the royalty owner
does not qualify for percentage depletion with respect to the coal or
lignite. The fiscal year 2011 budget proposes to repeal the capital
gain treatment of coal and lignite royalties and to tax those royalties
as ordinary income. There is no tax policy reason to single out coal
royalties for changes to the capital gains rules.
NMA does not support the administration's proposal to eliminate the
domestic manufacturing deduction. Under current law, a deduction is
allowed with respect to income attributable to domestic production
activities (the manufacturing deduction). The fiscal year 2011 budget
proposes to repeal the manufacturing deduction for gross receipts
derived from the sale, exchange or other disposition of coal, other
hard mineral fossil fuels, or a primary product thereof. Present law
should be retained as Congress enacted an across-the-board domestic
manufacturing deduction in order to reduce the effective corporate
income tax rate on domestic manufacturing activities and preserve U.S.
manufacturing jobs.
NMA does not support the administration's proposal to eliminate the
present law tax-expensing of coal exploration costs. Under current law,
taxpayers may elect to expense (i.e., deduct in the year the costs are
incurred) mining exploration and development costs with respect to
domestic ore and mineral deposits. The fiscal year 2011 budget proposes
to repeal expensing and 60-month amortization of exploration and
development costs relating to coal and other hard mineral fossil fuels.
The expensing of coal mining exploration costs is part of the current
calculation for appropriately measuring taxable income from coal and
other mining operations. That appropriate measurement of taxable income
under present law should not be changed as a way of increasing taxes on
the coal industry.
NMA does not support the administration's proposal to eliminate the
percentage depletion tax-deduction for mining activities. Under current
law, the capital costs of mines are recovered through the depletion tax
deduction. Under the percentage depletion method, the amount of the
deduction is a statutory percentage of the gross income from the mining
property. The fiscal year 2011 budget proposes to repeal percentage
depletion with respect to coal and other hard mineral fossil fuels. The
percentage depletion deduction is part of the current calculation for
appropriately measuring taxable income from coal and other mining
operations. Coal mining requires significant financial commitments to
long-term projects to deliver a reasonably priced product. Enormous
amounts of capital must be expended at the front end of coal mining
projects to realize future returns. With such sizable capital costs,
cost recovery through percentage depletion has a significant effect on
the margins and prices at which coal can be profitably sold.
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS--REGULATORY AND CIVIL WORKS PROGRAMS
Background.--The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' (Corps) Regulatory
Branch plays a key role in the U.S. economy through the Corps annual
authorizations of approximately $200 billion of economic activity
through its regulatory program. NMA supports the inclusion of language
directing the Corps to dedicate sufficient personnel and financial
resources needed to support an efficient permit review process. We
remain concerned about the backlog of surface coal mining permits and
encourage the Corps to utilize this increased funding expeditiously to
address this issue as outlined in their statutory authority.
Regulatory Program
NMA supports increased funding for administering the Corps' Clean
Water Act (CWA) section 404 permit program. We encourage the Corps to
utilize this funding to address the backlog of surface coal mining
permits and to devise a more efficient permitting program.
Civil Works Programs
NMA opposes the Corps' proposed concept of a new inland waterways
``lockage fee/tax,'' which would replace the current diesel fuel tax to
fund improvements to the Nation's inland waterways system. A lockage
tax 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 cost of a new
tax will ultimately be borne by the consumers of coal-fueled
electricity. NMA opposes such a tax increase and urges Congress to
reject this proposal.
______
Prepard Statement of Avalence, LLC
Dear Senator Dorgan and Senator Bennett: I am writing to request
that you fund DOE Hydrogen and Fuel Cell program at the level of
support being requested by the National Hydrogen Association and the
U.S. Fuel Cell Council:
INDUSTRY PROPOSED DOE HYDROGEN AND FUEL CELL FUNDING
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EERE Programs........................................... 220.0
Fossil Energy Programs.................................. 118.8
Nuclear Energy Programs................................. 8.5
Science Programs........................................ 38.0
---------------
Total............................................. 390.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Avalence is a producer of high-pressure hydrogen generators that
use solar, wind and other renewable energy to make local, sustainable,
and emissions-free hydrogen fuel for fuel cell and other hydrogen
vehicles. Avalence is manufacturing hydrogen fueling stations, many of
which are powered by renewable energy to create completely local, zero
emissions fuel.
The hydrogen economy is starting to happen. At a recent U.S. Senate
briefing, representatives from major automotive companies like GM and
Daimler reaffirmed their companies' commitment to producing commercial
hydrogen fuel cell vehicles by 2015. Several countries such as Germany
and Japan have hydrogen infrastructure plans in place. DOE development
and commercialization funding for hydrogen and fuel cells leverages the
billions of dollars already invested in FCVs by the global automotive
industry--at the very moment in time that they are deploying the first
fleets of vehicles and are seeking the hydrogen infrastructure needed
to bring their vehicles to market.
New hydrogen production technologies are a critical part of the
portfolio of clean energy solutions that are emerging to address the
decline in global oil reserves. Development of advanced hydrogen
production technologies is being spearheaded throughout the Nation by
many pioneering small businesses such as Avalence, LLC--small, high
tech firms with exciting clean energy solutions. Our national energy
security and the strength of our economy in the new energy age will
benefit most from a robust national portfolio of hydrogen generating
technologies that includes not only hydrogen production from fossil
fuels, but also distributed generation of hydrogen from grid
electricity and green hydrogen from solar, wind and other renewable
energy sources.
______
Prepared Statement of Cynthia Ramseur, Member, Gulf Coast Conservation
Coalition and Gulf Restoration Network
Summary of My Testimony.--As I understand it, the Senate
subcommittee is receiving comments through April 1 regarding the energy
budget. I was pleased to learn that the President's proposed budget
does not include funds for studies, investigations or land acquisitions
for the DOE's proposed Richton Salt Dome Strategic Petroleum Reserve. I
am writing to ask that you uphold the President's budget request
regarding the Richton proposal. I sincerely ask that you disallow any
last-minute requests to add a budget line item for further expenditures
regarding the proposed Richton SPR. If I understand correctly, over $80
million have already been spent to date on investigations and studies
regarding the project: I do not want the Federal Government to continue
``throwing good money after bad money''.
Full Testimony.--I am one of 400 plus people who stood up in a
public hearing on April 10, 2008 in Pascagoula, Mississippi and opposed
the development of a strategic petroleum reserve at Richton,
Mississippi. Since that time, the coalition of individuals and
organizations opposing the project has grown--yet we can not get
consistent information about the DOE's continued interest in the
proposed Richton SPR or information about the status of the NEPA
process.
RICHTON PROJECT TIMELINE
At the April 2008 public hearing DOE announced plans for the
Richton Strategic Petroleum Reserve 3 days after Hurricane Katrina (Aug
2005).
DOE held public hearings for the project in Jackson during the 3-
month period after Katrina.
DOE presented the plan to Congress in June 2007.
DOE released EIS in fall of 2007 with construction to begin in
January 2008.
At the urging of local concerned citizens, Congressman Gene Taylor
obtained a pause and public hearings were held in April 2008.
Supplemental EIS was to be released in June 2008 but was delayed
until August 2008.
Supplemental EIS scheduled for release in August was delayed again
without notice of reschedule.
Current status?
I am pleased to learn that funding for the Richton SPR is not
included in the President's proposed budget; however, I am writing to
ask that you continue to withhold funding for the proposed SPR at
Richton disallowing any requests to add in a line item at the last
minute. If I understand correctly over $80 million have been spent to
date on investigations and studies regarding the DOE's proposal. I do
not want the Federal Government to continue ``throwing good money after
bad money.'' The major problems identified in the initial Environmental
Impact Statement remain: DOE failed to adequately examine the economic
and environmental effects of the proposed project. If I understand
correctly over $80 million have been spent to date on investigations
and studies regarding the DOE's proposal.
The proposed SPR expansion at Richton, Mississippi was ill-
conceived, ill-advised and technically flawed. The NEPA process was a
waste of taxpayer money. Note: The facts and figures presented here
were collected by a coalition of citizens and organizations led by Gulf
Coast Conservation Coalition and Gulf Restoration Network; the
information comes directly from the Department of Energy SPR Web site
at www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/reserves/.
the richton spr expansion site--an environmental disaster
This proposed project is seriously flawed on many levels and DOE
has refused to honestly evaluate and disclose the dangers. Their
publications and public statements have misrepresented the facts.
DOE plans to draw 50 million gallons of fresh water per day from
the Pascagoula River Merrill, Mississippi every day for 5 to 6 years
and pipe it to Richton to dissolve underground salt deposits. The loss
of that water would be harm the fish, animals, and humans that depend
on the river's abundant flow. The entire Pascagoula River basin would
suffer as water levels drop and salt water from the Mississippi Sound
moves further up the river.
The toxic salty waste would then be pumped 100 miles across 56
bodies of fresh water to the Gulf of Mexico and dumped near the barrier
islands. To understand the threat, dissolve 11 pounds of salt in a 5-
gallon bucket of fresh water. Keep stirring until you can dissolve no
more salt. Now, dump that bucket of salt water onto your garden. Of
course you wouldn't do this, but that is exactly what DOE wants to do
to our coastal waters--10 million 5-gallon buckets every day.
Communities on the coast depend on wells for their drinking water
supplies. The underground aquifer that feeds our wells is replenished
by surface water between the coast and Hattiesburg. How would the
aquifer be affected by removing 50 million gallons of water from the
Pascagoula River each day?
DOE predicts a minimum of 56 brine spills from a 100-mile Richton
brine disposal pipeline. At the existing SPR sites DOE records list 227
spills in a 20 year period that released 64,014,000 gallons of toxic
waste. The average spill was 282,000 gallons. Yet, DOE says that salt
waste spills would not cause damage to the Pascagoula River and the
adjoining woods and farmland.
In order to remove oxygen from the brine waste to protect the
pipelines from rust, DOE would add 360 gallons of ammonium bisulfite
each day. Ammonium bisulfite is listed as a hazardous chemical by the
U.S. Occupational Safety and Hazard Administration. The U.S. Coast
Guard classifies it as a marine pollutant. DOE plans to dump this toxic
chemical into our coastal waters with the brine waste.
Currents, tides and ship traffic would allow brine waste into the
Mississippi Sound, the largest estuary on our coast. Remarkably, DOE
did not consider tides or winds in the initial Environmental Impact
Statement and we have yet to get information on the Supplemental EIS.
Our barrier island passes are key corridors for the larvae and post
larvae of economically important fish and shellfish to move between the
gulf and Mississippi Sound. These fragile young organisms may not
survive the ``brine barrier'' created by the salt waste. Local experts
in marine life and the seafood industry are deeply alarmed. But DOE has
not considered the problem. They have not contacted the Gulf Coast
Research Laboratory (GCRL) or other local experts who volunteered their
expertise when these and other problems were brought to DOE's attention
during the public meetings in April 2008.
The Pascagoula River was listed this year as America's ninth most
endangered river. The proposed water withdrawal would take place in
critical habitat for endangered and threatened species.
To recap the environmental concerns, approximately 80 billion
gallons of low oxygen, toxic, salt brine waste (roughly 10 times the
average salinity of the gulf waters) would be dumped into the gulf,
only 4 miles south of Horn Island Pass and directly in line with the
Pascagoula Ship Channel. The loss of fresh river water would threaten
our drinking water supplies and harm the river system. The pipeline
would leak brine into the Pascagoula River and the woods and farmland.
The salt waste would create a dead zone in our coastal waters and
degrade fisheries, destroy critical habitat, and pollute important
waters necessary for the growth of juvenile fish and shellfish.
THE RICHTON SALT DOME SPR--AN ECONOMIC BOONDOGGLE
Currently, the existing SPR sites are 92 percent full. Oil from the
SPR has been used only twice during its 20-year history:
--After Hurricane Katrina shut down 25 percent of the domestic supply
of petroleum, the United States used only 1.5 percent of the
SPR.
--During the first gulf war only 2 percent of the SPR was used.
DOE says that the project would create only 10 to 20 permanent jobs
on the coast and only 100 in Richton after construction is completed.
Degrading our river and gulf ecosystems for such a small number of
permanent jobs is a catastrophe and a disgrace. Worse, DOE failed to
consider the loss of existing jobs. Apparently, DOE does not value our
local industrial workers and fishermen. And what about the coast's
growing tourism industry?
DOE says that the proposed tank farm site and deep water dock
required by the project would create only 10 to 20 new jobs while
consuming up to 49 acres of prime industrial land in the Pascagoula
Port. Current industrial uses of land in the port provide far more jobs
per acre. A 49-acre site should produce more than 500 jobs. Do we want
to lose 450 future jobs on the coast?
Private landowners who sell their property for the storage site in
Richton and pipeline rights-of-way are the big beneficiaries of this
expensive publicly funded project. There is very little public benefit.
Even DOE acknowledges that their contractors would use ``in-migrating''
workers for this work instead of local Mississippi residents.
Based on the cost of oil at about $70/bbl, the Richton project
would cost approximately $11 billion for just 18 days worth of oil.
There are far better ways for America to spend $11 billion. Instead of
buying a hole in the ground, America should invest in increased
efficiency and renewable energy systems that would give our children
cleaner water, better jobs, and a more secure nation.
The withdrawal of 50 million gallons of water per day for 5 to 6
years from the Pascagoula River could jeopardize Jackson County's
ability to supply cooling water to existing and future industries. As a
recent example, look at the building moratoriums and economic
disruptions in Georgia as a result of overuse of the Chattahoochee
River.
THE RICHTON SPR EXPANSION SITE--ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF FAT CATS AND
WASHINGTON DUMPING ON MISSISSIPPI
DOE announced the Richton SPR project 3 days after Katrina struck.
Within 4 months after Katrina public hearings were completed in
Jackson. No meetings were held on the coast. Virtually no one from the
coast knew of the plan; most coast citizens were still concerned with
immediate recovery needs.
DOE dodged and ignored public input. Rather than rely on the local
experts at the Gulf Coast Research Laboratory, they hired a Washington
contractor to conduct the entire evaluation of the project's effects on
the coast. None of the project team has ever been on the Pascagoula
River, the Mississippi or the Gulf of Mexico in Mississippi.
A citizen outcry in 2008 prompted public meetings finally won coast
residents an opportunity to participate. More than 400 people attended,
including businessmen, scientists, and fishermen. They detailed the
proposed project's many problems, they offered a wealth of information,
and volunteered their help. Now, a year later, DOE has released the
supplemental study and still have not bothered to talk to GCRL and
other local experts who know the river and the coastal waters.
Again, I urge the Senate Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee
on Energy and Water Development to keep funding for the proposed
Richton Salt Dome SPR out of the Federal budget. These are tough
economic times for everyone and we do not need our Government to spend
any more resources on DOE's proposed project. Thank you for your
consideration.
______
Prepared Statement of Julia O'Neal
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY STRATEGIC PETROLEUM RESERVES RICHTON SALT
DOME PROJECT
I strongly support the cancellation of all previous funding for the
Richton project in the President's fiscal year 2011 budget request for
the Department of Energy (DOE) and urge the Senate Committee on
Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development and its
members to support this portion of the proposed budget.
Along with many others, particularly the Gulf Conservation
Coalition and the Gulf Restoration Network, I herewith voice my
objections to the DOE's choosing the most expensive site for the
expansion of the SPR (the next most expensive, Big Hill, Texas, was
less about 15 percent of the cost of Richton, largely because of the
330 miles of pipeline required in Mississippi); the fact that the
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) has not been finalized per NEPA
requirements; and the extensive water pollution and environmental
destruction the Richton Salt Dome Project would create.
Others have done an excellent job on the cost and detailed comments
on the EIS. I would like to highlight the politics of this project. Our
family farm is about 30 miles north of Biloxi. Katrina was a big
setback for this area, which has always been poor anyway. The coming of
the casinos to the Mississippi gulf coast made a big economic change
there, but the isolated, uneducated culture persists only a few miles
inland. Because developers never were interested in South Mississippi,
much of it remains in its natural state--natural, that is, post the
massive harvest of the longleaf pine at the turn of the last century.
Most people have no idea what a gem we have in, for instance, the
largest unregulated river system in the lower 48, the Pascagoula River.
People are just beginning to tap the potential for ecotourism in an
area that hosts an annual abundance of neotropical migrating birds,
clear sandy streams and creeks, and lots of native flora and fauna.
Mississippi's Governor at the time of Katrina, Haley Barbour, was a
significant actor in Cheney's Energy Task Force--known to have
recommended (on behalf of his lobbying client, the Southern Company)
that George W. Bush renege on his campaign promise to cut emissions
(http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Haley_Barbour). Just weeks
before Katrina, the Sierra Club released a film connecting the Energy
Task Force to Barbour's attempt to open up the inner Mississippi gulf
coast at the barrier islands to oil and gas drilling (http://
www.sierraclub.org/tv/episode-storm.asp, see Episode 6, ``Storm in the
Gulf ''). Katrina taught us, again, how much we need those undisturbed
barrier islands.
Barbour had more Energy Task Force business to conduct. Some
little-noticed Federal legislation sponsored by then-Representative
Chip Pickering only allowed DOE to look at previously considered sites,
or those nominated by a Governor, for expanding the SPR (the Pickering
Strategic Petroleum Reserve Amendment to the Energy Policy Act of
2005). Then, on October 18, 2005, just weeks after Katrina, public
scoping meetings for expansion of the SPR were held in Jackson. Jackson
oilman Julius Ridgeway, who had contributed $70,000 to the Republican
Party, testified that his family owned 75 percent of the salt and
storage rights under the dome (http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/
reserves/spr/jackson_meeting_transcript.pdf). Ridgeway announced his
``cooperation and support'' and Pickering called it ``the largest
Federal construction project in Mississippi history.'' In 2006, Barbour
contacted Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman and Deputy Secretary Clay Ball
offering two sites for the SPR (U.S. Department of Energy Executive
Secretariat Correspondence Control). In the same year, Bodman's former
chief of staff, Eric Burgeson, joined Barbour's lobbying firm (http://
www.muckety.com/Eric-Robert-Burgeson/11067.muckety). On February 14,
2007, Bodman announced Richton would be the site of the new SPR
facility.
None of this is illegal of course. But such conflict of interest
does not serve the American taxpayers' best interests.
The part of the State that would be most affected by this project
was otherwise engaged on October 18, 2005. We were looking for water,
gas, food and shelter, and trying to get out from under massive fallen
trees. (See the second paragraph of Ronnie Blackwell's 2007 column for
our confusion about the local SPR site-choice process: http://
ronnieblackwell.com/Wordpress/?p=71).
The EIS, which cost the DOE $3.7 million, was conducted by ICF
International, the firm that incompetently conducted the ``Road Home''
program in Louisiana after Katrina. I have seen (and can produce on
request) an e-mail to David Johnson at the DOE from Ian Frost, a
consultant for ICFI, dated June 6, 2007, that discusses a U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service request for an additional U.S. Geological Survey study
relative to water flow. The e-mail suggests that the consultants are
more interested in helping DOE get the project built than doing a
thorough EIS.
The Richton Salt Dome project aims to pump 50 million gallons of
water per day out of the Pascagoula and Leaf Rivers. The water will be
pumped (using lots and lots of fossil fuel) into a land formation
called the Richton Salt Dome. Instead of mining the salt and selling it
to the people up north who say they need it for de-icing roads, the
salt will be mixed with perfectly clean, even potable, water, and
pumped through the salt dome. Then the highly salted water (``brine'')
will be pumped into the Gulf of Mexico (using lots more fossil fuel for
that pump job), where the excess salt in the water will do in marine
life, including the endangered Gulf Sturgeon. The brine should pretty
much end oysters, shrimp and fishing in the Mississippi Sound. Any
aquatic species, plant or fish or mammal, which depends on the brackish
combination of fresh and salt water will be destroyed. The Salt Dome
project will deliberately turn pristine water into brine and create a
Dead Zone in the gulf where it is dumped.
Meanwhile, about 2 years ago, not-so-far-away Tampa completed a
$150 million desalination plant. They need fresh water; we apparently
don't.
Three years after the rushed meeting in Jackson, about which we
knew little, the DOE had a final EIS. We on the coast were dumbstruck,
and our Representative, Gene Taylor, insisted that public hearings be
conducted in the area that would be affected, which had never taken
place previously (http://www.gulfcoastnews.com/
GCNnewsRichtonSaltDomeHearingsTaylor012408.htm). So the DOE
condescendingly scheduled three ``open meetings'' (http://
gulfconservationcoalition.com/docs/USDOE.SUP.EIS.Meeting.Notice.PDF).
And what do we U.S. citizens get for our $3.5-$4 billion? We will
have 160 million gallons of unrefined oil, supposedly enough to run the
United States for 2 weeks. Here's what has to be built just to deliver
the crude to the Chevron refinery: http://fossil.energy.gov/programs/
reserves/spr/Richton_WebSite_Fact_Sheet.pdf. You can almost hear the
simple slide presentation, but behind it lie a lot of dead birds and
fish. And note that one-half the oil goes to a Naval Station, not to
civilians or businesses.
What about the environmental consequences? Well, the DOE has
studied them carefully: http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/reserves/
publications/Pubs-SPR/2006_SPR_EIS.html.
Click on chapter 3, section 3.6, ``Water Resources.'' Richton
surface water analysis begins on p. 3-130. There are four pages of
tables describing the impact on creeks and streams--generally the same
phrase ``Impaired use for aquatic life support.'' Originally, I thought
``N/A'' in the tables must mean ``not affected.'' Nope: ``not
available.'' They didn't bother. For most of the surface water in the
vicinity of Richton, the impact of the salt dome project is
``impaired'' or ``not available.'' It is hard for me to believe that
the impairment extends so far upstream into tributaries . . . even to
Black Creek, a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service designated ``Wild and
Scenic River.''
After 2 weeks, then what? No water, no fish, no birds, and,
presumably, the emergency oil supply is gone. Why not just spend the
$3.5 billion this project will cost on solar panels for American homes?
At least they would last longer than 2 weeks--and a little fan, a
little light, a few communication devices like TV or radio or Internet,
all that means a lot in an emergency. We know. We lived through
Katrina, and everything was not OK after 2 weeks.
Despite promises, we never saw any revisions to the EIS based on
our many comments in 2008. To our knowledge, no scientists we
recommended were consulted. The hearings were meant to placate the
public, not to listen.
At a time when no one seriously questions that burning fossil fuels
is changing our climate far more rapidly than we can control, our
Government can't seem to get off the teat. First we dig up the oil,
then we dig another hole and put it back in the ground. It's stupid,
dirty, and dangerous to the water we need.
______
Prepared Statement of the Coalition of Northeastern Governors
The Coalition of Northeastern Governors (CONEG) is pleased to
provide this testimony to the Senate Committee on Appropriations
Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development regarding fiscal year 2011
appropriations for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). The CONEG
Governors request funding for the following Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy Programs: $300 million for the Weatherization
Assistance Program and $30 million for the Innovation in Weatherization
Program, at least $75 million in the base appropriations for the State
Energy Program, and $230 million for the Building Technologies Program.
In addition, the Governors request at least $129 million for the Energy
Information Administration, and sufficient funding for maintenance and
operation of the Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve. The Governors
support the President's request for increased funding of solar energy,
wind energy and electricity reliability programs; and also urge the
committee to ensure that, through the U.S. Department of Energy, $7.5
million is provided to maintain the critical networks and market
development work of the National Biomass Partnership (previously known
as the Regional Biomass Energy Program).
The Governors recognize the daunting fiscal challenges facing the
subcommittee this year, and thank you for your past support for these
vital programs. Continued investment in these very successful energy
programs is a crucial step toward achieving the Nation's energy
security, economic and environmental goals.
WEATHERIZATION ASSISTANCE AND STATE ENERGY PROGRAMS
The Nation's current economic situation has placed a new emphasis
on the benefits of the Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP) and the
State Energy Program (SEP). Working with all 50 States, the District of
Columbia and U.S. Territories, these successful programs allow States
to quickly and efficiently implement energy saving technologies and
practices, creating green jobs and achieving real savings for families
struggling with unaffordable home energy costs. The Governors thank the
subcommittee for providing substantial funding for these crucial
programs in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). While
there have been some challenges at the State and Federal level in
ramping-up these programs and meeting new ARRA program requirements,
States and the Federal Government have worked together to find
effective solutions. More than one-half of the SEP funds (over $1.8
billion) are committed, and spending of WAP funds is accelerating
rapidly and on target to reach the goal of weatherizing 600,000 homes
by March 2012. Continued base funding is needed in fiscal year 2011 to
help sustain valuable green jobs and to realize and effectively assess
the continuing energy and environmental benefits of these programs.
Weatherization Assistance Program.--The CONEG Governors request
$300 million in fiscal year 2011 for the WAP, plus $30 million for
continuation of the Innovation in Weatherization program.
Weatherization is an immediate and effective tool to manage the energy
use of low-income households. The need continues to be great. Forty-
nine percent of these households are occupied by the elderly or
disabled; and these households can spend as much as 20 percent of their
annual income on home energy bills compared to just 3 percent by other
households. Since its inception in 1976, WAP has weatherized more than
6.25 million low-income residences across the county. In addition to
the stimulus funds, the program uses nearly $1 billion in Federal,
State, local, utility, and private funds to reach more than 150,000
homes each year.
Through a State-managed network of more than 900 local
weatherization providers, WAP increases residential energy efficiency.
The program, which provides specialized training and career
development, creates a workforce trained in the most advanced
assessment and installation techniques. Weatherization service
providers perform comprehensive computerized energy audits of each
home, and provide a package of efficiency measures tailored to the
individual needs of each household.
Many of these weatherization measures include inexpensive, yet
effective upgrades such as installing insulation; sealing ducts; and
tuning and repairing heating and cooling systems. In addition, the
program uses a ``whole house'' approach, incorporating advanced
technologies to address comprehensive energy usage in low-income homes,
as well as related health and safety improvements. DOE estimates that
the program returns $1.67 in energy-related benefits for every $1
invested.
This successful public-private partnership creates considerable
investments in local economies across the country; provides continued
professional development for workers; and contributes to increased home
values, and the health and safety of the Nation's most vulnerable
citizens. The program yields benefits that are far-reaching and long-
lasting.
The goal of the complementary Innovation in Weatherization program
is to demonstrate new ways to weatherize low-income homes while
lowering the Federal cost for residential energy retrofits. Through
partnerships with organizations such as non-profits, labor unions, and
private contractors, the program strives to obtain $3 in non-Federal
contributions for every $1 invested by DOE.
State Energy Program.--The CONEG Governors request at least $75
million in the base appropriations for the SEP in fiscal year 2011.
Ensuring this base funding level is critical for the SEP to continue as
the nationwide cornerstone of the State-Federal-private partnership for
many energy efficiency and conservation programs. Especially for the
smaller States, the base SEP program allows them to dramatically expand
program delivery and leverage non-Federal resources with Federal funds.
SEP is vital to achieving energy efficiency and conservation in energy
end-use sectors such as buildings, industrial, agriculture,
transportation, and power generation. The program, which has a proven
track record of effectiveness, assists States' initiatives that help
realize national goals of greater energy efficiency; reduced energy
costs; development of alternative and renewable energy resources; and
reduced reliance on imported sources of energy. The SEP also helps
States in their critical emergency preparedness activities, improving
the security and reliability of energy infrastructure, and preparing
for natural disasters.
SEP funding provides States with the flexibility to tailor their
renewable energy and energy efficiency programs to maximize the
effectiveness of the program's resources. The Northeast States have
used SEP funds to support projects to update emergency plans to
anticipate and respond to potential shortages of electric power,
natural gas and deliverable fuels. SEP funds have also been used by
State agencies to assist in reducing energy use in commercial and
institutional buildings, fleets, and equipment; perform small business
energy audits; and provide public information and education to local
residents, small businesses, farmers, and others to make them aware of
opportunities to reduce energy consumption and energy bills.
The modest (non-ARRA) Federal funds provided to the SEP are an
efficient and effective Federal investment, yielding substantial and
extensive energy and economic benefits. States can ensure that the
energy improvements are delivered, since most SEP work is undertaken
through leveraged agreements and reimbursable contracts. According to
the most recent Oak Ridge National Laboratory study, $1 in SEP funding
yields: $7.22 in annual energy cost savings; $10.71 in leveraged
funding; annual energy savings of 47,593,409 million source BTUs; and
annual cost savings of more than $333 million. The environmental
benefits are equally as impressive resulting in an annual reduction of
carbon emissions of 826 million metric tons--the same amount produced
by 582,000 automobiles in a single year.
BUILDING TECHNOLOGIES
The CONEG Governors request $230 million in fiscal year 2011 for
the Building Technologies Program (BTP). The program has created unique
and effective partnerships with States, industry, national
laboratories, universities and manufacturers to improve the energy
efficiency of new and existing buildings, and the equipment and systems
within them.
According to the Department of Energy, buildings account for more
than 70 percent of the electric energy consumed in the United States
and are responsible for 38 percent of total U.S. carbon dioxide
emissions. With roughly 15 million new buildings projected to be built
by 2015, a tremendous opportunity exists for the development and
deployment of energy efficient technologies and building practices. The
potential environmental benefits and energy and cost savings are
significant.
BTP develops and promotes deployment of technologies to make new
and existing homes and buildings less energy intensive. One of the
strategic goals of BTP is to create net zero energy buildings that,
through a combination of on-site renewable energy and increased
efficiency, can generate an equal or greater amount of energy than they
consume from the grid. The program pursues this goal through
complementary activities that include R&D; development and improvement
of equipment standards and analysis; and introduction of new advanced
technologies and the widespread use of highly efficient technologies
already in the market.
BTP also collaborates with other DOE programs as well as partners
of the highly successful ENERGY STAR program to increase awareness,
availability and purchase of energy efficient appliances, lighting and
windows. According to DOE, in 2006, ENERGY STAR saved 170 billion
kilowatt hours--or almost 5 percent of the total 2006 electricity
demand--and helped avoid greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to those
from 25 million automobiles.
ENERGY INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION
The Governors support fiscal year 2011 funding for the Energy
Information Administration (EIA) at least at the level of $129 million.
EIA is the Nation's foremost source of reliable independent
information, analyses and forecasts on the energy produced, imported
and consumed in the United States. As Congress and the administration
continue to develop and debate critical energy and environmental
strategies, EIA is increasingly and consistently called upon to provide
unbiased, timely and reliable information. In addition, States rely on
EIA data as the core of their information for energy emergency
planning. New requirements included in the Energy Independence and
Security Act of 2007, as well as the evaluation of an increasingly more
complex and interdependent energy industry has created a vastly
increased workload for EIA and the need for more rigorous data
collection and analysis.
A modest increase in funding in fiscal year 2011 will help ensure
that EIA can continue to provide the most accurate and reliable
information on the energy markets and industry.
NORTHEAST HOME HEATING OIL RESERVE
The CONEG Governors request sufficient fiscal year 2011 funding for
maintenance and operation of the Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve.
The Nation's heightened emphasis on energy reliability and security
places renewed importance on the Reserve.
Almost 70 percent of the 7.7 million households heating primarily
with home heating oil are in the Northeast, making the region
particularly vulnerable to the effects of supply disruptions and price
volatility. The Northeast region is literally at the end of the energy
product pipeline. Any disruption along the delivery infrastructure
anywhere in the country negatively impacts the Northeast. The Reserve
is strategically placed in ports along the northeast coast to respond
rapidly and efficiently to any emergency supply interruption. The
Reserve is designed to provide an emergency supplemental supply over a
10 day delivery period--the time required for ships to carry heating
oil from the Gulf of Mexico to New York Harbor--in the event of a
supply disruption or shortage in the Northeast. Adequate funding will
ensure the Reserve is maintained in a high state of readiness and
capable of completing an immediate drawdown if needed.
RENEWABLE AND RELIABLE ENERGY
Renewable, reliable energy contributes to the achievement of
multiple regional and national goals, including lowering greenhouse gas
emissions, increasing and diversifying domestic energy supply, creating
new jobs, and enhancing the Nation's energy security. A strong Federal
partner and consistent and sustained funding for solar energy, wind
energy and electricity reliability programs are essential. Therefore,
the Governors support the President's request for increased funding for
these important programs.
The Governors also request that the subcommittee ensure that,
through the U.S. Department of Energy, $7.5 million is provided to
maintain the critical networks and market development work of the
National Biomass Partnership (previously known as the Regional Biomass
Energy Program). The Partnership, a collaboration of five regional
biomass energy programs created by Congress, is a critical link in the
chain of research, resource production and technology commercialization
that is essential to bringing bioenergy technologies successfully into
the marketplace.
The States contribute significant resources to support the
development of biomass fuels, technology, and infrastructure. The
Partnership has demonstrated its ability to expedite deployment of the
biomass fuels, technology, and infrastructure that is necessary to
reach common goals of States and the Federal Government. In the
Northeast alone, the Northeast Regional Biomass Program (NRBP) directly
influenced $24 million in biomass investments--69 percent of the
overall biomass investment made in the region in 2003. Working with
State, Federal and private sector officials, the NRBP has provided
bioenergy education and training to nearly 3,000 people in the region
and contributed to State-developed bioenergy policies and programs.
However, the absence of a strong Federal partner threatens this State-
private sector effort to better coordinate the institutional and
physical infrastructure for deployment of sustainable biomass fuels and
bioenergy technologies.
In conclusion, the Coalition of Northeastern Governors (CONEG)
request that you provide $300 million for the Weatherization Assistance
Program and $30 million for the Innovation in Weatherization Program,
at least $75 million in the base appropriations for the State Energy
Program, $230 million for the Building Technologies Program, at least
$129 million for the Energy Information Administration, and $7.5
million for the work of the National Biomass Partnership. In addition,
the Governors support the President's request for increased funding of
solar energy, wind energy and electricity reliability programs, and
sufficient funding for maintenance and operation of the Northeast Home
Heating Oil Reserve.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Society for Microbiology
The American Society for Microbiology (ASM) is pleased to submit
the following testimony on the fiscal year 2011 appropriation for the
Department of Energy (DOE) science programs. The ASM is the largest
single life science organization in the world with more than 40,000
members. The ASM mission is to enhance the science of microbiology, to
gain a better understanding of life processes, and to promote the
application of this knowledge for improved health and environmental
well being.
The ASM supports the administration's fiscal year 2011 budget of
$5.1 billion for the DOE Office of Science, a 4.4 percent increase from
fiscal year 2010. The ASM endorses the administration's pledge to
double funding for the DOE Office of Science by fiscal year 2017. The
Office of Science funds intramural and extramural research that might
not be undertaken otherwise due to its complexity or cutting edge and
theoretical nature. However, such research leads to the technological
innovations needed to enhance our economy, our workforce, and our
environment.
The DOE's Office of Science is the largest sponsor of basic
research for the physical sciences in the United States, and also
supports substantial life sciences research. It supports more than
7,000 individual research projects at more than 300 academic
institutions, and 10 DOE national laboratories. It also provides access
to leading edge research facilities for extramural investigators,
including an estimated 26,000 that will use these facilities in fiscal
year 2011.
BIOLOGICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH (BER)
The Office of Biological and Environmental Research, within the DOE
Office of Science, oversees research and facilities that support DOE's
energy, environment, and basic research missions. BER sponsored
research provides the foundational science underpinning DOE's goals for
development of clean bioenergy sources, remediation and long term
stewardship of legacy environmental contamination and understanding the
impacts of climate change on Earth's ecosystems.
BER programs enable solutions for some of the Nation's most
difficult energy related and environmental challenges by advancing our
basic understanding of climate change, biofuels, carbon sequestration,
remediation of subsurface contaminants, and interactions of biological
and physical systems. Wide ranging studies of microbes are central to
all of these efforts and include pioneering studies of the genetic
potential of individual organisms and microbial communities in complex
environments, as well development of new bioinformatics tools for
effectively managing and utilizing large datasets to advance genome
enabled scientific research.
GENOMIC SCIENCE
The BER Genomic Science program (formerly Genomics: GTL)
accelerates the development of practical solutions to energy and
environmental problems by understanding the integrated biological
systems of microbes and plants that govern their structure and
function. This program uses high throughput genome sequencing and
cutting-edge systems biology research techniques to understand key
biological processes, ranging from molecular-scale networks of single
cells to community scale interactions of ecosystems. In addition to
directly supporting DOE mission driven research efforts at academic
institutions and DOE national laboratories, publicly accessible genomic
and metagenomic sequence data produced by DOE facilities encourage and
support innovation while helping to solve environmental problems and
energize commercial biotechnology in the United States. Addressing
complex environmental and energy problems requires innovative, cross
cutting research. The Genomic Science program supports a wide range of
interdisciplinary research efforts with a strong microbiological
component. For example, a recent program, ``Biological Systems Research
on the Role of Microbial Communities in Carbon Cycling'' seeks to
develop new integrated research efforts in genome enabled systems
biology, environmental microbiology, and modeling of biogeochemical
processes aimed at understanding how shifts in environmental variables
impact microbially mediated carbon cycling. Gaining better quantitative
knowledge of these processes is critical for predicting the storage or
release of carbon from ecosystems and potential levels of
CO2, methane, and other atmospheric greenhouse gases.
JOINT GENOME INSTITUTE (JGI)
BER funding supports the DOE Joint Genome Institute (JGI), which
has sequenced over 450 microbial genomes, more than 200 ``metagenomes''
of microbial communities, and 25 plant genomes with energy and
environmental significance. The JGI provides access for external
researchers to its state of the art sequencing and bioinformatic
capabilities. Current sequencing capacity (about four tera-base pairs
per year) is continually expanding with advances in sequencing
technology and computing. JGI researchers generate results that push
the boundaries of genomics, sequencing organisms that degrade
cellulose, capture carbon, and transform environmental contaminants.
Their discoveries help stakeholders make decisions about the selection
of new bioenergy crops and cost effective bioenergy production.
BIOENERGY RESEARCH CENTERS
BER supports three DOE Bioenergy Research Centers (BRCs,
established in 2007) tasked with developing innovative strategies for
biofuels production. When created, the multidisciplinary Centers
brought together teams of researchers from 18 of the Nation's leading
universities, 7 DOE national laboratories, 1 nonprofit organization,
and a range of private companies. Their mission is to perform
fundamental research addressing barriers to economic production of
energy from cellulosic biomass, and drastically to reduce the Nation's
consumption of fossil fuels. Goals include identification of next
generation bioenergy crops, discovery of enzymes and microbes that
degrade biomass, and creation of microbe-mediated models of fuel
production of bioethanol and other biofuels. Each center applies
cutting edge technologies and research methods for a wide range of
biomass sources while managing massive data sets in the search for
tomorrow's clean energy.
Headquartered at DOE's Oak Ridge National Laboratory, the
University of Wisconsin-Madison, and DOE's Lawrence Berkeley National
Laboratory, the three BRCs are investigating microbial processes that
can convert diverse crops, such as switchgrass and poplar, into usable
fuels. Specific examples include the BioEnergy Science Center's
approaches for screening samples from natural thermal springs to
identify enzymes and microbes that effectively transform biomass at
high temperatures, and to genetically engineer a lignocellulose
degrading microbe for ethanol production. Researchers at the Great
Lakes Bioenergy Research Center are developing more refined metabolic
models of in microbes to enable design of metabolic engineering
strategies for enhanced biofuel production. The Joint BioEnergy
Institute is pursuing synthetic biology research on microbial synthesis
of a variety of hydrocarbon compounds with higher energy content than
ethanol and better compatibility with existing fuel distribution
infrastructure.
BASIC ENERGY SCIENCES (BES)
The Office of BES, administered within the Office of Science,
supports fundamental research to understand, predict, and control
matter and energy at electronic, atomic, and molecular levels, thus
providing the foundations for new energy technologies and supporting
DOE missions in energy, environment, and national security. The
portfolio supports work in the natural sciences, emphasizing
fundamental research in materials sciences, chemistry, geosciences, and
aspects of biosciences. BES also operates sophisticated state of the
art equipment and facilities open to investigators from private
institutions, universities, and national laboratories. Research
highlights include determination of the structure and organization of
the highly efficient light harvesting complex in green sulfur bacteria,
elucidation of protein synthesis mechanisms by methane producing
bacteria, characterization of critical components of algal light
harvesting complexes, and determination of the biosynthetic pathway for
methane production from CO2 and hydrogen.
In 2009, BES Energy Biosciences evolved into two complementary and
synergistic programs, Photosynthetic Systems and Physical Biosciences.
Both programs support unique areas of fundamental research on plant and
non-medical microbial systems.
PHOTOSYNTHETIC SYSTEMS
The BES Photosynthetic Systems program supports fundamental
research on the biological conversion of solar energy to chemically
stored forms of energy, bringing together biology, biochemistry,
chemistry, and biophysics approaches to study natural photosynthesis
and related processes. Advances in genomics technologies such as
metabolomics along with increased availability of plant genomic
sequences are also providing new opportunities to leverage the
strengths of the Photosynthetic Systems program in molecular biology
and biochemistry with powerful capabilities in imaging and computation.
Example topics include light harvesting, exciton transfer, charge
separation, transfer of reductant to carbon dioxide, and the
biochemistry of carbon fixation and carbon storage. Emphasized areas
are those involving strong intersections between biological sciences
and energy-relevant chemical sciences and physics, such as in self
assembly of nanoscale components, efficient photon capture and charge
separation, predictive design of catalysts, and self-regulating/
repairing systems. The program aims to provide a critical scientific
knowledge base that can inspire the roadmap for artificial
photosynthesis and enable new strategies and technologies for more
efficient generation of biomass as a renewal energy source.
PHYSICAL BIOSCIENCES
The BES Physical Biosciences program combines experimental and
computational tools from the physical sciences with biochemistry and
molecular biology. The goal is increased fundamental understanding of
the complex processes that convert and store energy in plants and non
medical microbes, including archaea. Examples of research supported by
this program include studies that investigate the mechanisms by which
energy transduction systems are assembled and maintained, the processes
that regulate energy relevant chemical reactions within the cell, the
underlying biochemical and biophysical principles determining the
architecture of biopolymers and the plant cell wall, and active site
protein chemistry that provides a basis for highly selective and
efficient bioinspired catalysts. Combined with efforts in molecular
biology and biochemistry, increased use of physical science and
computational tools (ultrafast laser spectroscopy, current and future
x-ray light sources, quantum chemistry) to probe spatial and temporal
properties will give us an unprecedented architectural and mechanistic
understanding of biological systems and allow the incorporation of
identified principles into the design of bio-inspired synthetic or
semi-synthetic energy systems.
EPSCOR
The BES administered Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive
Research (EPSCoR) also supports a significant sector of the Nation's
energy research, distributing university grants in a number of States
across the country. EPSCoR's interdisciplinary program areas include,
among many others: biological and environmental science, advanced
computer science, renewable energy science, climate change, genomics,
and science education. EPSCoR has traditionally provided academic
incubators for innovation and economic recovery.
RESEARCH INFRASTRUCTURE AND THE NATION'S WORKFORCE
More than 30,000 scientists and engineers work at DOE laboratories
and technology centers, but many more are supported through grants and
fellowships, or the use of cutting edge facilities and equipment that
often are one of a kind. An example was last September's announcement
of up to $12.5 million in Recovery Act funding for at least 80 graduate
fellowships to U.S. students pursuing advanced STEM-related degrees,
through the Office of Science's new Graduate Fellowship program.
DOE's Office of Science has also initiated an Early Career Research
Program, designed to bolster the Nation's scientific workforce by
providing support to exceptional researchers during the crucial early
career years when many scientists do their most formative work.
Another Office of Science program, Workforce Development for
Teachers and Scientists, specifically targets workforce shortages and
provides college undergraduates and K-12 teachers with DOE laboratory
experiences, designed to attract more young Americans into the STEM
workforce.
The Office oversees 10 world class facilities: the Ames, Argonne,
Brookhaven, Lawrence Berkeley, Oak Ridge, Pacific Northwest, and
Princeton Plasma Physics national laboratories, plus the Fermi, Thomas
Jefferson, and SLAC accelerator facilities. These institutions
encourage use by outside researchers and students, typically without
cost, if results are posted for public knowledge. Each SC facility is
an invaluable resource of unique research tools for scientific
specialists. The Environmental Molecular Sciences Laboratory at the
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory has hosted more than 10,000
scientists from all 50 States and more than 60 countries since its
opening in 1997. This year, the DOE will permit extramural use of
roughly 1.3 billion supercomputer processor hours at its Argonne and
Oak Ridge facilities, awarded to researchers whose projects would be
impossible without petascale (quadrillion calculations per second)
computing.
CONCLUSION
The ASM supports increased funding for the DOE Office of Science in
fiscal year 2011 and urges Congress to fund the Office of Science with
at least $5.1 billion. The diverse Office of Science programs and their
successes advance the DOE's strategic mission to sustain the pace of
scientific discovery and to educate and train a vital scientific
workforce. Global climate change, clean energy, and pristine
environments are challenges that demand sustained responses from the
United States' science and technology sectors. DOE funded science and
engineering are integral to our Nation's search for solutions. The
Office of Science leads this effort with notable basic and applied
energy research, which often is unique in its complexity, technical
requirements, or high risk, high impact design.
The ASM appreciates the opportunity to provide written testimony
and would be pleased to assist the subcommittee as it considers the
fiscal year 2011 appropriation for the DOE.
______
Prepared Statement of the Electric Drive Transportation Association
The Electric Drive Transportation Association (EDTA) is the cross-
industry trade association promoting the advancement of electric drive
technology and electrified transportation and we are writing regarding
the fiscal year 2011 request for the Department of Energy's Vehicle
Technologies and other electric drive programs.
Our members include vehicle manufacturers, battery and component
manufacturers, utilities and energy companies, and smart grid and
charging infrastructure developers. We are committed to realizing the
economic, security, and environmental benefits of displacing oil with
battery electric, hybrid, plug-in hybrid and fuel cell vehicles.
The Nation is moving toward an electrified fleet and the electric
drive industry is advancing into the marketplace as rapidly as
possible. Electric drive is already in use in passenger cars,
commercial trucks, neighborhood electric vehicles, public transport
buses, tractors and ground support equipment. As the industry invests
in research and development, advanced manufacturing and coordinated
deployment initiatives, the Department of Energy's continued commitment
to fast-tracking electrified transportation is critical to our success.
We support the fiscal year 2011 budget's focus on advancing
electric drive vehicle technologies that will reduce petroleum
consumption and air pollutants while increasing energy security and
global competitiveness. Like the electric drive industry itself, the
Department of Energy is undertaking crosscutting efforts to move
electric drive vehicles and infrastructure forward.
In particular, we believe that the requested increases for
batteries and electric drive research and development (in a separate
Vehicle Technologies program in the fiscal year 2011 request) can
accelerate critical cost reduction and performance advancements. The
additional efforts funded in the Technology Integration account's Clean
Cities program will support the industry's own efforts to expand
deployment of electric drive vehicles and recharging infrastructure.
Establishment of a batteries and energy storage ``innovation hub'' in
the Office of Science ensure that we continue pushing for the next
breakthroughs even as we are moving electric drive vehicles into the
market and the mainstream.
In addition to these essential investments, we also see areas in
which the budget request misses key opportunities to advance a diverse
portfolio of electric drive vehicles. Specifically, the Department of
Energy has established a program and a pathway for building U.S.
manufacturing capacity for advanced vehicles in the Advanced Technology
Vehicle Manufacturing (ATVM) program. Although the program had more
applicants establish electric drive manufacturing in the United States
than funds, the fiscal year 2011 budget does not request any additional
new award resources for the program. Additional funds for the ATVM
program will promote industry investment in U.S. manufacturing, speed
the vehicles to market and help build the foundation of the green jobs
economy.
Another area in which the request is missing an opportunity is in
the hydrogen and fuel cell programs, specifically as it relates to
development of fuel cell electric vehicles and hydrogen refueling
infrastructure. Fuel cell electric vehicles are important electric
vehicle options because of their performance in diverse vehicle
applications. The industry, working with the Department, has met
critical program milestones in reducing cost, enhancing performance and
deploying fuel cell electric vehicles for real world use. Looking
beyond today's fleet, the National Academy of Science has also
emphasized that achieving U.S. energy security and environmental goals
will require a portfolio of advanced technology vehicles, which needs
to include zero-emission fuel cell options.
The fiscal year 2011 budget request maintains the Department's
commitment to hydrogen and fuel cell research, which we appreciate and
support. However, at $37 million below last year's funded level--a 21
percent cut in funding--the commitment is a tepid one. The request
would eliminate all fuel cell electric vehicle deployment activities in
Technology Validation and ``defer'' funding for early market
development. This short-sighted approach undercuts the industry's own
investments, slows momentum to commercialization and will hurt consumer
confidence in emerging markets.
We urge you to extend the Technology Validation demonstration for
an additional year to provide technology insertion and to ensure that
funding for vehicle and infrastructure deployment, market
transformation, as well as education and other enabling activities, is
sufficient to enable the industry to build on technology and market
achievements.
As a partner in the effort to establish a secure and sustainable
transportation sector, the Department of Energy is accelerating
technology breakthroughs, promoting investment in manufacturing
capacity and speeding deployment of vehicles and infrastructure. We are
pleased that Department's fiscal year 2011 budget builds on its
commitment to transportation electrification with increases for
vehicles and recharging infrastructure development and deployment. We
also respectfully ask that you improve on that effort by supporting
advances in the full electric drive portfolio: battery electric, hybrid
and fuel cell electric vehicles.
We thank you for your consideration.
______
Prepared Statement of the Nuclear Energy Institute
The Nuclear Energy Institute \1\ (NEI) supports fiscal year 2011
funding for the following Department of Energy programs and the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Nuclear Energy Institute is the industry's policy
organization, whose broad mission is to foster the beneficial uses of
nuclear technology in its many commercial forms. Its membership, more
than 350 corporate members in 17 countries, includes every U.S. utility
that operates a nuclear power plant as well as international utilities,
plant designers, architect and engineering firms, uranium mining and
milling companies, nuclear service providers, universities,
manufacturers of radiopharmaceuticals, universities, labor unions and
law firms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee Program Office--$38 million
for administrative expenses and $36 billion in new loan
guarantee authority for nuclear power projects
--Fuel Cycle Research and Development--$201 million
--Reactor Concepts Research, Development and Demonstration--$195
million
--Nuclear Energy Enabling Technologies--$99.3 million
--Integrated University Program--$45 million
--Advanced Test Reactor User Facility--$20 million
--Idaho Facilities Management--$177.5 million
--Radiological Facilities Management--$66.8 million
--Environmental cleanup at DOE sites--$6 billion
--Nuclear Regulatory Commission budget--$1 billion
America's nuclear energy facilities in 2009 continued a decade of
exemplary performance. Nuclear energy continues to surpass all other
electricity sources with an industry average capacity factor of 90.5
percent. This reliability enabled the Nation's 104 reactors to produce
approximately 800 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity--enough for
about 80 million homes--at production costs lower than coal and natural
gas-fired power plants. Nuclear power plants in 31 States generate more
than 70 percent of the U.S. electricity that comes from carbon-free
sources. NEI believes the budget proposed for DOE's Office of Nuclear
Energy is indicative of the administration's belief that nuclear energy
is essential to America's future electricity supply, energy security
and greenhouse gas emission reduction goals.
URANIUM ENRICHMENT D&D FUND TAX UNDUE BURDEN ON UTILITY RATEPAYERS
NEI opposes the proposed $200 million annual tax on utilities to
pay yet again for the decommissioning and decontamination fund at DOE
uranium enrichment facilities.
The Obama administration is seeking reinstatement of the uranium
enrichment decontamination and decommissioning fund, with a proposed
tax on electric utilities of $200 million a year through 2026. Electric
utilities have already paid twice for decommissioning and
decontamination at uranium enrichment plants that originally were
operated by DOE--first as part of the price for uranium enrichment
services from the facilities and again under provisions of the Energy
Policy Act of 1992. Under the 1992 law, the tax on utilities generated
$2.25 billion, adjusted for inflation. The President's fiscal year 2011
budget would impose the tax yet a third time for cleanup at these
sites, representing a new tax on all Americans. This proposal is
unnecessary given the Federal fund for this cleanup program has a
balance of $4.6 billion. A proposal to reinstate the fund in the fiscal
year 2010 budget was defeated by Congress.
INDUSTRY SUPPORTS $36 BILLION FOR INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES LOAN
GUARANTEE PROGRAM
The nuclear industry appreciates the support provided by the
subcommittee for the DOE loan guarantee program for nuclear energy
plants and uranium fuel cycle facilities. NEI urges the subcommittee to
approve the administration's proposal to add $36 billion in loan volume
for nuclear energy plants. The industry has demonstrated the need for
this new authority: 10 nuclear power projects reportedly submitted Part
II loan guarantee applications representing $93.2 billion in loan
volume. Two uranium enrichment projects submitted applications seeking
$4.8 billion, more than double the available amount.
The loan guarantee program for nuclear energy is self-financing,
with project sponsors responsible for underwriting the cost of
providing the credit support to the Federal Government. Properly
implemented, there will be no cost to the taxpayer. In addition,
reducing the cost of capital will reduce project costs and lower
electricity prices for all consumers. Southern Co. projects that its
$3.4 billion share of the $8.3 billion loan guarantee for two reactors
at the Vogtle plant in Georgia is expected to save consumers $15
million to $20 million in interest costs annually over the life of the
loan. The nuclear industry is confident that new nuclear generating
capacity will be competitive and is not aware of any credible
mainstream analysis that shows otherwise. In last year's National
Academies' report, America's Energy Future, new nuclear capacity
competes well against all other baseload options in a carbon-
constrained world.
NEI believes the loan guarantee program's credibility and integrity
rest on demonstrable proof that the lender's interest is well-
protected. NEI supports rigorous due diligence being conducted by the
DOE loan guarantee program office. In addition to legal, financial and
market analysis of proposed projects, DOE will use an independent
engineer to monitor construction progress and certify that construction
is proceeding according to plan before authorizing each month's draw
against the guaranteed loan. DOE's due diligence process, together with
the fact that new nuclear power plants will be competitive, should
ensure that the probability of default--and thus risk to the taxpayer--
is extremely low. NEI urges Congress to support DOE's request to fully
cover the program's administrative costs in fiscal year 2011, which
will result in a net zero appropriation given offsetting collections
from loan applicants for nuclear energy projects.
ENSURING ADEQUATE FUNDING FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
The industry supports fiscal year 2011 funding at the NRC's
requested level. However, the industry recommends that NRC
appropriately, and more expeditiously, resolve long-standing regulatory
issues. The industry applauds the continued oversight of the NRC by
Congress to prioritize agency actions. The agency should be more
transparent in its budgeting to reveal planned staffing and resource
needs by individual divisions. This would demonstrate to Congress, the
public and the industry, which pays 90 percent of the NRC's budget,
that the budget fairly reflects those activities that should be
allocated toward licensee-specific charges rather than general license
fees. NEI supports continuation of the Integrated University Program,
which includes support for universities and community colleges.
INTEGRATED USED FUEL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
The administration's decision to withdraw the construction license
application for a Federal repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada is not a
repudiation of the Government's obligation under the Nuclear Waste
Policy Act to dispose of used nuclear fuel from commercial reactors and
defense applications. NEI does not support the termination of the Yucca
Mountain repository project. Any effort to shut down the site and
remediate it is premature. Numerous State and local governments and the
National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners are seeking
admission to the NRC licensing proceeding to oppose DOE's withdrawal of
the application. Several opponents also have brought suit to stop this
action. The project should proceed and be funded so that the technical
review of the license application is completed. If the NRC licensing
proceeding for the project is terminated, it should be done in a manner
that would permit it to be restarted. Project records, tests, samples,
etc. should be preserved so that they can be used should the project be
resumed.
If the Yucca Mountain project is terminated, consumer payments into
the Federal Nuclear Waste Fund should be suspended for the period of
time for which there is no waste management program against which to
assess costs. Termination of the Yucca Mountain project does not affect
the NRC's pending revision to its ``waste confidence'' findings nor
affect the standard contract for used reactor fuel management between
DOE and utilities.
NEI supports the work of the Blue Ribbon Commission on America's
Nuclear Future, but recommends that the NRC continue technical review
of the Yucca Mountain license application to completion (with the
adjudicatory proceeding held in abeyance) to inform the deliberations
of the commission. The industry supports a three-part integrated used
fuel management strategy that includes: (1) On-site storage at reactor
sites and development of centralized storage at volunteer locations;
(2) Research, development and demonstration of advanced fuel cycle
technologies; and (3) Development of a permanent repository.
The nuclear industry consistently has supported research and
development of the advanced fuel cycle technologies proposed in the
Fuel Cycle Research and Development program ($201 million). DOE's plans
should be brought into compliance with any recommendations of the blue
ribbon commission that Congress ultimately accepts.
DEVELOPMENT OF ADVANCED REACTOR TECHNOLOGIES
The administration has proposed several new initiatives for the
Office of Nuclear Energy for fiscal year 2011. NEI is encouraged by
DOE's development of a road map on milestones and annual funding so
that Congress and the public will support these new program
initiatives. NEI supports $195 million in funding for the Reactor
Concepts Research, Development and Deployment program in fiscal year
2011. Within this program, $103 million in funding would be allocated
for the Next Generation Nuclear Plant (NGNP) program. Westinghouse
Electric Co. and General Atomics will begin work on next generation
reactor designs after being awarded $40 million last month by the
Department of Energy. Advanced reactor technology can displace the use
of fuels such as natural gas for producing process heat, thus enhancing
U.S. energy security, stabilizing energy prices and improving the use
of finite natural resources.
NEI also recommends $25.7 million in fiscal year 2011 for the Light
Water Reactor Sustainability program, focusing on materials science and
materials performance in reactor operations; $38.8 million for the
Small Modular Reactors program with the possibility of additional funds
if justified; and $21.8 million for the continuation of the Generation
IV program on advanced reactor concepts. NEI supports $99.3 million for
the new Nuclear Enabling Technologies program, including the Modeling
and Simulation Hub as suggested by the administration but recommends
DOE seek industry input for program plans as the hub focuses on
materials science and improving reactor component manufacturing.
MAINTAIN FUNDING FOR WORKFORCE AND INFRASTRUCTURE
Congress in the last 2 years has approved $45 million for an
Integrated University Program. NEI requests the committee maintain DOE
and NRC funding for this program to effectively educate technicians and
professionals for careers in all sectors of nuclear science and
technology. Additionally, NEI recommends that the subcommittee support
$5 million for the DOE Research Reactor Infrastructure program for new
fuel and shipping containers, reactor instrumentation and upgrades, and
used fuel services. Industry also supports $20 million for the Advanced
Test Reactor (ATR) National Scientific User Facility at Idaho National
Lab as part of the lab's $177.5 million facilities management budget in
fiscal year 2011. This funding supports a vital facility needed to
evaluate and improve nuclear fuel and materials behavior and
performance for DOE, university and industry projects.
ENVIRONMENTAL CLEAN UP
NEI supports the budget request of $6 billion for DOE's
Environmental Management Office.
______
Prepared Statement of the Energy Sciences Coalition
The Energy Sciences Coalition (ESC) strongly supports the
administration's goal to double funding for the Department of Energy's
(DOE) Office of Science between fiscal year 2007 to fiscal year 2017, a
goal that is consistent with the bipartisan American COMPETES Act and
the recommendations in the National Academies' 2005 report ``Rising
Above the Gathering Storm.'' To that end, the ESC supports funding of
at least $5.121 billion for the Office of Science in fiscal year 2011--
an amount equal to the level requested by the administration for fiscal
year 2011 and a 4.4 percent increase over fiscal year 2010.
The ESC is aware of the significant fiscal constraints facing the
administration and Congress this year. Weighing the economic
competitiveness and national security value of investments in Office of
Science programs and facilities, however, we believe that funding for
the Office of Science of at least the amount included in the budget
request can easily be justified. The Office of Science is the Nation's
primary sponsor of basic research in the physical sciences, and the
facilities and research it supports are vital to ensuring our energy
security and national competitiveness, meeting our environmental
challenges, and producing new jobs and innovative technological
breakthroughs that will fuel our economy.
Specifically, this funding will:
--Allow the Office of Science to maintain and strengthen DOE's core
research programs at both the DOE national laboratories and at
universities;
--Support investigators at more than 300 academic institutions and
from all DOE national laboratories;
--Enable support for 27,000 PhDs, postdoctoral associates, and
graduate students in fiscal year 2011--approximately 2,000 more
than were supported in fiscal year 2010;
--Ensure maximum utilization of DOE research facilities by 26,000
researchers from universities, national laboratories, industry,
and international partners; and
--Allow the Office of Science to develop and construct the next-
generation facilities necessary to maintain U.S. preeminence in
research and development in the physical and biological
sciences, computing, and many other critical scientific fields.
The ESC therefore urges Congress to support the administration's
fiscal year 2011 budget request and invest at least $5.121 billion in
the DOE Office of Science.
ENDORSING ORGANIZATIONS
American Chemical Society
American Institute for Medical and Biological Engineering
American Institute of Physics
American Mathematical Society
American Physical Society
American Society for Engineering Education
American Society for Microbiology
American Society of Plant Biologists
Arizona State University
ASME
Association of American Universities
Association of Public and Land-grant
Universities--APLU
ASTRA, The Alliance for Science &
Technology Research in America
Battelle
Biophysical Society
California Institute of Technology
Council of Energy Research and Education
Leaders
Duke University
Florida International University
Georgia Institute of Technology
Harvard University
Indiana University
Jefferson Science Associates, LLC
Krell Institute
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Materials Research Society
Michigan State University
North Carolina State University
The Ohio State University
The Optical Society
Oregon State University
Princeton University
Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey
Semiconductor Industry Association
Semiconductor Research Corporation
Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics
Southeastern Universities Research Association
Stanford University
Stony Brook University
Texas A&M University
Tulane University
The University of California
University of California, Berkeley
University of California, Davis
University of California, Irvine
University of California, Los Angeles
University of California, Merced
University of California, Riverside
University of California, San Diego
University of California, San Francisco
University of California, Santa Barbara
University of California, Santa Cruz
University of Central Florida
University of Chicago
University of Hawaii System
University of Illinois
University of Maryland
University of Massachusetts
University of Michigan
University of Minnesota
University of New Mexico
University of Pittsburgh
University of Southern California
University of Washington
University of Wisconsin-Madison
Vanderbilt University
Washington State University
Washington University in St. Louis
______
Prepared Statement of IBACOS, Inc.
IBACOS (Integrated Building and Construction Solutions) urges the
Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development to provide $46 million for
the Building America Program at the Department of Energy's (DOE) Office
of Building Technologies in fiscal year 2011 Appropriations under the
Office of Building Technologies, Residential Building Integration,
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. We further urge that the
following language is included to ensure that the competitively
selected Building America teams are funded at a percentage comparable
to their historic funding: Of these funds, $35 million shall be
provided for the research activities of the competitively selected
Building America research teams, the Building America lead research
laboratory, and other national laboratories conducting research to
achieve Building America's specified energy performance targets.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Residential Buildings currently account for over 20 percent of the
primary energy consumed by the United States. Since 2000, over 12
million new homes have been constructed, and each year over a million
homes are remodeled. Significant energy savings can be achieved at
minimal increases in construction costs provided that a long term and
consistent commitment is made to work in partnership with the housing
industry. DOE's Building America Program has developed an industry-
driven research approach to develop solutions that can reduce the
average energy use in new housing by 50 percent by 2015, providing
significant benefits to homeowners in terms of reduced utility bills
and significant benefits to the U.S. economy by maintaining housing as
a major source of jobs and economic growth. If building in significant
energy savings isn't done now, the Nation risks using an extravagant
amount of energy in the future. In order to reduce reliance on foreign
energy supplies and to support the stabilization of greenhouse gas
emissions, we must invest appropriately in research in the areas of
technology, systems integration, and building and renovating processes
to upgrade the performance of our housing stock, otherwise, we are
mortgaging our future.
Research, development, and outreach activities performed by the
competitively selected industry Teams in the Building America Program
are the key element in the DOE strategy to reduce energy consumption in
residential buildings. The Teams' activities focus on increasing the
performance of new and existing homes by developing advanced energy
systems that can be implemented on a production basis, while meeting
consumer and building performance requirements.
The Teams have been working on improving efficiency in housing
since 1992, with successes being embodied in EPA's Energy Star Home
program and DOE's Builders Challenge, and they are now focused on the
more difficult task of meeting DOE's goals to create strategies to
achieve 50 percent whole house savings by 2015, and ultimately Zero
Energy Homes (ZEH)--homes that produce as much energy as they use on an
annual basis--broad spread in the market by 2025.
A NEW FRONTIER IN RESEARCH--ZERO ENERGY HOMES
The research needed to develop systems and strategies to achieve
DOE's short and longer term goals is not simply applying lessons
learned; rather, fundamental research is still required. This R&D,
performed by the Building America Teams, is truly high-need, high-risk,
high-payoff research.
The research required to meet the goals of 50 percent savings and
ZEH is costly and high risk:
--Significant basic research is required to develop and integrate new
technologies into homes before they are proven effective enough
to be applied in the field.
--This research is costly and risky, and will never be undertaken by
the industry alone.
--The life cycle of this research is significantly longer than that
of comparable industries.
--The homebuilding industry is extremely fragmented, with
homebuilders having little ability to drive research, and a
significantly lower than average financial commitment to
investing in research.
--Builders need successful business models to apply related to
effectively and profitably integrating new technologies and
strategies.
The research required to meet the goals of 50 percent savings and
ZEH is also high-payoff for the following reasons:
--Once constructed, homes have a long lifespan, providing the
opportunity for a durable long term reduction in energy use.
--Effective strategies to reduce energy use will positively impact
consumers, as well as the Nation's energy demand.
--Successful research into integration strategies will allow new,
high-risk technologies to be adopted more quickly and
effectively, and can identify code barriers that might prevent
energy efficiency and market adoption.
BUILDING AMERICA COMPETITIVE TEAMS: SUCCESSES IN THE REAL WORLD
The work of the Teams allows industry leadership to drive cost
effective solutions that move us toward Zero Energy Homes. Building
America Builder partners have shown that homes with energy savings up
to 40 percent can be cost competitive and valued by consumers in
today's marketplace. These homes have lower energy bills and operating
costs, and increased building durability as well as occupant safety,
health, and comfort. The teams have been instrumental developing cost
effective solutions at the 30 percent and 40 percent energy saving
levels currently used by regional builders and divisions of national
builders such as Pulte Homes, David Weekly Homes, K Hovnanian Homes,
Beazer Homes, Centex Homes, Imagine Homes, Ideal Homes, Veridian Homes,
Tommy Williams, to name a few. The more than 500 private sector
partners who work with the Teams are experts in home construction,
building products and supply, architecture, engineering, community
planning, and mortgage lending. All construction material and labor
costs for homes and communities constructed by Building America Teams'
builders are provided by DOE's private sector partners.
In addition to performing the fundamental research needed to
advance the energy efficiency of our Nation's housing stock, the
Building America Teams also provide recommendations to a broad range of
residential deployment partners including the EPA's Energy Star Homes
Program, HUD's Partnership for Advancing Technologies in Housing
Program, DOE's Builders Challenge, and many industry associations and
universities.
DOE's Role in the Residential Buildings Research Partnerships:
--Catalyzing research in residential construction necessary to
increase the energy performance, and bringing together industry
partners to leverage research dollars and expertise.
--Matching advanced product research programs to the system
integration efforts of the Building America Teams to ensure
realistic approaches to increasing energy performance.
--Reducing risk and increasing reliability of emerging technologies.
--Providing scientific expertise through the involvement of the
National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) and other national
laboratories.
--Sharing critical information about research with several thousand
associated building industry professionals and leveraging
information through EPA, HUD, and private sector energy
efficiency programs.
Program Goals:
--Reduce energy use in America's housing stock by 50 percent by 2015
and provide ZEH broad spread in the market by the year 2025,
integrating renewable energy when and where practical.
--Research and develop the systems and strategies necessary to allow
our Nation to deliver high performance houses in order to
increase our national energy security.
Program Status:
Through the competitively selected Teams, Building America works
closely with America's lead production builders, who produce
approximately 50 percent of the Nation's new housing stock. More than
30,000 homes have been constructed in 34 States with energy savings up
to 40 percent. While potentially up to 30 percent of the Nation's
builders could reasonably achieve a 30 percent energy saving target, it
is estimated that less than 1 percent of the builders can achieve 50
percent. To develop solution sets to help builders move forward to the
50 percent level, all areas of energy use in the house must be
addressed. This means increased complexity on the part of the builder
and all associated trade partners, suppliers, and manufacturers, which
translates to significantly more effort on the part of each Building
America Team lead. Increased funding is needed to address DOE's energy
efficiency goals, and provide the increased need for technical support
to lead builders, contractors, and suppliers for effective research and
participation in the program. The Building America research to date has
shown that to achieve the 50 percent and ZEH goals, every energy
related system in the house must be analyzed and strategies for energy
savings developed. This level of effort is significantly greater than
for the 30 percent or 40 percent goals, where only major energy end
uses in the house needed to be addressed. On a forward moving basis,
the stated DOE goals of the program are unreachable without significant
Team funding.
Recommendation for Fiscal Year 2011 Funding:
Provide $46 million, for the Building America Program at the DOE's
Office of Building Technologies in fiscal year 2011 appropriations
(under the Office of Building Technologies, Residential Building
Integration). This does not include new funding to initiate a retrofit
research and development program. Additionally, include language as
follows to ensure that the competitive teams are funded at a percentage
comparable to their historic funding:
``Of these funds, $35 million shall be provided for the research
activities of the competitively selected Building America research
teams, the Building America lead research laboratory, and other
national laboratories conducting research to achieve Building America's
specified energy performance targets''
______
Prepared Statement of the National Hydropower Association
The National Hydropower Association (NHA) \1\ appreciates the
opportunity to submit this statement regarding hydropower Research and
Development funding priorities for the fiscal year 2011 appropriations
budget cycle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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, conduit and instream
hydrokinetic industries and the consumers they serve.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHA requests a minimum of $100 million in fiscal year 2011 Energy
and Water Appropriations for the Department of Energy's Waterpower
Program to support initiatives across all hydropower technology
sectors. The types of technologies covered are conventional hydropower
including pumped storage and emerging technologies that access the
energy in ocean waves, and the flowing water in rivers, man-made
channels and those caused by tides.
A $100 million funding level will go far to support a national goal
to double U.S. capacity of renewable hydropower, the research needed to
increase production and create 700,000 new industry sector jobs across
every State of the country.
Investment in hydropower R&D will drive innovation across the
economy and maintain American competitiveness and create jobs. In
addition, the Nation's largest and most reliable renewable electricity
resource will be positioned to address the multiple challenges of
global climate change, increasing demand for clean energy, U.S. energy
security and national economic recovery.
HYDROPOWER'S CURRENT AND POTENTIAL CONTRIBUTION
The goal of the National Hydropower Association and its members is
to provide clean, climate-friendly, reliable baseload electricity today
and in the future through the responsible development and expanded use
of conventional hydropower, pumped storage and new technologies, such
as ocean and tidal energy and small irrigation power.
As the largest source of renewable electricity in the United
States, currently providing 7 percent of U.S. generation and avoiding
225 million metric tons of carbon emissions a year, hydropower is
poised to do more. Recent studies demonstrate that the Nation's
hydropower capacity could double by 2025 mostly by maximizing existing
infrastructure and without the need to build new impoundments.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ In fact, of the approximately 80,000 dams in the U.S. only
about 3 percent have hydropower facilities associated with them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The evidence supporting these projections is credible, current and
prolific. For example, more than 50,000 MW of new hydropower capacity
is in the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) pipeline awaiting
review and approval for development, with additional projects on the
drawing board for consideration.
Second, applications for DOE Waterpower program funding
opportunities last year far outnumbered available funds--both for new
and conventional technologies. For example, in the most recent funding
announcement on November 4, 2009, the Department of Energy awarded $32
million to 7 projects to pursue upgrades to existing hydropower
facilities, although dozens more projects submitted applications.
Finally, new studies project the doubling (or even tripling) of
hydropower's capacity by 2025. According to an October 2009 report
conducted by Navigant Consulting, approximately 60,000 MW of new
hydropower is possible by 2025. This represents enough electricity to
power every household in Los Angeles, New York and Chicago. In addition
to providing affordable and clean power, the report found that 60,000
MW of new hydropower capacity also will result in 700,000 cumulative
direct and indirect American jobs, with an additional 700,000 induced
jobs.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ http://hydro.org/Jobs%20Study/
NHA_JobsStudy_Final%20Report_Final_Sept%2020.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, development of some of this capacity requires necessary
and needed R&D investment (both short and long term) in order to
advance the state of the technology, study potential impacts,
understand the extent of the developable resource, and more. In
particular, Government funding is needed at the front end when private
investments would not recoup the full value of the resulting social
good. This is especially true in the case of basic research and
development investments, where the private sector tends to under-
invest.
HYDROPOWER'S R&D NEEDS SPAN ALL INDUSTRY SECTORS--CONVENTIONAL, NEW
HYDROKINETIC TECHNOLOGIES AND PUMPED STORAGE
Although conventional hydropower is one of America's longest
serving electric generation resources, the industry is on the vanguard
of new technology development and project expansion.
Technology advancements in the industry will allow facilities to
add capacity and increase generation reduce impacts on environmental
resources, and maximize water use efficiency in a time of increasing
and competing needs for water from both power and non-power users.
Maximizing the existing hydropower system, as well as building on
existing non-powered dams, are some of the lowest cost options per
kilowatt hour for increasing renewable energy generation. However,
these projects are also larger, more capital intensive up-front,
experience longer development timelines due to licensing, manufacturing
and construction, and require Government R&D support to prove out
technology advancements to Federal and State resource managers as well
as other stakeholders.
For the ocean and tidal energy and instream hydrokinetic
industries, the potential resources are tremendous with marine projects
that could be sited close to load centers in the Northwest, California,
Florida, and the Northeast as well as inland waterway projects that
could be sited throughout the country. In addition, hydrokinetics may
serve pressing power needs in remote communities as a distributed power
resource, such as in Alaska.
The wave, tidal, and instream hydrokinetic industry is making great
strides toward commercialization, but still requires significant R&D
support to move beyond pilot projects to larger scale deployment,
refine the technologies, answer potential environmental impact
questions, and reduce higher project costs.
Research and development is also needed to maximize the full
potential of hydropower pumped storage projects for use as transmission
system tools to provide energy storage, grid reliability and other
ancillary services. Pumped storage has the proven ability to provide
the firming benefits needed to support the growth of other variable
renewable technologies, such as wind and solar.
Federal research, development and deployment programs are critical
to bringing these technologies and new projects to fruition and to
build the human and technological capital needed to perform
breakthrough research and transfer those innovations to the market. As
we have testified in the past, NHA analyzed the 2007 EPRI report \4\
and has concluded that it provided a useful model and roadmap from
which to guide activities under the DOE Waterpower R&D program. As
such, this statement recommends, and incorporates by reference, the
suite of initiatives identified in NHA's fiscal year 2010 statement to
the House and Senate Appropriations Committees. These directives are
intended to address the needs left unfunded by the previous DOE R&D
program for hydropower and would expand the Department's efforts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Assessment of Waterpower Potential and Development Needs,
Number 1014762, EPRI, March 2007, http://my.epri.com/portal/
server.pt?Abstract_id=000000000001014762.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHA also encourages Congress and the Department to pursue new
horizon initiatives, like climate forecasting and modeling and
additional energy/water nexus issues that may affect energy production
in the coming years.
Congress has recognized the need for research, development and
deployment of new advanced technologies, both for conventional
hydropower and the ocean, tidal and instream hydrokinetic industries.
NHA directs attention to title IX, section 931 in the Energy Policy Act
of 2005 as well as the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007.
THE IMPORTANCE OF THE DOE WATERPOWER PROGRAM
The Obama administration and the Congress are setting ambitious and
aggressive goals for renewable energy development in the United States.
Such aggressive goals require aggressive funding for research into
renewable energy technology development and assistance in technology
deployment.
The Department of Energy is the Government agency charged with
meeting these goals and ensuring that cost-effective technologies are
brought to market and add to a diversified energy portfolio and NHA
strongly supports their work particularly that of the Waterpower
program.
At this critical time when we are relying on our innovate
industries to deliver power from renewable resources in an efficient
and economical way, we cannot allow initiatives to fall victim to
funding setbacks. Throughout the years, the hydropower R&D program has
been severely underfunded. This was felt most acutely during the middle
of the last decade when the program was zeroed out--the only renewable
resource to receive such treatment.
Looking forward, we see the mission of the Waterpower program as
one that conducts R&D to improve the technical, societal, and
environmental benefits of hydropower and hydrokinetic resources, and
that also coordinates with other Federal agencies and industry,
including both private and public entities involved with development,
is also critical.
One example of the important areas of growth for the hydropower
industry is increasing capacity at existing projects operated by the
Army Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation.
Project developers are reporting a need for better coordination,
more resources and process improvements for working with the Federal
system. Toward that end, DOE's ability to facilitate communication
across the various Government agencies--from the Federal hydropower
operators to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to the resource
protection agencies--is crucial and funding should be directed to
support its work in providing information and technical support to
assist project development.
CONCLUSION
While funding levels for DOE's Waterpower research and development
program have increased from zero funding in fiscal year 2006 to $50
million in fiscal year 2010, more is required to fully support this
important resource.
Under a comprehensive R&D program funded at $100 million for fiscal
year 2011, hydropower will be positioned to offer economic,
environmental, and energy benefits simultaneously through
comprehensive, well-designed initiatives. Funds are needed to support
all technologies through important on-going and new work on resource
assessments, advanced hydropower turbine designs, technology testing
for new ocean, tidal, and instream hydrokinetic applications,
environmental impact studies, climate and hydrology modeling, grid
integration and the role of hydro in firming variable energy resources.
By accelerating the funding for the DOE Waterpower R&D program, the
United States could soon realize the tremendous energy and
environmental benefits of maximizing our existing hydropower projects
and infrastructure as well as the suite of emerging wave, tidal, and
hydrokinetic technologies.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Wind Energy Association
INTRODUCTION
America's wind energy industry experienced a record year of growth
in 2009. Industry deployed more than 10,000 megawatts (MW) nationwide,
amounting to approximately 40 percent of the country's new electrical
capacity and enough to power 2.4 million homes. Although wind systems
are commercially deployable today, keeping America's domestic wind
industry competitive with other generation sources requires increased
research, development, and deployment (RD&D) funding to reduce costs
and improve reliability.
Therefore, the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) requests a
funding level of $186.5 million for fiscal year 2011, which is an
increase of $63.5 million above the President's Congressional budget
request for the Department of Energy (DOE) Wind Energy Program. Of this
amount, AWEA requests that $16 million be designated for power system
integration and transmission development for ``variable generation''
sources like wind and solar energy. The $16 million could be
appropriated to either the Wind Energy Program within the Office of
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) or to the Office of
Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability (OE).
DOE provides important technical support, guidance, information,
and limited cost-shared funding for efforts to explore and develop wind
energy resources. AWEA commends the DOE Wind Energy Program for
successfully developing programs that are consistent with the wind
industry's long-term needs. Regardless of whether OE or EERE receives
grid integration and transmission development funds, it is crucial that
both entities work together and with experts at DOE national
laboratories--particularly the National Renewable Energy Laboratory--to
help utilities resolve variability-related issues related to grid
integration.
AWEA's funding request of $63.5 million above the President's
Congressional budget request of $123 million is a significant increase,
but was carefully determined via a months-long process involving more
than 80 wind industry stakeholders through the AWEA Research and
Development Committee. Expert stakeholders identified the funds needed
to overcome constraints to meeting the DOE's scenario of wind energy
providing 20 percent of our Nation's electricity by 2030 (20 percent
Wind Energy by 2030. July 2008).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ U.S. Department of Energy, ``20 percent Wind Energy by 2030''
(July 2008), http://www.20percentwind.org/20p.aspx?page=Report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
OVERVIEW
For years, the DOE Wind Energy Program has provided essential help
to the wind industry by supporting technology advancements and
identifying and addressing other hurdles to wind energy development.
However, more work is necessary. Wind power is still constrained by
difficulties in market acceptance and the need for improvements in
cost, performance, and reliability. The DOE's 20 percent Wind Energy by
2030 report assumes that capital costs must be reduced by 10 percent
and that turbine efficiency must increase by 15 percent to reach the
goal of providing 20 percent of our Nation's electricity from wind by
2030. The DOE report clearly identifies a need for continued Federal
investment in wind RD&D by stating, ``In a functional sense, wind
turbines now stand roughly where the U.S. automotive fleet stood in
1940. \2\ '' As our Nation turns to wind power to meet more of its
energy needs, it is crucial for DOE to increase funding to improve wind
turbine reliability and reduce costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Achieving 20 percent of U.S. electric power from wind, with the
critical help of RD&D, would:
--Create 500,000 jobs, generating over $1 trillion in economic impact
by 2030;
--Reduce natural gas demand by approximately 7 billion cubic feet/
day--nearly one-half of the current consumption in the electric
sector;
--Decrease natural gas prices by approximately 12 percent, saving
consumers approximately $128 billion;
--Avoid 825 million tons of carbon dioxide emissions in the electric
sector in 2030, equivalent to 25 percent of expected electric
sector emissions; and
--Reduce cumulative water consumption in the electric sector by 17
percent in 2030 (one-third of which would come from the arid
West).
The DOE Wind Energy Program currently receives approximately $84
million annually. In comparison, the RD&D budgets for many other
traditional and emerging energy sources are much higher. For fiscal
year 2010, non-defense nuclear RD&D energy programs will receive at
least $787 million, coal programs will receive $404 million, and solar
and biomass energy will receive $247 million and $220 million,
respectively. A higher Federal funding level for wind energy RD&D will
help ensure that wind energy remains competitive with other forms of
energy.
IMPORTANCE OF DOE'S WIND ENERGY PROGRAM
The DOE Wind Energy Program has a strong history of success, and
the cost-shared industry/Government research and development activities
at DOE and NREL have played an important role in keeping the cost of
wind energy competitive with other energy sources. AWEA strongly
believes that a funding amount of $186.5 million, provided by the
subcommittee, would reflect the importance and impact of the Wind
Program's work. OE and EERE should work closely with other national
laboratories and organizations, such as NREL and the Utility Wind
Integration Group (UWIG), to resolve grid integration challenges
associated with wind energy development.
SPECIFIC WIND INDUSTRY PRIORITIES
A team of more than 80 members of AWEA and advisors from industry
and academic institutions identified a $63.5 million deficit in annual
DOE funding necessary to support the RD&D and related programs needed
to realize the vision of providing 20 percent of America's electricity
from wind by 2030. We respectfully urge that Federal funding be
provided for four specific areas as follows:
--Systems Integration and Transmission Expansion ($16 million)
--Wind Turbine Technology and Reliability ($38 million)
--Small Wind Turbines--100kW and Smaller ($5.5 million)
--Community Wind ($4 million)
Systems Integration and Transmission Expansion
The systems integration program area focuses on the power system
operations issues of integrating variable, non-dispatchable power
sources, like wind energy, into the power system. Wind generators in
some regions, especially those with small control areas located outside
Regional Transmission Organizations, are already being denied
interconnection because operational limits for the integration of
variable generation have been reached. Yet, numerous studies from the
United States and Europe (with significant involvement from DOE-funded
experts) have shown that even minor changes to operations can
accommodate much greater amounts of wind. Areas of special focus
include developing and analyzing additional sources of system
flexibility, expanding and implementing power system operation tools,
and supporting interconnection-wide integration studies and plans.
Transmission expansion is a key area of focus for meeting the 20
percent by 2030 wind energy goal. This area of funding should focus on
issues related to expanding the transmission grid to increase access to
areas with rich wind resources. Emphasis should also be placed on
making the grid more robust, efficient, and reliable. This will help
power to flow across regions, which will be critical to integrating
large amounts of wind energy into the system.
Wind Turbine Technology and Reliability
Aiding improvements in wind system technology and reliability is a
key component of the AWEA R&D Committee Action Plan. This area focuses
on the development of turbine components to reduce capital costs,
improve performance, and enhance equipment reliability to achieve the
20 percent vision by 2030. This includes developing lower-cost towers,
more reliable gearboxes and generators, advanced blade sensors and
controls, and streamlined manufacturing processes. AWEA also recognizes
the need to reduce the cost of offshore wind energy technology in order
for offshore sources to provide the estimated 54 gigawatts (GW) of the
300 GW needed to meet the 20 percent goal by 2030.
Small Wind Turbines (100 kilowatts and Smaller)
Greater Federal funding for small wind systems, those with
capacities of 100 kilowatts (kW) or less, would help the small wind
industry provide homes, farms, and small businesses with their own
domestic, on-site wind generators. Increased funding for the small wind
industry should be used to establish market deployment programs,
streamline installation techniques, advance technological components,
and improve tools to assess wind resources.
Community Wind
Community-scale wind projects, generally those whose economic
benefits flow directly into the communities that host them, face
greater commercialization challenges than do traditional wind power
projects. Currently, very few Federal programs support community wind
development. Many developers lack technical or financial resources, and
the limited size of community wind projects often make them less
attractive to experienced developers. Funding is needed to create and
support a two-part Department of Energy Community Wind Initiative. The
first part would create a technical assistance center to provide
developers with wind resource data; technical, economic, and financial
modeling of potential projects; permitting and brokerage assistance;
outreach support, and other essential resources. The second part would
fund multi-million dollar competitive DOE grants, over several years,
to qualified community wind organizations to support permitting
applications, interconnection and transmission agreements,
environmental studies, view-shed acceptance, equipment procurement, and
other essential aspects of development.
CONCLUSION
The President and Congress have called for a bolder commitment to
the development of domestic renewable energy resources, particularly
wind energy, to meet our Nation's growing energy demand. Continued
investments in wind energy RD&D are delivering value for taxpayers by
fostering the development of a domestic energy source that strengthens
our national security, provides rural economic development, spurs new
high-tech jobs, and protects the environment.
While the wind industry continues adding new generation capacity,
challenges still exist. Continued support for DOE's Wind Energy Program
is vital to helping wind become a more prominent energy source, which
will benefit the economy and environment. To ensure that funding levels
are commensurate with the President's call for more renewable energy,
AWEA urges the subcommittee to provide $186.5 million for the Wind
Energy Program and OE in fiscal year 2011. Along with other key Federal
policies, both new and sustained, greater RD&D funding through DOE will
help transform the 20 percent wind vision into reality.
AWEA appreciates this opportunity to provide testimony on DOE's
fiscal year 2011 Wind Energy Program budget before the House
Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development. We thank
the subcommittee for its time and attention to our request.
______
Prepared Statement of the Federation of American Societies for
Experimental Biology
On behalf of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental
Biology (FASEB), I respectfully request an appropriation of $5.24
billion for the Department of Energy, Office of Science in fiscal year
2011. This figure is in keeping with President Obama's vision for
doubling the DOE SC budget. Further, it will enable the Office of
Science to continue supporting essential research programs that enhance
human health and quality of life, invigorate the economy, bring the
Nation closer to energy independence, and drive scientific innovation.
FASEB is composed of 23 societies representing more than 90,000
members, making it the largest coalition of biomedical research
associations in the United States. Our mission is to improve human
health and welfare by promoting progress and education in biological
and biomedical sciences.
The Office of Science is dedicated to investing in ``the most
exciting and daring research that human kind has ever conceived.'' The
programs and facilities of the DOE SC enable important discoveries in
computational sciences, environmental and biological sciences, and
energy sciences. For example, DOE scientists are developing tools such
as hollow glass microspheres, tiny glass capsules that are one-half the
width of a human hair, which have applications ranging from targeted
drug delivery to hydrogen storage for batteries. Additionally, work at
the DOE national laboratories is increasing the capabilities of
supercomputers, allowing for more efficient access to data and faster
processing speeds. This and other research funded by the DOE SC drives
cutting-edge science and technological innovations that ensure our
Nation's safety, bolster our Nation's economy, and improve the day-to-
day lives of the American people.
More than 25,000 researchers from various Government agencies,
academic institutions, and private industry use the DOE SC's state-of-
the-art laboratories and research facilities every year. The national
laboratory system is the most advanced of its kind and permits the
agency to support vital research in a variety of fields, as well as
interdisciplinary research that extends the basic research of many
other Federal agencies. In fact, much of the research funded by non-DOE
science agencies would not be possible without the DOE's dedicated
research infrastructure. At the Brookhaven National Laboratory the
synchrotron particle accelerator, with its ability to produce intense
light at a variety of wavelengths, is being used by medical scientists
from the National Institutes of Health. In research funded by the
National Institute of General Medical Sciences, X-rays from the
synchrotron are being used to study the structure of proteins involved
in Alzheimer's disease. The Office of Science also provides support to
many graduate students and early-career postdoctoral researchers.
Almost one-half of the DOE SC's research funding supports projects at
over 300 academic institutions nationwide.
DISCOVERIES THAT IMPROVE HEALTH AND WELL-BEING
DOE-supported scientists are making remarkable contributions to
human health.
--Restoring Sight to Patients With Vision Loss.--In conjunction with
the National Science Foundation and the National Eye Institute,
the DOE Office of Science helped to fund a team of
ophthalmologists, engineers, and neuroscientists to create the
first ever artificial retina. The groundwork for this
development was laid by more than a century's worth of basic
research into the structure and function of the eye. By drawing
on the work of anatomists, biochemists, electrophysiologists
and others, scientists were able to create a device delicate
enough not to damage the eye yet complex enough to provide
visual input to the human brain. The resulting artificial
retina has been shown to restore some level of sight to those
who have lost vision due to retinal disease. By 2011, the
research team expects to start clinical testing on a version
that will allow reading and facial recognition. These studies
are bringing new hope to patients who have gone decades without
sight.
--Improving Bone Regeneration.--Following a fracture, the process of
bone proliferation and healing takes several weeks, even
months. A research team funded by the DOE SC is currently
developing safe, effective, and inexpensive implant materials
to improve this process and shorten healing time. They have
identified a growth factor known as lysophosphatidic acid (LPA)
that promotes bone regeneration with no detectable toxicity.
What's more, LPA can be manufactured at the fraction of the
cost of the other bone healing stimulators that are currently
available. The next step is for researchers to combine LPA with
a hydrogel that, when injected around a damaged bone, will
release the growth factor in a controlled manner. This research
has the potential to significantly reduce recovery time for the
8 million Americans who suffer bone fractures every year.
--Mitigating the Impact of Low Dose Radiation.--The DOE Low Dose
Radiation Research Program funds basic research to determine
the effects of exposure to low doses of radiation. Researchers
long ago established that ionizing radiation, which is present
in a wide range of occupational settings, can lead to breast
cancer by causing genetic mutations. Recent research DOE has
funded, however, has revealed that exposure to ionizing
radiation also acts as a carcinogen by affecting the cell
proteins responsible for cell-to-cell communication and
cellular structure. Thus exposure may result in breast or other
types of cancer, even where genetic mutations are not
detectible, and the damage can amplify by translating to
subsequent generations of cells. Understanding the fundamental
cell biology of radiation exposure paves the way for the
development of treatments for and protections against low-dose
radiation.
CLEANER AND MORE SECURE ENERGY FUTURE
Discoveries in fundamental energy sciences funded by DOE SC are
already changing the way we use energy and paving the way for the next
generation of environmentally-friendly, sustainable energy sources.
Specifically, the Department's newly-formed Advanced Research Projects
Agency-Energy (ARPA-E) is working on technologies to meet our most
pressing energy needs.
--Hydrogen Technologies.--Hydrogen is one of the most abundant
elements on the planet, making it an appealing clean energy
alternative. However, almost all hydrogen is locked up in water
and other compounds. Researchers at the Savannah River National
Laboratory are working to advance the most promising method of
extracting hydrogen from water--the Hybrid Sulfur Process. This
two-step reaction is driven by electricity and heat, both of
which can be generated by a nuclear reactor. This simple,
efficient process is slated to be used in conjunction with
next-generation nuclear plants and has the potential to produce
enough hydrogen to power more than 1 million fuel cell cars.
--Carbon Capture Technologies.--Natural systems use an enzyme known
as carbonic anhydrase (CA) to convert carbon dioxide to
bicarbonate, which can then be transported out of tissue. A
program funded through ARPA-E is working to apply this process
to make the use of fossil fuels less environmentally damaging.
The program will develop membrane technology for separating
carbon dioxide from flue gas streams, using synthetic forms of
CA. The synthetic analogue was created to be more robust than
naturally-occurring CA, and thus able to function in harsh
environments. This membrane technology developed by the DOE SC
is one of many ways currently being explored to increase the
efficiency of and reduce the cost involved in carbon capture.
RECOGNIZING THE IMPORTANCE OF DOE RESEARCH
In 2007, the passage of the America COMPETES Act demonstrated
Congress' commitment to U.S. science and technology. Now, Congress has
the opportunity to reassert this commitment by both reauthorizing
America COMPETES and supporting the goal of doubling the budgets of DOE
SC, NSF and NIST. Funding DOE SC based on the plan outlined in the
President's budget will allow DOE to greatly enhance its groundbreaking
research portfolio and permit it to confront current and future energy
and health challenges. In keeping with this vision for doubling DOE SC
budget, FASEB recommends an appropriation of $5.24 billion for the
Department of Energy, Office of Science in fiscal year 2011.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Carbon Capture Center
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee: Southern Company
operates the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE's) National Carbon
Capture Center (NCCC) (http://nationalcarboncapturecenter.com) at the
Power Systems Development Facility (PSDF) in Wilsonville, AL for DOE's
National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) and several industrial
participants.\1\ The PSDF was conceived as the premier advanced coal
power generation research and development (R&D) facility in the world
and has fulfilled this expectation. NETL responded to the need for
cost-effective carbon dioxide (CO2) capture technologies by
establishing the NCCC with a focus on conducting R&D to advance
emerging CO2 control technologies to commercial scale for
effective integration into either combustion or Integrated Gasification
Combined Cycle (IGCC) processes. The NCCC will accomplish this goal by
providing a test-bed for Government, industrial, and university
projects to conduct meaningful tests in an industrial setting. I would
like to thank the Senate for its past support of the NCCC and request
the subcommittee's continued support as the NCCC responds to the need
for developing cost-effective CO2 capture technology for
coal-fueled power generation. This statement supports the
administration's budget request for DOE coal R&D which includes about
$39.6 million for work at the NCCC. These funds are necessary to
conduct the future test program developed in collaboration with DOE
which includes wide-ranging support of the DOE Carbon Sequestration
Technology Roadmap.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Current NCCC participants include Southern Company, the
Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), American Electric Power,
Luminant, NRG, Peabody Energy, Arch Coal, Inc., and Rio Tinto.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A key feature of the NCCC is its ability to test new carbon capture
technologies for coal-based power generation systems at an integrated,
semi-commercial scale. Integrated operation allows the effects of
system interactions, typically missed in un-integrated pilot-scale
testing, to be understood. The semi-commercial scale allows the
maintenance, safety, and reliability issues of a technology to be
investigated at a cost that is far lower than the cost of commercial-
scale testing. Capable of operating at pilot to near-demonstration
scales, the NCCC is large enough to produce data to support commercial
plant designs, yet small enough to be cost-effective and adaptable to a
variety of technology research needs.
In addition to semi-commercial scale testing, the NCCC will serve
as a test bed for cost-effective technology screening by providing
slipstreams of actual syngas from coal gasification and flue gas from
coal combustion. Future test work at the NCCC will include the scale-up
and continued development of several CO2 capture
technologies being developed either at DOE's NETL facility, at private
R&D laboratories or at the NCCC. The DOE program for CO2
capture in coal-fueled power plants is divided into three areas: post-
combustion capture for conventional pulverized coal plants, pre-
combustion capture for coal gasification power plants, and oxy-
combustion processes which produce a more CO2-rich flue gas
than conventional combustion for easier CO2 capture. The
NCCC's CO2 capture efforts would address all three areas.
Southern Company also supports the goals of the Clean Coal
Technology Roadmaps developed by DOE, EPRI, and the Coal Utilization
Research Council (CURC). These Roadmaps identify the technical,
economic, and environmental performance that advanced clean coal
technologies can achieve over the next 20 years. Over this time period
coal-fired power generation efficiency can be increased to over 50
percent (compared to the current fleet average of 32 percent) while
producing de minimis emissions and developing cost-effective
technologies for CO2 management.
SUMMARY
The United States has historically been a leader in energy
research. Adequate funding for fossil energy research and development
programs, including environmental and climate change technologies will
provide our country with secure and reliable energy from domestic
resources while protecting our environment. Current DOE fossil energy
research and development programs for coal, if adequately funded, will
assure that a wide range of electric generation options are available
for future needs. Congress faces difficult choices when examining near-
term effects on the Federal budget of funding energy research. However,
continued support for advanced coal-based energy research is essential
to the long-term environmental and economic well being of the U.S.
Prior DOE clean coal technology research has already provided the basis
for $100 billion in consumer benefits at a cost of less than $4
billion. Funding the administration's budget request for DOE coal R&D
and long-term support of the Clean Coal Technology Roadmap can lead to
additional consumer benefits of between $360 billion and $1.38
trillion.\2\ But, for benefits to be realized, the critically important
R&D program in the Clean Coal Technology Roadmap must be conducted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ EPRI Report No. 1006954, ``Market-Based Valuation of Coal
Generation and Coal R&D in the U.S. Electric Sector'', May 2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One of the key national assets for achieving these benefits is the
NCCC. The fiscal year 2011 funding for the NCCC needs to be about $39.6
million to complete the construction and begin operation of new
facilities to test technologies that are critical to the goals of the
DOE Carbon Sequestration Technology Roadmap and to the success of the
development of cost-effective climate change technologies that will
enable the continued use of coal to supply the Nation's energy needs.
The major accomplishments at the NCCC to date and the future test
program planned by DOE and the NCCC's industrial participants are
summarized below.
NCCC (FORMERLY THE PSDF) ACCOMPLISHMENTS
The NCCC test-bed has operated successfully for many years in
support of U.S.-DOE's advanced coal program. Skilled staff from
disciplines essential for a successful research program has gained
experience by designing and operating the test equipment and by working
with vendors to develop and improve their technologies. The NCCC has
developed testing and technology transfer relationships with over 50
vendors to ensure that test results and improvements developed at the
NCCC are incorporated into future plants. In some instances, testing
has eliminated technologies from further consideration. Such screening
is valuable in that it concentrates R&D effort on those technologies
most likely to succeed and is an essential part of managing the U.S.-
DOE's financial resources. Major subsystems tested and some highlights
of the test program at the NCCC include:
Transport Reactor.--The Transport Reactor has been operated
successfully on sub-bituminous, bituminous, and lignite coals as a
pressurized combustor and as a gasifier in both oxygen- and air-blown
modes and has exceeded its primary purpose of generating gases for
downstream testing. Since modifications were made in 2006, subsequent
testing with air-blown gasifier operations has indicated substantial
improvements in syngas heating value and carbon conversion. This
transport technology is projected to be the lowest capital cost coal-
based power generation option, while providing the lowest cost of
electricity and excellent environmental performance.
Advanced Particulate Control.--Two advanced particulate removal
devices and 28 different filter elements types have been tested to
clean the product gases, and material property testing is routinely
conducted to assess their suitability under long-term operation. The
material requirements have been shared with vendors to aid their filter
development programs.
Filter Safe-Guard Device.--To enhance reliability and protect
downstream components, ``safe-guard'' devices that reliably seal off
failed filter elements have been successfully developed.
Coal Feed and Ash Removal Subsystems.--A key to successful
pressurized gasifier operation is reliable operation of the coal feed
system and ash removal systems. Developmental work on the pressurized
coal feed systems has increased the understanding and optimization of
their performance. Modifications developed at the NCCC and shared with
equipment suppliers allow current coal feed equipment to perform in a
commercially acceptable manner. An innovative, continuous process has
also been designed and successfully tested that reduces capital and
maintenance costs and improves the reliability of fine and coarse ash
removal.
Syngas Cooler.--Syngas cooling is of considerable importance to the
gasification industry. Devices to inhibit erosion, made from several
different materials, were tested at the inlet of the gas cooler and one
ceramic material has been shown to perform well in this application.
Advanced Syngas Cleanup.--A slipstream unit has provided
flexibility in testing numerous syngas contaminant removal technologies
to improve emissions and reduce costs in IGCC gas clean-up.
Sensors and Automation.--Significant progress with sensor
development and process automation has been achieved. More than 20
instrumentation vendors have worked with the NCCC to develop and test
their instruments under realistic conditions. Development of reliable
and accurate sensors for the gasification process has concentrated on
coal feed, Transport Gasifier, and filter systems. Automatic
temperature control of the Transport Reactor has been successfully
implemented.
Fuel Cell.--Two test campaigns were successfully completed on 0.5
kW solid oxide fuel cells manufactured by Delphi on syngas from the
Transport Gasifier marking the first time that a solid oxide fuel cell
(SOFC) has been operated on coal-derived syngas. Also, a NETL-erected
SOFC multi-cell array test skid was successfully tested at NCCC
directly on coal syngas.
CO2 Capture.--Slipstream CO2 capture testing has been
completed on both simulated and actual syngas and results have been
used to design larger test equipment.
NCCC FUTURE TEST PROGRAM
Developing technology options that will reduce CO2
emissions is a primary goal for future work at NCCC. These technologies
will be screened in close collaboration with NETL for selection for
testing at the NCCC. This facility will serve as a productive test-bed
for developing advanced technology and is capable of operating from
bench- and pilot-scale to near demonstration scales allowing results to
be scaled to commercial application. The NCCC will concentrate on
developing cost-effective, commercially viable carbon capture
technology for coal-fueled power plants through scale-up and continued
development of several technologies (including for example those being
developed either at DOE's facilities or by third party technology
developers).
For both new and existing power plants, post-combustion capture
technology must be made more efficient and cost-effective. In post-
combustion capture, CO2 is separated from the flue gas in a
conventional coal-combustion power plant downstream of the pulverized
coal boiler. Many post-combustion capture technologies need to be
proven and integrated in an industrial power plant setting. Activities
at the NCCC for post-combustion capture technology will include:
Pilot-Scale Test Modules.--Pilot-scale test modules of advanced
post-combustion technologies will be designed, installed, and operated
in an existing pulverized coal plant adjacent to the NCCC. The test
modules' flexible design will allow the testing of a wide range of
technologies on actual flue gas.
Technology Screening.--Available solvents developed by NETL, third
party developers and the NCCC will be screened to assess readiness for
testing at the site using improved contacting devices that are now
under development.
Alternative Solvent Processes.--Alternative solvents with lower
heats of regeneration and more compact, lower cost gas-liquid
contacting equipment will be developed and tested.
Advanced Technology.--Compact membrane contactors and solid phase
CO2 sorbents, currently being investigated by DOE-NETL and
private companies, will be assessed and installed. NCCC will provide
such technologies a scaled-up testing platform as development progress
warrants.
In pre-combustion capture, CO2 is separated from the
syngas in a coal gasification power plant upstream of combustion in the
gas turbine. Research and development activities at NCCC for pre-
combustion capture technology for application to gasification-based
power generation include:
Advanced CO2 Capture Systems.--New solvents and gas-liquid
contacting devices will be assessed on air-blown and oxygen-blown
syngas. New CO2 separation technologies (sorbents or
membranes) will be scaled-up and tested based on fundamental R&D
progress by third party developers.
Water Gas Shift Enhancements.--New water gas shift reactor
configurations and sizes are planned for testing at the NCCC. The
operation of shift catalysts when exposed to syngas at the NCCC will be
optimized and their technical and economic performance will be
evaluated.
Advanced Syngas Cleanup.--New advanced syngas cleanup systems will
be tested for reducing hydrogen sulfide, hydrochloric acid, ammonia,
and mercury to near-zero levels.
Regarding oxy-combustion, system studies will be used to evaluate
the commercial feasibility of operating the Transport Reactor in oxy-
combustion mode. Based on study results, oxy-combustion test priority
will be determined in collaboration with NETL.
In developing a cost-effective advanced coal power plant with
CO2 capture, all process blocks within the power plant must
be optimized in addition to the capture block. Including CO2
capture in an advanced coal power plant will increase the plant cost of
electricity, so opportunities to reduce cost in every part of the
process will be explored. With highest priority being given to low-cost
CO2 capture process development, projects that reduce
overall capital and operating costs will also be included in the NCCC
test plan to partially offset incremental cost increases from
CO2 capture addition. These cost reduction projects include
technology development for syngas cleanup, particulate control, fuel
cells, sensors and controls, materials, and feeders.
______
Prepared Statement of the Gulf Restoration Network
I am writing on behalf of Gulf Restoration Network (GRN), a network
of over 50 local, regional and national environmental, environmental
justice, social justice, and public interest groups dedicated to
uniting and empowering people to protect and restore the natural
resources of the Gulf of Mexico region. The President's fiscal year
2011 budget request for the Department of Energy proposes the
cancellation of $71 million in balances from prior year appropriations
for an expansion of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) at a site
near Richton, Mississippi and assumes the use of these balances to
partially fund the regular operations and management activities of the
SPR.\1\ The SPR program is part of the Office of Petroleum Reserves,
which in turn is part of the Office of Fossil Energy in the Department
of Energy. GRN commends this decision, and strongly urges the Senate
Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water
Development to support this portion of the budget request. The
cancellation of this funding for the proposed expansion of the SPR near
Richton (hereinafter referred to as the Richton project) is a good
fiscal, environmental and policy decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ``Appendix, President's Budget of the United States
Government,'' (fiscal year 2011):430.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed Richton project is a poor choice for a number of
reasons: (1) it is estimated to cost at least $16.8 billion,\2\ a price
tag that will likely only continue to grow; (2) the Richton site would
require at least 330 miles of pipeline, increasing the likelihood of
oil or brine spills into the environment; \3\ and (3) this project
would be the first time that DOE has ever relied upon an inland
freshwater source to mine the salt, an experimental proposal that
worries many scientists familiar with the variable water flows of the
Pascagoula River.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Construction cost estimates from ''Strategic Petroleum
Reserve's New Richton Mississippi Site,'' United States Department of
Energy: http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/reserves/spr/
Richton_Fact_Sheet-Rev2_12-7-07.pdf. Petroleum price estimates based on
``Short-Term Energy Outlook,'' United States Energy Information
Administration (March 2010): http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/steo/pub/
mar10.pdf.
\3\ ``Strategic Petroleum Reserve's New Richton Mississippi Site,''
United States Department of Energy: http://www.fossil.energy.gov/
programs/reserves/spr/Richton_Fact_Sheet-Rev2_12-7-07.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
COSTS AND FUNDING
The Richton project should not be receiving large Federal
investments because the Department of Energy has not completed the
Federal mandated National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process and
released its Record of Decision (ROD). As this Federal mandated process
could ultimately lead to a decision to not move forward with the
Richton project, any large-scale Federal funding should wait for the
completion of the NEPA process. Also, a recent public statement
indicates that ``DOE believes funds for expansion could better be
utilized to ensure ongoing operational readiness of the existing SPR.''
\4\ The Senate should respect the DOE's priorities and cancel past
funding for this project.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Kirgan, Harlan. ``Salt Dome put on hold,'' Mississippi Press,
March 24, 2010: http://blog.gulflive.com/mississippi-press-news/2010/
03/richton_salt_dome_expansion_project_funds_redirected.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, the construction costs for the Richton project are
estimated to be $4 billion, and while estimates for the cost of filling
the storage area depend on variations in oil prices, the initial fill
of the site, based on projected 2010 crude prices, could range between
$12.8-$13.6 billion.\5\ Using a conservative estimate, this represents
an expense of $16.8 billion or well over one-half of the DOE's proposed
budget for this year. Although this expense would likely be spread out
over multiple years, it still would involve a significant outlay of
Federal funds for questionable benefits to taxpayers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Construction cost estimates from ''Strategic Petroleum
Reserve's New Richton Mississippi Site,'' United States Department of
Energy: http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/reserves/spr/
Richton_Fact_Sheet-Rev2_12-7-07.pdf. Petroleum price estimates based on
predicated crude prices in 2011 ``Short-Term Energy Outlook,'' United
States Energy Information Administration (March 2010): http://
www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/steo/pub/mar10.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department of Energy considered several different sites as
potential locations for an expansion of the SPR, and the Richton site
was the most expensive project, and arguably the most environmentally
harmful. Halting this destructive and costly project is a great way to
begin shifting away from yesterday's problems and start addressing the
daunting issues of tomorrow.
ENVIRONMENTAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS
Coastal Mississippi relies on its water resources and wetlands to
maintain a thriving commercial and recreational fishing industry,
promote tourism, and provide industry with their freshwater and
transportation needs. Nationally significant water resources like the
Pascagoula River, the Mississippi Sound, and the Gulf of Mexico are
integral to the coastal economy and environment. Unfortunately, the
plan for the Richton project could threaten these same resources. In
fact, this plan to hollow out a series of underground salt caverns
requires the withdrawal of 50 million gallons of water per day from the
Pascagoula River for 5-6 years.\6\ This water would be used to dissolve
underground salt, and then the polluted and extremely salty byproduct
would be pumped off the coast of one of Mississippi's barrier islands.
These actions could have significant impacts on the area's environment,
including reduction in water flows in the Pascagoula River that could
impact coastal estuaries, and a large, salty Dead Zone where the
polluted water is released.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ ``Final Environmental Impact Statement for Site Selection for
the Expansion of the Nation's Strategic Petroleum Reserve,'' United
States Department of Energy (2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, according to Department of Energy estimates, the 330
miles of pipelines necessary to complete this project will harm or
destroy over 1,500 acres of wetlands and lead to at least 56 brine
spills and 19 oil spills during the construction and initial fill of
the site.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ ``Final Environmental Impact Statement for Site Selection for
the Expansion of the Nation's Strategic Petroleum Reserve,'' United
Department of Energy (2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CONCLUSION
The Richton project is bad policy for the Nation, and bad policy
for the people of coastal Mississippi. For years, citizens in
Mississippi and throughout the country have been working to stop this
expensive and destructive project from moving forward. In fact,
thousands of people have contacted Secretary of Energy Steven Chu, as
well as their congressional representatives, over the last year to
voice their opposition to this boondoggle. Congressman Gene Taylor, who
represents Mississippi's 4th, the district that will be most impacted,
and Senator Roger Wicker of Mississippi have also expressed significant
reservations with the project as currently conceived. It is heartening
to see that this proposed budget takes into account the public's input.
GRN strongly supports the cancellation of all previous funding for
the Richton project in the President's fiscal year 2011 budget request
for the Department of Energy and we urge the Senate Committee on
Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development and its
members to support this portion of the proposed budget.
______
Prepared Statement of the US Fuel Cell Council and the National
Hydrogen Association
On behalf of the members of the fuel cell and hydrogen industries,
we thank you for consistently funding the Department of Energy's (DOE)
hydrogen and fuel cell technology programs. Fuel cell and hydrogen
technologies are a crucial part of the portfolio of advanced energy
technologies that will help achieve the Nation's oil and greenhouse gas
reduction goals. DOE and other supporting estimates show that domestic
hydrogen fuel cells in light duty vehicles, for instance, could reduce
oil imports by as much as 3.5 billion barrels per year within 40 years,
reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 1.1 billion tons per year, and save
consumers $25 trillion over the succeeding 50 years. These are key
public investments, and DOE's programs continue to advance the pace of
technology and bring down costs.
As the subcommittee develops the fiscal year 2011 Energy and Water
Appropriations recommendations, we urge you to provide $390 million for
the Fuel Cell and Hydrogen Technologies Programs managed by the Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE), Science, Fossil Energy (FE) and
Nuclear Energy (NE) organizations at the Department of Energy--a 23
percent increase vs. $316 million appropriated for 2010. This amount
would fully fund the critical research, development, demonstration and
deployment (RDD&D) of these advanced technologies in order to make them
competitive with the conventional ones they need to replace in cost,
reliability and performance, and respond to our industry's main
priority: deployment of early commercial systems and an advanced fuel
cell vehicle demonstration. A detailed list of our program priorities
and funding requirements are included in this testimony.
The fiscal year 2011 DOE request for EERE is $137 million, down $43
million (-24 percent) from the current 2010 Appropriation of $180.1
million (including last year's funded earmarks). These cuts propose
eliminating funding for market transformation for fuel cells in early
markets; education activities; and Federal purchase initiatives, while
curtailing all new vehicle deployments under the Technology Validation
program. DOE also chose to reduce the Fossil Energy coal to hydrogen
program by $5.8 million. Similarly, at a time when funding for the
Solid State Energy Conversion Alliance (SECA) program should be
increased to support the megawatt-class demonstration effort, the DOE
request is flat. This budget sends a damaging message to our industry,
our Nation and the world, threatens to weaken U.S. leadership and
unbalances the Nation's energy portfolio.
More importantly, by making cuts to fuel cell and hydrogen
technology programs, especially early market deployment, hydrogen
infrastructure and fuel cell vehicles, and FE fuel cell research and
development, DOE is sending negative signals to investors,
manufacturers, auto makers, hydrogen gas suppliers, supply chain
partners, potential customers, and other Federal agencies, local, State
and foreign governments. The lead U.S. energy agency should fully
embrace fuel cells and hydrogen infrastructure as an integral component
of a comprehensive clean energy package to meet our national greenhouse
gas reduction targets. Even worse, hydrogen and fuel cell industries
could move offshore and the United States could lose as many as an
estimated 675,000 potential net, new jobs.
A robust public-private partnership, exemplified by DOE Technology
Validation programs focused on cost reduction and early deployment,
will accelerate commercialization and the benefits that accrue with
marketplace success.
STRENGTHENING FEDERAL HYDROGEN AND FUEL CELL PROGRAMS
Proposal.--Fund DOE Fuel Cell and Hydrogen programs at enhanced
historical levels; revise to reflect program success and current
priorities. Restore reductions proposed by the Obama administration for
fiscal year 2011.
EERE Programs--$220 Million
The hydrogen and fuel cell programs in the Department of Energy's
Hydrogen, Fuel Cell and Infrastructure Technologies Program support the
development of fuel cells, their fuels and supporting infrastructure.
The program has made exceptional progress in a few short years, helping
dramatically reduce the volume production cost of fuel cells and the
consumer cost of hydrogen fuel, testing and evaluating more than 125
fuel cell vehicles in real world operation (U.S.-wide, over 300
vehicles have driven 3 million miles), and helping deploy more than a
thousand fuel cell systems to Federal agencies and early private sector
adopters to improve energy efficiency and security of supply with low
or zero emissions.
Hydrogen and fuel cells have been a largely domestic suite of
technologies, and, over the past two decades, the United States has
continued to be the recognized leader in their development.
Indifference to encouraging commercialization allows other nations,
particularly Germany, South Korea, Japan, and China, to capture the
lead in establishing and commercializing these technologies, reaping
the economic benefits of associated job growth and export revenue. DOE
analysis projects that transitioning to a hydrogen economy would yield
a net increase in U.S. employment of 58,010 to 182,840 by 2020 and
184,560 to 677,070 by 2035.
Fuel cell technologies are a crucial part of the portfolio of
advanced energy technologies that will achieve the Nation's energy
policy and greenhouse gas reduction goals. DOE and other supporting
estimates show that domestic hydrogen fuel cells in light duty
vehicles, for instance, could reduce oil imports by as much as 3.5
billion barrels per year within 40 years, reduce greenhouse gas
emissions by 1.1 billion tons per year, and save consumers $25 trillion
over the succeeding 50 years.
Robust public-private partnerships focused on cost reduction and
early deployment will accelerate commercialization and the benefits
that accrue with marketplace success.
Vehicle and Infrastructure Market Deployment: $45 Million.--Support
for initial sales, backed by a real-world vehicle and fuel testing and
evaluation program, is essential to accelerating the transition to
commercial market. DOE should extend the Technology Validation program
for an additional year with technology insertion ($15 million), and
initiate a Vehicle and Infrastructure Market Deployment program. As
their Technology Validation program is winding down, DOE now needs to
evolve to support early market volumes of FCVs and related
infrastructure consistent with a commercial transition. DOE Proposal:
$11.0 million
Market Transformation: $45 Million.--The Market Transformation
Program provides technical and financial support for purchase or lease
of fuel cell systems entering the marketplace. The program creates U.S.
jobs, improves security of air travel and communications, and enables a
commercial transition in early markets. DOE supports the program but
has deferred funding--and thus deferred job creation--to 2012. DOE
should continue Market Transformation activities in all market sectors.
Congress should expand the program to include State agencies and
private sector customers and clarify that all fuel cell technologies
are eligible. DOE Proposal: $0.0
Fuel Cell R&D: $67 Million.--DOE's robust program of cost reduction
via research into materials, catalysts and components should continue.
Distributed fuel cells systems provide energy efficiency and security
benefits; DOE's program should continue. DOE Proposal: $67.0 million
Hydrogen Fuels R&D: $40 Million.--Hydrogen is one of a portfolio of
fuels that together will achieve U.S. energy security while meeting
greenhouse gas reduction goals. Improved hydrogen storage will reduce
vehicle cost and improve capability, and will enable efficient use of
hydrogen as a storage strategy for intermittent renewable resources,
such as wind and solar power. Hydrogen from biomass uses a renewable
domestic energy source and provides greater greenhouse gas reductions
than biofuel combustion. DOE Proposal: $40.0 million
Enabling Activities: $18 Million.--These programs prepare local
communities for fuel cell installations, fueling stations and fuel cell
vehicles, and help DOE evaluate program options.
--Systems Analysis gives DOE tools to evaluate the program and
calculate public benefits. ($5 million)
--Safety, Codes and Standards development sets safety rules and
product standardization guidelines, and trains local
enforcement officials and first responders. ($9 million)
--Education informs the public and potential customers about these
technologies to break down awareness barriers. ($2 million) DOE
Proposal: $14.0 million.
Manufacturing Research: $10 Million.--Improvements in manufacturing
are a critical component in cost reduction; DOE's program should
continue and expand. DOE Proposal: $5.0 million
--Paying for These Enhancements Within the EERE Program.--Program
Direction (+43 percent) and Program Support (+94 percent) enjoy
large gains that go far beyond any associated subprogram level
of effort increases--totaling +55 percent over fiscal year
2010, at $287.3 million (vs +5 percent for EERE generally).
These funds are generally rather loosely programmed, leaving
generous margins for unnamed discretionary spending. They have
not been as carefully explained as other program elements. Some
of their expected functions might be more explicitly included
within definite program areas--for example, technology
advancement, commercialization and market development. We also
believe that the next stage of the H-Prize should see modest
funding from these allocations.
Fossil Energy Programs: $118.8 Million
SECA Program: $70 Million.--The Solid State Energy Conversion
Alliance (SECA) is a cost shared public-private partnership developing
high temperature Solid Oxide fuel cells for power generation. SECA's
development targets to date have been met ahead of schedule, but
continued support is needed to move to the megawatt scale demonstration
phase. Commercial Solid Oxide fuel cells will make possible a 60
percent efficient coal fired power plant and kilowatt-scale solid oxide
fuel cell modules for grid-independent distributed generation.
Additionally, it will make it easier and cheaper to sequester
CO2 from coal. Fully funding the SECA program at $70 million
would assure continued progress and save jobs threatened by the
administration's proposal. DOE Proposal: $50.0 million
Fuels--Hydrogen from Coal Research: $17.8 Million.--The Fuels
activity helps reduce technological market barriers for the reliable,
efficient and environmentally friendly conversion of coal to hydrogen.
This specifically focuses on developing technologies that reduce costs
and facilitate the production of ultra high-purity hydrogen from coal.
Research for both stationary and transportation applications should
continue. DOE Proposal: $12.0 million
Hydrogen Turbines: $31.0 Million.--Hydrogen turbine development
efforts implement projects that will enable efficient, clean, and cost
effective hydrogen fueled turbines for coal-based integrated
gasification combined cycle power systems that capture and store
CO2. DOE program should continue. DOE Proposal: $31.0
million
Nuclear Energy Programs: $8.5 Million
Advanced Reactor Concepts: $8.5 Million.--The Advanced Reactor
Concepts program, an expanded version of the Generation IV research and
development (R&D) program, sponsors research and development for
further safety, technical, economical, and environmental advancements
of innovative nuclear energy technologies. Specific guidance
encouraging DOE to continue R&D on High Temperature Electrolysis and
thermochemical cycles from the former Nuclear Hydrogen Initiative
should be included. DOE Proposal: $0.0
Science Programs: $38 Million
The Office of Science includes funding for a variety of important
materials activities with applications for hydrogen and fuel cell
technologies, and which is spread between a number of Science program
areas. DOE Proposal: $38 million
Total fiscal year 2011 Proposed: $390 million
Total fiscal year 2011 DOE Request: $268 million
Total fiscal year 2010 appropriation: $316 million
Further Background.--The national German industry agreements across
manufacturers, energy suppliers and utilities have set the stage for
wide public-private cooperation that could be readily adopted by the
United States, and clearly illustrates the pace of how fuel cell
vehicle and fueling infrastructure rollout can be solved. Similar
efforts are underway in Japan and Korea, and will soon evolve in China.
Moreover, the South Korean Government, through the adoption of targeted
sliding subsidies, has jumped to the lead in the deployment of
stationary CHP and residential fuel cells, which will decrease costs
while drastically increasing fuel efficiency and reducing greenhouse
gas emissions. A link to a government and industry webinar from
February 17, 2010 is http://www.hydrogenassociation.org/webinar/
17feb10.asp
A Senate briefing from March 5, 2010 also included a review from
GM, Daimler and Linde, all participants in the German agreements.
Presentations can be found at http://www.hydrogenassociation.org/
policy/briefing_5mar10.asp.
______
Prepared Statement of NuScale Power, Inc.
Dear Mr. Chairman and ranking member: On behalf of NuScale Power of
Corvallis, Oregon we request that the subcommittee approve the
President's budget request of $38.8 million for small, modular reactors
within the Office of Advanced Reactor Research Development and
Demonstration. Our request is directed at both the research portion for
advanced SMR's and especially the commercialization cost-share portion
for up to two light water reactor SMR's designs.
It is also our request that language be included to clarify that
Government-industry cost-sharing include but not be limited to NRC fees
and other related work activities leading to the submission of a Design
Certification Document to the NRC. This later clarification is
consistent with other previous Government-industry cost shared
programs. We would be happy to discuss ways to control the taxpayer's
long-term financial commitment to such a program for SMR's.
The President has recognized the need for nuclear power as part of
a comprehensive energy, environment and employment strategy for this
country, including new financial incentives. The specific request for
funding of small, modular reactors reflects the opportunity these new,
innovative plant designs offer to strengthen our ability to achieve
those goals. Small, modular reactor technologies build on a rich
history of American innovation and world class nuclear design and
operations. In particular, they will expand the potential market for
new nuclear plants by reaching smaller markets, and they would do so
while minimizing the magnitude of the financial challenge posed by
larger nuclear plant designs.
The NuScale design was originally developed by Oregon State
University, working with Idaho National Laboratory and Nexant-Bechtel,
as part of a Department of Energy funded research program and validates
the effectiveness of such programs in bringing new technologies to the
market. In addition to developing the design, this program funded the
development of a one-third scale ``test facility'' at Oregon State
University, uniquely positioning the NuScale technology for licensing.
NuScale Power is a privately funded company which was formed in 2007
for the sole purpose of commercializing this design under a Technology
Transfer Agreement with Oregon State University.
Much has been accomplished already in this ambitious undertaking:
--Some 30 highly-skilled engineers and contractors now work for
NuScale and as many more work for the company under contract
with U.S. companies. We expect to triple that number in the
next 12-18 months.
--Two separate panels of independent experts have evaluated the
safety of the NuScale plant and their conclusions have been
confirmed by a Level 1 Probabilistic Risk Assessment. These
results were presented to the NRC in September 2009 and showed
NuScale has achieved a safety margin that is exponentially
greater than the already large margins of existing nuclear
power plants.
--In 2008, NuScale organized a Customer Advisory Board with senior
executives representing five major utilities in the United
States. In February 2009, one of those companies, Energy
Northwest, entered a Memorandum of Understanding with NuScale
to explore the siting of a NuScale plant in their system.
--In a report prepared by the Electric Power Research Institute,
NuScale was identified as the first small, modular reactor
vendor to fully vet a Customer Requirements Document with its
potential customers. In NRC parlance this means NuScale is
already working with customers to make its plant ``market
ready.''
All these efforts to date have been funded by private investments.
Notwithstanding these encouraging developments, significant financial
barriers remain before this technology can reach the market. The costs
to prepare and submit an application for design certification and the
subsequent costs for NRC review can be daunting and pose financial
challenges that are increasingly difficult in the current economic
climate. Customers too are concerned about the incremental costs of
first of a kind investment. We are encouraged that the independent
Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff--with the support of all three
newly appointed Commissioners--is preparing for the submission of new
SMR designs in the coming years in order to conduct the proper public
safety evaluation, design and operating licensing certification. But if
America is to maintain its place in the global market, and if the full
potential of this new technology is to impact the domestic market in
support of the President's energy goals, the cost-sharing proposal in
the current budget request would make a vital difference.
Yes, much has been accomplished. And yes, there is much work yet to
be done. We ask for your support in these efforts.
______
Prepared Statement of the Coalition for the Commercial Application of
Superconductors (CCAS)
CCAS respectfully requests that $45 million be included as a line
item for High Temperature Superconductivity R&D in the fiscal year 2011
budget for the Department of Energy, Office of Electricity Delivery and
Energy Reliability.
The President's proposed fiscal year 2011 budget for the DOE Office
of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability (OEDER) contains a
greatly reduced budget for High Temperature Superconductivity (HTS) of
$4,860,000 under the label Advanced Cables and Conductors. Further, the
intent is to eliminate all spending on HTS R&D and demonstrations in
fiscal year 2012.
Since its inception in 1988, the HTS program has enjoyed the
strong, bipartisan support of Congress. Substantial progress toward
commercialization has been achieved. Over this period, American
taxpayers have made a major investment, alongside private capital, to
ensure that the dramatic HTS materials discoveries made in the United
States in the late 1980s are translated into beneficial products for
United States consumers. We have also supported this investment to
ensure a strong U.S. position in an emerging, very large, globally
competitive field involving multiple applications and the concomitant
high quality research and manufacturing jobs that will be realized.
HTS is a game changing development for energy generation,
transmission and distribution for the 21st century and many thousands
of high quality research and manufacturing jobs hang in the balance.
While the United States still leads the world in HTS R&D and pre-
commercial demonstrations, the leadership position in this critical
technology has eroded substantially over the past 5 years as many
foreign governments, particularly Korea, China, Japan, and Europe are
increasing their support for HTS R&D as they realize the large number
of jobs and the export value of the high tech products that potential
leadership will bring.
HTS R&D has brought the technology from a laboratory materials
discovery in Houston in 1987 to pre-commercial demonstration insertions
in the U.S. electric power grid. Benefits are a 60-70 percent reduction
in resistive power losses versus any other conductor; substantial
reduction in right-of-way requirements; extremely high power
transmission capability at reduced voltages; improved aesthetics and
security from underground cable location; and a major reduction in
carbon footprint from greatly improved power transmission and
distribution efficiency. HTS R&D is also bringing major size and weight
benefits to transformers and generators and creating unique
opportunities to limit the spread of fault currents and attendant grid
system blackouts thereby enabling a smarter transmission and
distribution grid. These developmental products are at the prototype
demonstration stage. The HTS R&D conducted in OEDER has also
underpinned advances in superconductor wire development that are being
used in other applications. Examples are a degaussing system for the
Navy, now being tested at sea as a means to reduce or eliminate the
magnetic signature of ships making them invisible to mines; and a full
size HTS electric ship drive motor also under evaluation by the Navy at
the Philadelphia shipyard. Both of these products effect a 50 percent
reduction in both size and weight versus conventional approaches, gains
typical of superconductor based products. In science, HTS is the only
way in which to achieve higher magnetic field strength essential to
advance today's accelerator and collider technology. This high magnetic
field capability is equally applicable to advances in NMR and MRI for
scientific and medical research. For more information: www.ccas-
web.org.
The United States is in an international race to commercialize HTS
wire and cable applications for the power grid. Now is not the time to
cut HTS R&D funding when the technology is just a few years from large
scale commercialization. The fledgling industry cannot afford to bear
the total cost of development at this time, which makes U.S. Government
support essential. The $45 million annually over the next few years is
needed to ensure an internationally competitive position for the United
States in a technology, invented and largely developed here, that will
be a major commercial jobs creator with attendant benefits for national
security. Funding of demonstration projects within DOE has typically
been allocated on a competitively bid, cost share basis.
CCAS is a U.S. non-profit organization and members are involved in
the end-use, manufacture, development and research of superconductor
based systems, products and related technologies. Members comprise
large and small corporations, research institutions, National
Laboratories and universities with operations in most States.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Association of State Energy
Officials
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I am Phil Giudice of
Massachusetts 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 $125 million
for the State Energy Program (SEP), which is equal to the
authorization. SEP is the most successful program operated by DOE in
this area. This should be base program funding, with no competitive
portion. 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 $145
million, including an increase for EIA's State Heating Oil and Propane
Program, in order to cover the added costs of increasing the frequency
of information collection, the addition of natural gas, and increasing
the number of State participants. EIA's state-by-state data is very
helpful. EIA funding is a critical piece of energy emergency
preparedness and response, and there are significant new EIA
responsibilities under the Energy Independence Security Act of 2007
(``EISA''). EIA conducted a study of their capabilities and resources
under section 805 of EISA, and this study supports increased funding.
NASEO continues to support funding for a variety of critical buildings
programs, including Building Codes Training and Assistance, Energy
Star, the commercial buildings initiative, residential energy
efficiency and Building America, at a level of $257 million in fiscal
year 2011. NASEO also supports base funding (in addition to any
congressionally-directed projects) for the Office of Electricity
Delivery and Energy Reliability (``OE''), at least at the fiscal year
2011 request of $186 million. Specific funding should be provided for
the Division of Infrastructure Security and Energy Restoration of no
less than $18 million, which funds critical energy assurance
activities. We also strongly support the R&D function and Operations
and Analysis function within OE. The industries program should be
funded at a $150 million level 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. Additionally funding should be
provided to support sections 451 and 453 of EISA, relating to combined
heat and power and other waste heat recovery programs.
Formula SEP funding provides a basis for States to share best
practices among themselves. These best practices (even without stimulus
funds) allow States to get a great deal accomplished. These types of
activities include revolving loans, utility-based programs, energy
service performance contracts, etc.
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.
STIMULUS FUNDING IMPLEMENTATION
We want to thank the subcommittee for the tremendous support
provided in the stimulus package for a variety of State and local
funding initiatives, including $3.1 billion for the State Energy
Program, $5 billion for the Weatherization Program, $3.2 billion for
the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant and $300 million for
the Energy Star appliance rebate program, etc.
This is a major task. We are working closely with the Department of
Energy's, Energy Efficiency Renewable Energy Division (Cathy Zoi), the
Office of Weatherization and Intergovernmental Programs (Claire
Johnson), Matt Rogers in the DOE Secretary's office, NETL and Golden,
the DOE General Counsel (Scott Harris), to implement these programs as
quickly as possible. We have had regular calls with all the State
energy officials to address implementation questions. We have also had
a series of regional conference calls among the States, and we have
seven regional coordinators helping to share ``best practices'' among
the States. NASEO is cooperating with the other State and local
organizations to share best practices and provide information to
officials at all levels of government in order to more effectively
coordinate this effort. We are convinced that these funds are helping
to engineer major positive changes in the U.S. economy and as the
economy rebounds this will help create ``Green Jobs'' and major energy
improvements that will improve all sectors of the economy.
NASEO believes it is important to maintain base levels of
appropriations for critical programs, such as SEP and Weatherization,
in order to avoid a huge decrease in funding after a rapid stimulus
increase.
With respect to ARRA spending for SEP, of the $3.1 billion
appropriated, over $1 billion is now under contract and work is being
implemented. Another $1 billion has been committed to projects,
including awards. We expect the remainder to move quickly. We and DOE
are working through the barriers that slowed spending, including NEPA
compliance, Davis-Bacon wage rates, Buy-American clauses, historic
preservation, lead paint requirements and general procurement issues.
It is important to stress that the key figures are the ``commitment''
and ``contracted'' amounts, because that is when people get hired and
work commences. States generally do not pay until projects are actually
completed and milestones are met. We do not pay-up front in most cases.
In economics jargon, the Federal spending figure is actually a lagging
indicator.
Industrial Energy Program.--A funding increase to a level of $150
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 and
specific funding for sections 451 (including the Clean Energy
Applications Centers) and 453 of EISA is critical and should be
included above the $150 million proposal.
Examples of Successful State Energy Program Activities.--The States
have implemented thousands of projects. We have previously supplied to
subcommittee staff examples of programs implemented under ARRA. Here
are a few representative examples.
Alabama.--The State has dedicated $25 million for an energy
revolving loan fund for business and industry, and has dedicated $5
million for energy efficient school retrofit grants.
California.--The State has committed to a comprehensive residential
building retrofit program, retrofits for municipal and commercial
buildings, a finance program for municipalities, State building
retrofits through revolving loans ($25 million), clean energy business
financing, low-interest loans for local governments and ``Green Jobs''
workforce training ($20 million), etc.
Hawaii.--This State is focused on energy efficiency and renewable
energy projects intending to supplement existing efforts. For example,
promotion of Energy Star upgrades for hotels, technical assistance to
develop green buildings and other energy efficient buildings, have been
two major projects. Funds have supplemented the public benefits
program, the county energy efficiency efforts and alternative fuel
efforts.
Iowa.--This State has committed substantial funding to municipal
energy efficiency projects and green jobs initiatives. They have also
instituted an energy loan program. Funding has supplemented programs
and projects conducted under the $100 million Iowa Power Fund.
Kentucky.--$14 million has been dedicated to the Green Bank of
Kentucky for energy efficiency financing for public buildings by
utilizing revolving loans. In addition, funds were provided for an
advanced energy efficient battery initiative, commercial office
building energy efficiency retrofits, industrial facility energy
efficiency retrofits, Home Performance with Energy Star, utility smart
grid activities and $10 million for energy efficiency in K-12 schools.
Louisiana.--$25.7 million has been committed to energy efficiency
retrofits in higher education buildings, $15.7 million is dedicated to
retrofits of commercial buildings and energy efficiency for new and
existing homes, and $10 million has been committed to renewable energy
development.
Mississippi.--$17 million was dedicated for energy efficient public
buildings, including retrofits, performance contracting and building
energy codes and $10 million was allocated for renewable energy
projects, smart meters on public facilities and support for community
college workforce training. An additional $10 million was slated for
businesses to implement energy efficiency or renewable energy upgrades.
Missouri.--This State's extensive residential energy efficiency
program is providing loans, grants and rebates to homeowners to install
energy efficiency measures. Funding has also been provided to train
residential energy auditors. They have also initiated an industrial and
manufacturing energy efficiency initiative, as well as an agricultural
energy program.
Montana.--$22.3 million has been allocated to State universities,
community colleges and other State facilities for energy efficiency
projects; 87 projects are underway. A revolving loan program has been
set up for homeowners and small businesses to install alternative
energy systems. Additional funds have been dedicated to renewable
energy demonstration projects.
New Jersey.--$7 million has been committed to fund solar
installations on multi-family buildings, $4 million for residential
energy efficiency financing, $4 million for multi-family energy
efficiency loans, $17 million for municipal energy efficiency
incentives, $6 million for State building energy efficiency and an
additional $15 million for grants and loans for energy efficiency and
renewable energy applications.
North Dakota.--The State instituted a high efficiency furnace
rebate program to help victims of the 2009 spring floods. The State
also instituted a statewide energy efficiency and renewable energy
rebate program in partnership with rural electric cooperatives,
municipally-owned utilities and the investor-owned utilities. Projects
have included blender pumps for retailers (e.g. West Fargo, Minot,
Grand Forks, Edgeley, Wyndmere and Bowman) and flare gas electricity
generation (Williams County).
Ohio.--$42.6 million has been allocated for a variety of renewable
energy activities, including manufacturing, waste-to-energy and
biofuels, $8 million has been dedicated to energy efficiency and
geothermal for new and existing buildings, $30 million is capitalizing
a revolving loan program for all sectors, and $15 million is committed
to energy efficiency for industry.
Rhode Island.--Funds have been provided for a green building
initiative in State facilities, a commercial/industrial energy
efficiency initiative, building code upgrades and energy efficient
transportation, $8.4 million has been allocated for renewable energy
loans, $2.3 million has been allocated for a residential energy
efficiency initiative with approximately $7.5 million in leveraged
funds projected. Larger (utility scale) renewable projects received $5
million.
South Dakota.--$20.5 million has been dedicated to a State
revolving loan for public buildings, with $3 million for a limited
number of grants. Activities include energy efficiency retrofits, LEED
ratings, on site generation, etc.
Tennessee.--This State has committed its resources to three major
solar initiatives including a solar and economic development program,
creating a Tennessee Solar Institute at ORNL and creating a large solar
farm.
Texas.--$137.8 million has been allocated for public sector
building energy efficiency, including revolving loans for schools,
hospitals, municipalities, public colleges, etc. and $52 million has
been allocated for a competitive renewable energy grant program. Energy
sector training projects have been granted to junior colleges and
technical institutes. Transportation efficiency programs have also been
funded.
Utah.--Funds have been allocated for residential and commercial
energy training, advanced energy efficiency for buildings, whole home
audit programs, builder rebates for high performance home building,
direct installation for insulation, energy efficiency in State
buildings, grants for energy efficiency in public schools, revolving
loans for public schools and competitive grants for highly innovative
energy efficiency projects. Renewable energy projects for State-owned
buildings and public schools have also been funded. The $10 million in
loans for State agencies is projected to leverage $60 million in other
funds.
Washington.--Approximately $20 million was allocated for a energy
efficiency and renewable energy loan and grant program. Over 10 times
the amount of available funds was requested by potential recipients.
Additional funding of $5 million was provided for energy efficiency
credit enhancements (supporting $50 million in total project
expenditures). Funding was also allocated for energy efficiency in
agricultural uses and community wide residential and commercial energy
efficiency pilots received $14 million in grants.
West Virginia.--Almost $13 million has been dedicated to energy
efficiency projects in higher education buildings and K-12 schools.
State buildings also received funds for energy efficiency projects. A
green collar jobs training program was also initiated.
______
Prepared Statement of ASME
Mr. Chairman, ranking member and members of the subcommittee: The
ASME Energy Committee is pleased to provide this testimony on the
fiscal year 2011 budget request for research and development (R&D)
programs in the Department of Energy (DOE).
INTRODUCTION TO ASME AND THE ASME ENERGY COMMITTEE
The 127,000-member ASME is a nonprofit, worldwide educational and
technical Society. It conducts one of the world's largest technical
publishing operations, holds more than 30 technical conferences and 200
professional development courses each year, and sets some 600
industrial and manufacturing standards, some of which have become de
facto global technical standards. The Energy Committee of ASME's
Technical Communities comprises 40 members from 17 Divisions of ASME,
representing approximately 40,000 of ASME's members.
ASME has long advocated a balanced mix of energy supplies to meet
the Nation's energy needs, including advanced clean coal, petroleum,
nuclear, natural gas, waste to energy, biomass, solar, wind and
hydroelectric power. ASME also supports energy efficient building and
transportation technologies, as well as transmission and distribution
infrastructure sufficient to satisfy demand under reasonably
foreseeable contingencies. Only such a portfolio will allow the United
States to maintain its quality of life while addressing future
environmental and security challenges. Sustained growth in the energy
systems on which the United States depends will also require stability
in licensing and permitting processes not only for power generating
stations but also for transmission and transportation systems.
A forward-looking energy policy will require enhanced and sustained
levels of funding for R&D, as well as Government policies that
encourage deployment and commercialization. While the Energy Committee
supports much of the fiscal year 2011 budget request, especially the
increases in funding for fundamental scientific research. The Energy
Committee also wishes to emphasize that a balanced approach to our
energy needs is critical and that we remain concerned about the
decrease in funding for fossil energy, which is essential to meeting
our national energy needs now and in the future.
CRITICAL ISSUES
The Energy Committee would like to point out some critical energy
issues:
--Additional investment guarantees for construction of new electrical
capacity, especially nuclear facilities, must be enacted in
future legislation. These guarantees will enable lower
financing costs for a variety of energy technologies and fuel
sources that will be available 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. It is critical that
non-biased, critical analysis of known potential energy/
environmental/technical benefits and impacts drive allocation.
These must consider capacity value (reliable contribution to
load trends) of resources as well as capacity factor, and also
losses from proximity or remoteness from load. These additions
translate to much more efficient use of subsidy dollars.
--There is a critical shortage of trained personnel in the workforce
at all levels. This includes scientists and engineers who will
conduct research, those who will operate and maintain the
systems, as well as people in building trades that will be
essential for the construction of our energy systems and in
industry that will manufacture the components. ``Regaining our
ENERGY Science and Engineering Edge'' or ``RE-ENERGYSE,'' a
program being conducted jointly by the DOE EERE and the
National Science Foundation (NSF) and geared to young
scientists and engineers, is a positive step toward addressing
this chronic issue. We would like to see this program honored
in fiscal year 2011.
FOSSIL ENERGY
The fiscal year 2010 budget request of $760 million for fossil
energy represents a $190 million decrease over the fiscal year 2010
appropriation; a 20 percent decrease over the fiscal year 2010 budget
request. Fossil Energy Research and Development would be reduced by $85
million to $586 million; however, much of this is covered by stimulus
funding in the near term. Funding for Natural Gas Technologies and for
Unconventional Fossil Energy Technologies would be eliminated. The
budget for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve would be suspended. The
Energy Committee encourages funding for coal research programs and
urges a restoration to at least the levels appropriated for fiscal year
2010 in future years when the stimulus funding has been expended. The
effective use of coal in today's environment demands an increase in
efficiency and a decrease in release of environmentally harmful waste
streams. Coal remains a critical resource for our Nation and its
economy; however, and we must continue to invest in technological
advancements that will reduce emissions for this energy. The use of
more efficient processes for coal combustion, such as advanced
integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) technology, combined with
carbon sequestration will 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 RESEARCH PROJECTS AGENCY-ENERGY (ARPA-E)
The Energy Committee supports the $300 million budget request for
the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E). This is a
worthwhile endeavor for the DOE as we seek to accomplish technological
breakthroughs in energy technology.
NUCLEAR ENERGY
The Energy Committee is pleased to see an overall increase in the
DOE Nuclear Energy budget to $912 million in fiscal year 2011, a $42
million increase over the fiscal year 2010 appropriated amount.
However, the Energy Committee is discouraged at the discontinuation of
the Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems program. The Energy Committee
is curious to see how the proposed Reactor Concepts RD&D program
distinguishes itself from the traditional R&D program under the Office
of Nuclear Energy. Nuclear energy, as a low-carbon, 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. Sustained increases in nuclear power research are justified by
the imperative of reliable, low cost, low emissions electricity.
Before its cessation in the fiscal year 2009 Omnibus Appropriations
bill, the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) program was a vital
means to enhancing the future of safe, reliable, nuclear power through
the establishment of international centers for nuclear fuel cycle
services for nations both large and small. Although no funding is
provided for GNEP, the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative, now called Fuel
Cycle R&D, would receive $201 million in funding in fiscal year 2011, a
$65 million increase. The ASME Energy Committee remains hopeful that
the administration, with the aid of Congress, will eventually
reconsider the discontinuation of GNEP, which continues to exist as an
international collaborative effort, but minus U.S. participation.
ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY
The Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) manages
America's investment in research, development and deployment of DOE's
diverse energy efficiency and renewable energy applied science
portfolio. The fiscal year 2011 request of $2.35 billion, $112 million
above the fiscal year 2010 appropriated amount, provides a broad and
balanced set of approaches to address the urgent energy and
environmental challenges currently facing our Nation. Most of the key
EERE programs, including Biomass, Solar, Wind, Geothermal, Building
Technologies, Vehicle Technologies, and Industrial technologies, have
received sizable increases in funding to support the growth of
renewable energy. The Energy Committee encourages Congress to include
waste-to-energy as an important component of the Country's Renewable
Energy portfolio to provide it with the same benefits as energy from
biomass.
The RE-ENERGYSE program is slated to receive $50 million as part of
the fiscal year 2011 request. Facing a deficit of engineers in the
United States, the Energy Committee believes that this could be an
effective step toward replenishing our Nation's workforce by
encouraging young people to pursue science and engineering. Therefore,
the Energy Committee strongly supports full funding for the RE-ENERGYSE
program, something that did not receive funding for the fiscal year
2010 appropriation.
The Energy Committee believes 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 2011 budget
for biomass and bio-refinery systems R&D is slated to receive no
increase at $220 million for fiscal year 2011, identical to the fiscal
year 2010 appropriated amount. It should be noted that this program did
receive $777 million as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment
Act (Public Law 111-5). Therefore, the Energy Committee supports the
current appropriation and encourages Congress to ensure that these
research programs continue to receive adequate funding. We are also
pleased to see the $325 million increase in the effort related to
vehicle technologies emphasizing plug-in hybrid electric vehicles.
The integration of all cost effective electric generating
technologies into the operation of the electricity distribution system
is critical to economic operation of the national electric grid. The
Energy Committee believes that R&D related to the integration of the
electric grid and its control as a truly national system is imperative
for the growth of effective and economic energy generation 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) which restores the funding trajectory mandated
in the America Competes Act of 2007 (Public Law 109-69). The fiscal
year 2011 budget proposal of $5.12 billion is an increase of $217
million over the fiscal year 2010 appropriation. OS programs in high
energy physics, fusion energy sciences, biological and environmental
research, basic energy sciences, and advanced scientific computing,
serve, in some small way, every student in the country. These funds
support not only research at the DOE Laboratories, but also the work 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 and other next-
generation biofuels, advanced battery and energy storage systems, and
fusion. The Energy Committee strongly supports the budget request for
the Office of Science, as well as the proposed doubling track for the
office by fiscal year 2017.
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 research area. The Energy Committee
questions the advisability of flat funding for the Environmental
Management program. The Yucca Mountain Waste Repository is a critical
part of the environmental cleanup activity. Termination of this project
will only extend and increase the final cost of the environmental
management program. The energy committee does not support this backward
step. The coming resurgence in the commercial nuclear arena is likely
to deplete the trained professionals available for this program as
engineers choose to move to the more stable commercial environment.
Congress should appropriate the funds to ensure that this work is
accomplished in an expeditious manner.
CONCLUSION
Members of the ASME 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
range 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 requests for additional information
or perspectives on other aspects of our Nation's energy programs.
______
Prepared Statement of the Gulf Coast Research Laboratory
I am writing to you as a marine biologist with over 40 years of
experience in fisheries science. I would like to share my concerns with
you about the proposed plans to construct an expansion site for the
Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) at Richton in Perry County,
Mississippi.
The Richton Site differs from DOE's four existing Strategic
Petroleum Reserve (SPR) sites located in other States and these
differences were not adequately addressed in the original Environmental
Impact statement. The Richton project is the first SPR to place the
brine diffuser in a marine environment near a barrier island pass and
the use of diffusion models designed for other locations to explain
circulation processes in Mississippi waters is totally inappropriate
and not based on ``sound science''. The physiography of the Mississippi
Bight and circulation patterns within this region are unique. There are
serious concerns that the Pascagoula River Basin will suffer as a
result of the project's withdrawal of 50 million gallons of water per
day for a period of 5 to 6 years concurrent with the daily diffusion of
42 million gallons of toxic salt brine (236 ppt) waste at a discharge
site south of Horn Island Pass. This site is directly in line with the
Pascagoula Ship Channel and may serve as a conduit for movement of
brine northward. Based on the best available oceanographic models for
the area, there is the probability that the brine will not diffuse as
it does in other areas, but will actually enter the Mississippi Sound
with a component of the discharge moving westward along the south side
of the barrier islands toward the Chandeleur Islands in Louisiana. This
would create a ``brine pool'' within the Sound and would establish a
``brine barrier'' across the island passes. Mississippi's barrier
island passes are key corridors for the transport of larvae and
postlarvae of economically important fish and shellfish to and from the
Mississippi Sound and the effect of a ``brine barrier'' on these
fragile life stages may be catastrophic.
The Pascagoula River is the largest unaltered, undammed river
system in the United States and is considered a ``Natural Treasure''.
There is concern that salt water intrusion resulting from the vast
discharge of brine south of Horn Island Pass coupled with decreased
freshwater flow may alter coastal ecosystems and impact rare,
threatened, and endangered species (14 listed by the Mississippi
Department of Marine Resources). Mississippi is dependent on its water
resources and wetlands to maintain commercial and recreational
fisheries and protection of these natural resources is a priority for
the people of Mississippi.
______
Prepared Statement of Energy Northwest
Energy Northwest is writing to express its support for the
President's fiscal year 2011 budget request of $38.9 million for the
Department of Energy's small, modular nuclear reactor (SMR) program.
This funding will help avoid delays in the Federal licensing by the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission for such projects.
The President's budget request would support public/private
partnerships to advance mature SMR designs, and research, development
and demonstration of innovative SMR technologies and concepts.
Energy Northwest is a joint operating agency headquartered in
Richland, Washington and comprised of 28 publicly owned utilities from
across Washington State. The agency owns and operates four electric
generating plants: Columbia Generating Station (nuclear power plant),
Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project, Nine Canyon Wind Project and White
Bluffs Solar Station. As part of Energy Northwest's evaluation of
options for meeting future wholesale power supply needs of its members,
the concept of building a small reactor that could be grouped with
other modules to meet future load group is currently being studied.
At a time when the United States is charting an energy course to
increase national energy security and promote greater development of
low- or no-carbon emission resources, SMRs hold great promise.
Potential benefits of SMRs include providing utilities greater
flexibility in terms of capital investment, financing, siting and
sizing.
Thank you for the opportunity to submit these views.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Public Power Association
The American Public Power Association (APPA) is the national
service organization representing the interests of over 2,000 municipal
and other State and locally owned utilities throughout the United
States (all but Hawaii). Collectively, public power utilities deliver
electricity to 1 of every 7 electric consumers (approximately 45
million people). We appreciate the opportunity to submit this statement
outlining our fiscal year 2011 funding priorities within the Energy and
Water Development Subcommittee's jurisdiction.
Renewable Energy Production Incentive (REPI).--APPA requests $5
million for the Renewable Energy Production Incentive (REPI). The
Department of Energy's REPI program was created in 1992's Energy Policy
Act (EPAct) as a counterpart to the renewable energy production tax
credits made available to for-profit utilities, and was reauthorized
through 2016 in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct05). EPAct05
authorizes DOE to make direct payments to not-for-profit public power
systems and rural electric cooperatives at the rate of 1.5 cents per
kWh (1.9 cents when adjusted for inflation) from electricity generated
from a variety of renewable projects. While the program had been zeroed
out in recent years by the Bush and Obama administrations, Congress has
consistently restored funding at $5 million until last year. In fiscal
year 2010, the REPI program received no funding. As Congress works
toward adopting a Federal renewable portfolio standard and a climate
change mitigation program, REPI becomes increasingly more important to
not-for-profit utilities. Several non-profit utilities that have been
relying on the program to help fund renewable programs, have been
abandoned by the lack of funding. While the demand for the program is
truly $25 million, $5 million would restore funding.
POWER MARKETING ADMINISTRATIONS (PMA'S)
Power Marketing Administration Proposals.--In past years, various
measures have been proposed for all four PMAs that would have had the
effect of raising the rates for PMA customers. We appreciate that the
fiscal year 2011 request does not include these types of proposals.
Purchase Power and Wheeling.--We urge the subcommittee to authorize
appropriate levels for use of receipts so that the Western Area Power
Administration (WAPA), the Southeastern Power Administration (SEPA) and
the Southwestern Power Administration (SWPA) can continue to purchase
and wheel electric power to their municipal and rural electric
cooperative customers. Although appropriations are no longer needed to
initiate the purchase power and wheeling (PP&W) process, the
subcommittee continues to establish ceilings on the use of receipts for
this important function. The PP&W arrangement is effective, has no
impact on the Federal budget, and is supported by the PMA customers who
pay the costs. We support an increase over the funding levels of the
administration's budget for fiscal year 2011, which are as follows:
$553.6 million for Western Area Power Administration (WAPA); $88.6
million for Southeastern Power Administration (SEPA); and $49 million
for Southwestern Power Administration (SWPA).
Storage for High-level Nuclear Waste.--APPA is disappointed in the
administration's lack of support for the Department of Energy used
nuclear fuel management program. However, we support efforts by the
administration to study alternatives to Yucca Mountain and request a
funding level of $340 million for the Office of Radioactive Waste
Management at the Department of Energy.
Nuclear Loan Guarantees.--APPA is pleased with the administration's
request of $54.5 billion for DOE Loan Guarantees for Innovative Energy
Technology and encourages the subcommittee to maintain this level of
funding.
Department of Energy Waterpower Program.--APPA requests $100
million for fiscal year 2011 for the DOE's Waterpower Program. At a
time when utilities around our country must focus on finding carbon-
free sources of energy, the importance of hydropower research and
development is more important than ever before. Not only is hydropower
a renewable resource, but it can be used as baseload generation to back
up more intermittent renewables such as wind and solar power.
Energy Conservation.--APPA appreciates the funding increases for
energy efficiency programs provided in the President's budget. The
budget funding levels for fiscal year 2011 are as follows: Building
Technologies--$231 million; Industrial Technologies--$100 million;
Federal Energy Management Program--$42 million; and Vehicle
Technologies--$325 million. We urge the subcommittee to maintain these
funding levels. We however encourage the subcommittee to increase
funding for the EPA ENERGY STAR program over the requested amount of
$55.4 million.
Weatherization and Intergovernmental Activities.--We are pleased
that the administration has requested $385 million for the
Weatherization program in fiscal year 2011, a 30 percent increase from
fiscal year 2010 and we encourage the subcommittee to maintain that
level of funding.
Clean Coal Power Initiative (CCPI) and FutureGen.--APPA is
disappointed that the budget did not include funding for large scale
commercial applications of carbon capture and sequestration technology.
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) included $800 million
for the CCPI Round 3 program and we encourage the subcommittee to
include funding for a CCPI round 4 program. Funding for FutureGen was
made available in the ARRA. APPA strongly believes as concerns grow
over climate change and the effects of man-made emissions from
combustion of fossil fuels, the FutureGen project will be critical in
nearing us to the goal of the world's first near-zero-emissions coal
fired plant. We urge the subcommittee and the Congress to work with the
administration on finding an appropriate role and funding level for the
FutureGen project.
Fuel Cells.--APPA was disappointed with the funding request of $50
million for fiscal year 2011 for fuel cell related research and
development. This is a 7 percent decrease from fiscal year 2010 levels.
We urge the subcommittee to allocate additional funding for this
program for fiscal year 2011.
Fuels and Power Systems.--We recommend these funding levels for the
following programs: Innovations for Existing Plants--increase from $65
million to $84 million; Advanced Integrated Gasification Combined
Cycle--increase from $55 million to $80 million; Turbines--increase
from $31 million to $45 million; Carbon Sequestration--increased from
$143 million to $150 million; Fuels--support the President's request;
Advanced Research--support President's request of $48 million.
Navajo Electrification Demonstration Program.--APPA supports full
funding for the Navajo Electrification Demonstration Program at its
full authorized funding level of $15 million. The purpose of the
program is to provide electric power to the estimated 18,000 occupied
structures in the Navajo Nation that lack electric power. This program
has been consistently underfunded.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC).--The fiscal year 2011
budget requests $315 million for FERC, an increase over fiscal year
2010 levels. APPA supports this increase.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science
Society of America and the Soil Science Society of America
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 2011. For the Office of Science, ASA, CSSA, and
SSSA recommend a funding level of $4.9 billion, a 10 percent increase
over fiscal year 2010 ($4.47 billion). For the Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, we recommend a funding level of $2.4
billion, a 7 percent increase over fiscal year 2010. 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
ASA-CSSA-SSSA understand the challenges the Senate Energy and Water
Appropriations Subcommittee faces with the tight budget for fiscal year
2011. 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
2010 Omnibus Appropriations bill at $4.470 billion. For fiscal year
2011, ASA, CSSA, and SSSA recommend a funding level of $4.9 billion, a
10 percent increase over fiscal year 2010. 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. 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 one-half of 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 $4.9 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 $4.9 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 PhDs, postdoctoral associates, and graduate students in
fiscal year 2011; 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, and SSSA
support a fiscal year 2011 funding level of $1.75 billion, a 7 percent
increase over fiscal year 2010, 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. For Chemical
Sciences, Geosciences, and Energy Biosciences subprogram ASA-CSSA-SSSA
recommend $341.5 million for fiscal year 2011, a 15 percent increase
over the fiscal year 2010 funding level. 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 plan to make
America energy independent. ASA-CSSA-SSSA support a 10 percent increase
for BER which would bring the funding level to $664.6 million for
fiscal year 2011. ASA, CSSA, and SSSA support a variety of programs
within BER including the Life Sciences subprogram which supports
Terrestrial Ecosystem Science (which we recommend funding for at $29.9
million for fiscal year 2011), Terrestrial Carbon Sequestration
Research (we recommend $5.1 million for this program) and the Genomes
to Life (GTL) program. 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. We recommend a 12 percent increase over fiscal year 2010
for the Subsurface Biogeochemical Research program, with suggested
funding for the program totaling $55.9 million in fiscal year 2011.
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, and SSSA recommend a funding level of $305.7 million, a
7 percent increase over fiscal year 2010 for BER Climate and Earth
System Modeling. Within this subprogram the Climate Change Research
Division supports important areas of climate change research including
the Ameriflux and a network of research sites.
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 (R&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 $2.4 billion, a 7 percent increase over
fiscal year 2010. The fiscal year 2011 EERE budget should continue to
maintain 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 R&D program plays
an important role providing support for Regional Biomass Feedstock
Development Partnerships and Infastructure Core R&D programs, both
within Feedstock Infrastructure. For the Biomass and Biorefinery
Systems R&D program, we recommend a 7 percent increase for fiscal year
2011 which would bring funding to $235 million. 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, and SSSA support $39.58 million in funding for the Feedstock
program (formerly the Feedstock Infrastructure program).
CLIMATE CHANGE RESEARCH
ASA, CSSA, and SSSA urge the subcommittee to continue to provide
strong support for Climate Change Research to the following programs as
follows: U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), DOE allocation
of $176.9 million. This program 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 for which we
recommend $20,055,000.
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.
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, and 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 Coal Utilization Research Council (CURC)
INTRODUCTION
This statement is submitted on behalf of the membership of the Coal
Utilization Research Council (CURC), an organization of coal-using
utilities, coal producers, equipment suppliers, universities and
institutions of higher learning, and several State government entities
interested and involved in the use of coal resources and the
development of coal-based technologies.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Several members of CURC are not-for-profit organizations
designated as such for Federal tax law purposes. Such organizations are
prohibited in whole or in part from undertaking advocacy activities
with respect to Federal Government appropriations. This written
statement could be construed as such an activity. Membership
contributions made to CURC by these organizations are not used for
these advocacy purposes; rather such contributions are utilized to
undertake analyses and other educational activities as provided by
CURC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE IMPORTANCE OF THE DOE/FE RD&D PROGRAM
CURC believes there is a serious disconnect in public policies
regarding CCS technology. On one hand, we observe general agreement
among policy makers that large reductions in GHG emissions in the 2030-
2050 timeframe are essential to meet climate goals under discussion;
that improved technologies are key to meeting those goals; that CCS is
a crucial technology; and that public sector-private sector
collaboration is necessary to launch CCS technology. On the other hand,
based on budgets requested and enacted for the past several years and
proposed for fiscal year 2011, we observe an unwillingness to provide
the public share of resources necessary to develop and enable
deployment of CCS within the timeframe set forth by those defining
emission reduction targets. Insufficient public resources means we are
falling farther and further behind and there is less expectation each
passing year that CCS will be ready for widespread commercial use by
2020.
With the advent of a greenhouse gas regulatory program in this
country, it is vitally important that affordable and reliable carbon
capture and storage (CCS) technologies be available to minimize the
economic impacts upon the American consumer while continuing to allow
the Nation to reap the economic and energy security benefits associated
with using our most abundant domestic fossil fuel resource. Recent
analyses by both the EPA and the DOE/EIA have concluded that successful
development and deployment of CCS technology can reduce the cost of
compliance with GHG legislation by one-half. Hence, an effective coal-
CCS RD&D program is essential for meeting environmental goals,
enhancing our country's energy security, insuring adequate supplies of
energy at affordable prices, as well as preserving American industrial
competitiveness and growing American jobs in domestic and global
markets.
SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
CURC offers the following recommendations for fiscal year 2011
funding for the Coal RD&D program.
Clean Coal Power Initiative.--DOE did not request any funding in
fiscal year 2010 or fiscal year 2011 for large scale commercial
applications of CCS technology, noting that $800 million was provided
in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) for the CCPI Round
3 program. The number of CCS-related projects that are underway is
insufficient to meet the programmatic goal of establishing CCS
technologies ready for commercial deployment by 2020. CURC believes
that an expanded CCPI program is integral to the commercialization of
CCS technologies, and therefore, in the strongest terms possible, CURC
recommends that the fiscal year 2011 budget include funding to initiate
a CCPI Round 4 program. Congress is encouraged to appropriate at least
$50 million in fiscal year 2011 to be augmented in fiscal year 2012
with funds sufficient to then conduct a CCPI 4 solicitation.
FutureGen.--Funding for FutureGen has been made available through
the ARRA. CURC reiterates its support for this project as an important
and necessary step in the demonstration of an integrated CCS system.
This integration of electricity generation with CCS is fundamental to
the learning necessary to make CCS a commercial reality.
FUELS & POWER SYSTEMS
--Innovations for Existing Plants (and Advanced Combustion).--The
administration's request for fiscal year 2011 includes an
increase in this line item to $65 million, compared to $52
million enacted in fiscal year 2010. CURC recommends a budget
of $84 million that should be used to support technologies that
increase the efficiency of coal conversion to energy and that
contribute to reducing the costs of carbon capture from
combustion-based power generation--for both new and existing
steam power plants. To achieve these goals funds should be
allocated to address specific needs for advanced combustion,
including oxy-combustion and next generation oxy-combustion
process cycles, advanced solvents for post combustion capture,
the high temperature materials program for ultrasupercritical
cycles, as well as emphasis on other new power plant
efficiency-improving techniques which do not depend on steam
temperature and pressure leaving the boiler. Finally, the
implementation of post-combustion carbon capture will place
increased demands on what are already scarce supplies of
cooling water, and, as a result, research on water management
technologies for coal-fired power plants need to be an
important component of the IEP program; recommend $4 to $6
million for water management programs.
--Advanced Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle.\2\--Funding
provided for IGCC technology has consistently fallen short of
the amounts deemed necessary to launch the next generation of
this technology as defined in the CURC-EPRI Technology Roadmap.
The administration's request for fiscal year 2011 is a further
decrease from these already insufficient funding levels. CURC
recommends that the funding for this line item be increased
from the requested $55 million to at least $80 million. This
increased budget is important to achieve:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ It is also important to note that advances in this area not
only support advanced IGCC but support all gasification programs in
general, including industrial gasification, hydrogen and fertilizer
production, SNG, and coal-to-liquids programs and to these ends this
program should encompass the concept of advanced gasification
technology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Advances in coal feed systems;
--Low-cost oxygen production (such as ITM oxygen); \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ This program should include sufficient funding to insure that
the 100-ton per day ITM Intermediate Scale Test Unit will be completed
and operations commenced.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Advanced gasifier designs (including the gasifier itself; its
major components such as feed injection/pumping and
refractory materials, as well as gasifier modifications to
achieve less costly air separation);
--Warm syngas cleanup for sulfur and other coal-based syngas
contaminants (such as mercury and arsenic);
--Hydrogen/CO2 separation and recovery (including
advanced membrane systems);
--CO2 capture at elevated pressure (to reduce
CO2 compression costs); and
--Studies and RD&D aimed at the integration of these advanced
gasification technologies to significantly reduce overall
gasification capital costs and improve overall
efficiencies.
--Turbines.--The latest generation of advanced gas turbines (the
``G'' and ``H'' class of turbines) is not ready to meet the
demands of IGCC plants with high levels of CO2
capture. Reduced funding in the last few years has delayed
progress and jeopardized DOE's 2012 goal of developing advanced
turbines capable of operating on 100 percent hydrogen. The
Turbines program needs an additional $14 million, for a total
of $45 million in fiscal year 2011. Technical focus areas for
this funding should include:
--Promising material systems (base alloys, bond coats and thermal
barrier coatings) for hot gas path parts including rotating
and stationary airfoils;
--Technology for enhanced cooling effectiveness of hot gas path
parts;
--Methods for containing by-pass flows in the combustor-expander
transition piece and the airfoil tip-casing interface; and
--Continuation of work with the NETL in-house research group, other
national laboratories and U.S. universities to assess
combustor designs and the fundamentals associated with
hydrogen combustion and turbine subsystems.
It is important to note that all carbon fuels, including natural
gas, will need to capture CO2 in order to achieve the levels
of reduced CO2 concentrations being proposed in various
climate change legislation now under consideration by Congress.
--Carbon Sequestration.--Funding under this program offers the
appearance of being slightly below the $160 million level
recommended by CURC. However, this DOE program includes
approximately $50 million for CO2 capture, whereas
the CURC roadmap places capture activity with the IGCC and IEP
programs. The result is that CURC believes the fiscal year 2011
Carbon Sequestration request falls significantly short of
needs, and this shortfall will result, for example, in the
slow-down of some of the Regional Carbon Sequestration
Partnership projects. Ultimately, the vast majority of
CO2 sequestration will likely take place in saline
formations and even under the seabed. As a consequence the
majority of funding for this program should be focused on
sequestration into saline formations rather than for
CO2 hydrocarbon recovery or other CO2 re-
use projects. Moreover, some ongoing tests are with non-
anthropogenic CO2, or non-power system
CO2, whereas experience integrating commercial scale
capture at power systems with injection into saline formations
is the foundation for broad deployment of CCS. At a minimum the
funding level for this program should be increased to $150
million versus the $143 million requested.
--Fuels.--CURC supports the President's budget recommendation for
hydrogen from coal, research for hydrogen separation membranes
for power production, and developing components for process
intensification to reduce the capital cost of power systems.
CURC believes that coal-to-substitute natural gas (C-SNG)
systems are commercial and that these systems may provide a
relatively low cost mechanism to provide the large volume of
CO2 needed to simulate commercial power plant
CO2 injection processes. Also, gasification of coal
and biomass (zeroed out in the fiscal year 2011 Request)
combined with CCS may be a useful pathway to provide
transportation fuels with a lower CO2 footprint than
conventional sources of these fuels.
--Advanced Research.--The budget request for Advanced Research
focuses on sensors and controls, advanced materials, and new
computer simulation activities for capture and storage of
CO2. The new computer simulation activities would
boost overall Advanced Research funding by $20 million from $28
million (fiscal year 2010) to $48 million (fiscal year 2011).
CURC supports a balanced advanced research program at DOE or
through the newly created ARPA-E program where use of a portion
of the funds is tightly integrated with the overall coal R&D
program with clear deliverables which will address barriers or
any technology ``gaps'' to meeting DOE's objective of
commercial deployment of CCS by 2020. To achieve this end this
program directly supports externally funded applied research
programs carried out by university and industry-based
organizations that are seeking research results which are
responsive to the current marketplace. The AR program or an
ARPA-E program also should vigorously support new initiatives
that promise ways to cost-effectively prevent or capture
CO2 from the use of carbon-based fuels. This type of
basic research looks beyond today's technologies to the next
generation and private sector funds may not be readily
available. Again, we believe a strong relationship between
industry, academia and DOE is vital.
--University and Workforce Training and Education.--CURC additionally
recommends that the DOE budget be available to support academic
or university based programs to build up the expertise that is
declining in coal technology research and development
activities. A well funded advanced research program, as well as
university based programs, can help replenish the scientists
and engineers needed to create the coal utilization systems and
carbon management systems of the future. Also, appropriations
should be made to reinstate programs to train the skilled
trades workforce needed to construct and operate the energy
industry of tomorrow including the utilization of CCS
technologies.
--Fuel Cells.--The DOE Solid State Energy Conversion Alliance (SECA)
program is ready to move into MW-scale demonstrations. A
primary objective of the program is the development of high
temperature solid oxide fuel cells (SOFC) for integration with
advanced coal gasification systems. Fuel cells offer the
promise of a step change in the way electricity is generated in
the future and, if successful, could provide highly efficient,
cost-competitive systems capable of capturing nearly all of the
CO2 from the conversion process, minimizing water
requirements for the system and greatly reducing emissions of
other criteria pollutants.
Title XVII Loan Guarantee Program
Consistent with the loan guarantee capacity already provided or
sought for other energy sources ($65.5 billion for renewables and
energy efficiency and $56.5 billion for nuclear power) and given the
potential impact of widely deployed CCS technology upon CO2
reductions globally, it is recommended that loan guarantee authority
for fossil energy and CCS projects be increased by $20 billion. There
appears to be very significant interest among CCS-related fossil fuel
projects for use of loan guarantees if made available.
SUMMARY AND COMMENTS ON SIGNIFICANT ISSUES RELATED TO THE FISCAL YEAR
2011 BUDGET REQUEST
The programs administered and supported through the Department's
Fossil Energy office have been distinguished by efforts to foster
collaboration with industry research, development and demonstration
efforts, as well as a broad spectrum of university research
organizations. These programs between industry, Government and the
academic community have enabled participants to actively engage in each
part of the technology development chain from basic research to applied
research and development and then demonstration and early commercial
deployment. Implementing a restructuring of the FE budget into four new
cross-cutting program areas could facilitate even greater partnering
opportunities, focus programs upon the critical issues surrounding CCS
development, quickly identify and address technology gaps, and create
greater transparency in defining and exhibiting program goals and
accomplishments. During this restructuring, the benefits of
collaboration should be an important consideration if it is
contemplated that there will be any new and significant involvement of
other Federal laboratories that have little or no historical ties to
the industries that rely upon coal and benefit from collaboration
through the FE program.
CURC supports the request to increase the Department's advanced
research budget so long as increases are inclusive and extend funding
support to research efforts at universities and industry participants
in all regions of the country wherever the competency and excellence
exists. CURC also supports the request to increase the computationally
based research (subject to the comments below) budget. The new emphasis
upon computational modeling is conceptually attractive as a means to
reduce the amount of time and funding required in fully developing,
demonstrating and deploying technology. This funding should be
implemented through existing structural models already established by
NETL for industry--university collaborative research--and we recommend
such an approach which will use structures in place and further support
already successful collaboration. Finally, if these new programs are to
be accepted by industry as a tool to create substitutes for ``steel in
the ground'' then it is essential that industry be involved in the
development of the computer models to insure that practical
considerations in the construction and operation of power plants or
industrial facilities are taken into account. Therefore, industry
should be consulted to determine if computer models are an appropriate
surrogate for actual plants being constructed and if yes, and funding
is to be provided, then direct industry input is recommended when
constructing the models themselves.
Beyond basic research CURC is expressly concerned that no funding
is requested to initiate a next CCPI solicitation for advanced coal and
CCS demonstrations. If we are to successfully develop a portfolio of
advanced technologies to utilize coal efficiently and with minimal
environmental impact then we must continue support for demonstration
projects.
______
Prepared Statement of the University of Chicago
My name is Donald Levy and I am Vice President for Research and
National Laboratories at the University of Chicago. The University of
Chicago manages, supports, and engages with two major Federal research
centers: Argonne National Laboratory and the Fermi National Accelerator
Laboratory (Fermilab). The University's management and operations
responsibility for Argonne dates back to its founding in 1946 as the
Nation's first national laboratory, and is a direct descendant of the
University of Chicago's Metallurgical Laboratory, part of the World War
II Manhattan Project. In partnership with Universities Research
Association, the University of Chicago was awarded the M&O contract by
the Department of Energy for Fermilab in 2007. Argonne and Fermilab are
leaders in ensuring U.S. competitiveness in the global economy, and
providing unmatched science talent and capacity for the Midwest and the
Nation. The fundamental science and applied research that takes place
in them, often in collaboration with the University of Chicago and
numerous other universities across the country, continues to push the
frontiers of scientific discovery, energy security, environmental
sustainability and national security. I am pleased to testify in strong
support for the administration's proposed fiscal year 2011 budget
request of $5.1 billion for the Office of Science.
THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY'S OFFICE OF SCIENCE
The Department of Energy's Office of Science (SC) is the steward of
10 national laboratories--including the Argonne National Laboratory and
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory. This system of national
laboratories provides direct and vital support for the mission of the
Department's science programs and represents the most comprehensive
research infrastructure system of its kind in the world. A high level
of collaboration among all of the national laboratories with the
university community and industry in the use of world-class scientific
equipment and supercomputers, facilities, and multidisciplinary teams
of scientists increases their collective contribution to DOE and the
Nation. The national laboratories sponsored by the SC enables the
United States to remain at the forefront of discovery science. They
ensure that facilities and projects of great scale are part of the
Nation's scientific infrastructure and provide the foundation for
translating the results of discovery science into technological
applications.
SC is also one of the Nation's largest supporters of peer-reviewed
basic research, providing 40 percent of Federal support in the physical
sciences while supporting approximately 25,000 Ph.D.s, graduate
students, undergraduates, engineers, and support staff at more than 300
universities and at all 17 DOE laboratories. In fiscal year 2010, the
Office of Workforce Development for Teachers and Scientists expects to
support over 1,100 undergraduates in research internships at the DOE
laboratories and nearly 300 K-16 educators. SC is proposing to increase
the Graduate Fellowship Program to support approximately 400 graduate
students in the out-years.
The subcommittee is faced with very tight fiscal constraints and a
difficult set of choices. Given that situation, the fiscal year 2011
DOE budget for SC deserves the subcommittee's strong support for the
following reasons: It invests in science for national needs in clean
energy, the environment and materials research; it provides vital
support for national scientific user facilities relied on by
universities and industry working on research that can't be performed
anywhere else in the United States; and it supports scientific and
technological education and related workforce development.
The fiscal year 2011 budget request makes much needed investments
to harness the power of American ingenuity. This request will help
create clean energy jobs, expand the frontiers of science, reduce
dependence on foreign oil, and help curb the carbon pollution that
threatens our planet. If one advance could transform America's
prospects, it would be having a range of clean, efficient and renewable
energy technologies, ready to power our cars, our buildings and our
industries, at scale, while creating jobs and protecting the planet. If
we want to own those future technologies, there is only one path:
sustained support for research.
We should not count on private industry alone to make the necessary
investments. Since 1980, research investment by U.S. energy companies
paralleled the drop in public research. By 2004, corporate energy R&D
stood at just $1.2 billion in today's dollars. This level might suit a
cost-efficient and technologically mature fossil-fuel-based energy
sector. However, it is very much out of step with any industry that
depends on innovation.
The lesson is that while industry must support development and
commercialization, only Government can prime the pump of research.
Congress funded the basic research that spawned the information
technology revolution and the biotechnology revolution. Today, to spark
an energy revolution, Congress--and this subcommittee in particular--
must lead again.
The potential, from the economy to global security to climate, is
boundless. Yet we are not the only ones who have noticed. If we fail to
make major strategic investments in energy research now, we will find
ourselves overtaken by our competitors, from China and India to Germany
and Japan. Other countries have the money and motivation, and they are
chasing the technology almost as fast as we are. We must make sure that
in the energy technology markets of the future, we have the power to
invent, produce and sell, not the obligation to buy.
The handwriting is clearly on the wall--the Great Wall.
ARGONNE AND FERMI NATIONAL LABORATORIES
In the coming years, the Argonne National Laboratory will pursue
major initiatives that support the Department of Energy's research
goals to create innovative and transformational solutions to the
Nation's grand scientific challenges. These initiatives have
inspirational goals that will keep Argonne at the very forefront of
scientific discovery and engineering excellence. Three of the major
initiatives: Hard X-ray Sciences, Leadership Computing, and Materials
and Molecular Design and Discovery, emphasize the development of next
generation scientific tools and materials. Five other major
initiatives: Energy Storage, Alternative Energy and Efficiency, Nuclear
Energy, Biological and Environmental Systems, and National Security,
directly address practical energy, environment and security challenges.
A number of these initiatives, in areas such as computational sciences,
molecular design and biological and environmental systems are being
conducted in close collaboration with the University of Chicago's core
research capabilities.
Fermilab's world-class scientific research facility allows
qualified researchers from around the world to conduct fundamental
research at the frontiers of high-energy physics and related
disciplines. Thousands of scientists have used Fermilab's particle
accelerators and experiments to study the universe at the smallest and
largest scales. The extraordinary technology developed for particle
physics has often led to real-life applications--from accelerators for
cancer treatment to the World Wide Web. Fermilab's broad scientific
program pushes forward on the three interrelated frontiers of particle
physics. Each uses a unique approach to making discoveries, and all
three are essential to answering key questions about the laws of nature
and the cosmos.
Among the initiatives proposed by the Office of Science of
particular importance to the University of Chicago, Argonne and
Fermilab are:
--Basic Energy Sciences program support for upgrades to Argonne's
Advanced Photon Source (APS). The high-brilliance x-rays
produced at the APS--the brightest in the Western Hemisphere--
has been instrumental in developing new and improved energy
sources, bettering the environment, battling diseases,
improving technologies, unlocking the secrets of our planet and
universe, and furthering the education of today's and
tomorrow's scientists. We urge the subcommittee to provide
strong encouragement to DOE to support vital future performance
enhancements in the APS;
--Advanced Scientific Computing Research program support for
Argonne's Leadership Computing Facility. The application of
state-of-the-art supercomputers to modeling and simulation can
play breakthrough roles linked to our energy security, climate
change and sharpen America's competitive edge. The applications
also provide benefits to program offices and their external
users throughout the Department of Energy. We urge the
subcommittee to support the fiscal year 2011 budget request and
remain committed to a robust funding path in future years in
order to fully achieve the next level of computational power
needed to address the next series of important large-scale
challenges;
--The High Energy Physics Program, including continued support for
Tevatron Collider research, enhancements for the neutrino
physics program and complex wide infrastructure improvements;
--The newly proposed Energy Innovation Hub for Batteries and Energy
Storage--which will focus on integrating from fundamental
research through potential commercialization of electrical
energy storage relevant to transportation and the electric
grid; and
--Vital support for individual investigator, small group, and Energy
Frontier Research Centers (EFRCs) in areas complementing the
initial suite of 46 EFRCs awarded in fiscal year 2009.
CONCLUSION
As President Obama made clear in his remarks to the National
Academy of Sciences in April 2009, the public sector must invest in
research and innovation not only because the private sector is
sometimes reluctant to take large risks, but because the rewards will
be broadly shared across the economy. Leading requires assembling a
critical mass of the best scientists and engineers to engage in
mission-oriented, cross-disciplinary approaches to addressing current
and future energy challenges. To develop clean energy solutions and
maintain the U.S. leadership role in science and innovation, the
Department must cultivate the science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics workforce of the next generation. The University of Chicago
strongly supports the administration's goal to double funding for the
DOE's Office of Science between fiscal year 2007 to fiscal year 2017, a
goal that is consistent with the recommendations in the National
Academies' 2005 report Rising Above the Gathering Storm. To that end,
the University of Chicago strongly supports funding of at least $5.1
billion for SC in fiscal year 2011--the amount requested by the
administration.
The subcommittee is faced with a difficult and probably thankless
job--the allocation of too few resources among a wide variety of worthy
and compelling public policy objectives. Some of these objectives are
near term and funding provided for them can lead to tangible benefits
such as the cleanup of nuclear waste sites or water and flood
protection projects funded through the Corps of Engineers. The benefits
of investing in research are less visible in the near term. However,
they are essential to the long term health and economic vitality of the
Nation. Appreciating the difficult budget environment the subcommittee
must confront, the University of Chicago respectfully requests the
maximum support possible for the important research programs of DOE in
the context of the fiscal year 2011 appropriations process.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide these views.
______
Prepared Statement of the Society for Industrial and Applied
Mathematics (SIAM)
Summary.--This written testimony is submitted on behalf of the
Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics (SIAM) to ask you to
continue your support of the Department of Energy (DOE) Office of
Science by providing $5.121 billion in fiscal year 2011. In particular,
we urge you to provide significant support for the Applied Mathematics
Program within the Office of Science. We also emphasize the importance
of support for graduate students, post-doctoral fellows, and early
career researchers.
My name is Douglas Arnold and I am the President of the Society for
Industrial and Applied Mathematics (SIAM). Today I am submitting this
written testimony for the record to the Subcommittee on Energy and
Water Development of the Committee on Appropriations of the U.S.
Senate.
SIAM has approximately 13,000 members, including applied and
computational mathematicians, computer scientists, numerical analysts,
engineers, statisticians, and mathematics educators. They work in
industrial and service organizations, universities, colleges, and
government agencies and laboratories all over the world. In addition,
SIAM has over 400 institutional members--colleges, universities,
corporations, and research organizations.
First, I would like to emphasize how much SIAM appreciates your
subcommittee's continued leadership on and recognition of the critical
role of the Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Science and its
support for mathematics, science, and engineering in enabling a strong
U.S. economy, workforce, and society. In particular, we thank you and
your colleagues for the significant increases in funding provided for
the Office of Science's mathematical and computing programs in the
fiscal year 2010 Consolidated Appropriations bill.
Today, I submit this testimony to ask you to continue your support
of the DOE Office of Science in fiscal year 2011 and beyond. In
particular, we request that you provide the Office of Science with
$5.121 billion, the level requested by the President for this agency in
his fiscal year 2011 budget. This represents a 4.4 percent increase
over the Office's fiscal year 2010 appropriated level and would
continue the effort to double funding for the Office of Science, as
endorsed by Congress in the America COMPETES Act and by the President
in his fiscal year 2011 budget request.
The Nation faces critical challenges in energy, including in energy
efficiency, renewable energy, improved use of fossil fuels and nuclear
energy, future energy sources, and reduced environmental impacts of
energy production and use. As DOE and the research community design a
long-term strategy to tackle these issues, the tools of mathematics and
computational science (theory, modeling, and simulation) have emerged
as a central element in designing new materials, predicting the impact
of new systems and technologies, and better managing existing
resources. Already, mathematical and computing researchers in
universities, national laboratories, and industry are providing
insights that propel advances in such fields as climate modeling,
nanotechnology, biofuels, genomics, and materials fabrication.
THE ROLE OF MATHEMATICS IN MEETING ENERGY CHALLENGES
SIAM members come from many different disciplines, but have a
common interest in applying mathematics in partnership with
computational science toward solving real-world problems. DOE was one
of the first Federal agencies to champion computational science as one
of the three pillars of science, along with theory and experiment, and
SIAM deeply appreciates and values DOE activities.
In August 2007, an independent panel of mathematicians reviewed the
challenges and strategic plans of all units of DOE in order to better
define the goals for the DOE Applied Mathematics Program, which is
located within the Office of Advanced Scientific Computing Research
(ASCR) in the Office of Science.\1\ The panel considered a broad and
varied array of questions that the DOE must answer in the coming years.
A representative subset of such questions includes:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Applied Mathematics at the U.S. Department of Energy: Past,
Present and a View to the Future. A Report by an Independent Panel from
the Applied Mathematics Research Community, May 2008. Available on line
at http://brownreport.siam.org/Document%20Library/
Brown_Report_May_08.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Can we predict the operating characteristics of a clean coal power
plant?
--How stable is the plasma containment in a Tokamak?
--How quickly is climate change occurring and what are the
uncertainties in the predicted time scales?
--How quickly can an introduced bio-weapon contaminate the
agricultural environment in the United States?
--How do we modify models of the atmosphere and clouds to incorporate
newly collected data of possibly new types?
--How quickly can the United States recover if part of the power grid
became inoperable?
In these and many other cases, the answer is dependent on improved
understanding of complex systems. (These are systems that have high
levels of uncertainty, lack master plans, and are susceptible to
breakdowns that could have catastrophic consequences. Understanding
complex systems helps mitigate these risks and facilitate the
development of controls and strategies to make systems more efficient.)
In light of this broad need, the panel recommended that DOE focus on
three strategies for addressing the gaps in our understanding.
--Predictive modeling and simulation of complex systems.
--Mathematical analysis of the behavior of complex systems.
--Using models of complex systems to inform policy makers. (This
includes advancing the mathematics that supports risk analysis
techniques for policy-making involving complex systems that
include natural and engineered components, and economic,
security, and policy consequences.)
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY OFFICE OF SCIENCE
Activities within ASCR play a key role in supporting research that
begins to fulfill the needs described above. Particularly critical
programs include: the Applied Mathematics program, the Scientific
Discovery through Advanced Computing (SciDAC) program, and programs to
maintain the pipeline of the mathematical workforce. SIAM supports the
$426 million requested for ASCR for fiscal year 2011, while urging that
the increase in funding be more balanced among ASCR programs and not
entirely directed to investments in computing hardware. Without
investments in algorithm research, software development, and
partnerships between mathematicians, disciplinary researchers, and
computer and computational scientists, we cannot realize the full
benefit of new high performance computers or effectively develop the
next generation of such computers.
The applied mathematics and computational science and engineering
work supported by the Applied Mathematics Program is a necessary
element for many of the flagship efforts of the Office of Science and
other units of DOE. Therefore, partnerships within the Department are
critical for applying mathematics to key challenges in effective
creation and use of a variety of energy sources. SIAM supports ASCR
plans to initiate new partnerships with other DOE offices such as the
Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, the Office of
Nuclear Energy, and the Office of Environmental Management. SIAM also
supports the proposed activity on uncertainty and climate change within
the Biological and Environmental Research Office, and the proposed
activity on Computational Design of Advanced Engines within the Basic
Energy Sciences Office.
SUPPORTING THE PIPELINE OF MATHEMATICIANS AND SCIENTISTS
Investing in the education and development of young scientists and
engineers is a major step that the Federal Government can take to
ensure the future prosperity and welfare of the United States.
Currently, the economic situation is negatively affecting the job
opportunities for young mathematicians--at universities, companies, and
other research organizations. It is not only the young mathematicians
who are not being hired who will suffer from these cutbacks. The
research community at large will suffer from the loss of ideas and
energy that these graduate students, postdoctoral fellows, and early
career researchers bring to the field, and the country will suffer from
the lost innovation.
Maintaining the pipeline of the mathematical workforce with
programs that fund research and students is especially important
because of the foundational and cross-cutting role that mathematics and
computational science play in sustaining the Nation's economic
competitiveness and national security, and in making substantial
advances on societal challenges such as energy and the environment. DOE
programs support the educational and professional development of the
researchers who will, at universities, companies, and the national
laboratories, tackle the research problems (such as the complex system
modeling described above) needed to change energy usage in this
country. These young mathematicians and computational scientists are
the drivers and employees of the clean energy economy.
Within the Office of Advanced Scientific Computing Research, the
Computational Science Graduate Fellowship program is a highly
successful and model program that enables students to receive robust
training in mathematics and also learn to interface with a wide variety
of other fields. We request that strong support for this program
continue, as well as ongoing support for post-doctoral fellows at DOE
national laboratories and universities. In addition, we endorse DOE's
proposed continuation in fiscal year 2011 of the Office of Science
Early Career Research Awards and Graduate Fellowships programs begun
with funding from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.
We are also supportive of the proposed DOE education initiative,
RE-ENERGYSE (REgaining our ENERGY Science and Engineering Edge). We too
believe in the core goal of raising the number of students studying in
areas that contribute to the fundamental understanding of energy
science and engineering systems. In particular, we support graduate
research fellowships in relevant fields, such as applied mathematics,
and programs that encourage universities to establish multidisciplinary
research and education programs, such as in computational science,
which is a key element in projects studying and creating clean energy
capabilities.
CONCLUSION
The programs in the Office of Science, particularly those discussed
above, are important elements of DOE's efforts to fulfill its mission.
They contribute to the goals of dramatically transforming our current
capabilities to develop new sources for renewable and low-carbon energy
supplies and improve energy efficiency, positioning the United States
to lead on climate change policy, technology, and science, and
facilitating DOE's effort to increase U.S. competitiveness by training
and attracting the best scientific talent into DOE headquarters and
laboratories, the American research enterprise, and the clean energy
economy.
SIAM is aware of the significant fiscal constraints facing the
administration and Congress this year, but we note that, in the face of
economic peril, Federal investments in mathematics, science, and
engineering create and preserve good jobs; stimulate economic activity;
and help to maintain U.S. pre-eminence in innovation, upon which our
economy depends.
I would like to conclude by thanking you again for your ongoing
support of the DOE Office of Science and the actions you have already
taken to enable DOE and the research and education communities it
supports, including thousands of SIAM members, to undertake the
activities that contribute to the health, security, and economic
strength of the United States. The DOE Office of Science needs
sustained annual funding increases to maintain our competitive edge in
science and technology, and therefore we respectfully ask that you
continue your robust support of these critical programs into the
future.
I appreciate the opportunity to provide testimony to the
subcommittee on behalf of SIAM and look forward to providing any
additional information or assistance you may ask of us during the
fiscal year 2011 appropriations process.
______
Prepared Statement of GE Energy
Overview.--The following testimony is submitted on behalf of GE
Energy (GE) for the consideration of the subcommittee during its
deliberations regarding the fiscal year 2011 budget requests for the
Department of Energy (DOE). In particular, GE recommends: (1) in the
Renewable Energy budget, support for the new Offshore Wind Technology
program; (2) in the Fossil Energy program, greater focus on carbon
capture technologies for new plants and increased investment in
integrated gasification combined cycle technology; (3) in Nuclear
Energy, support for additional nuclear loan guarantee authority; and
(4) funding in Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability to
accelerate smart grid deployment.
Renewable Energy.--GE supports the request for $49 million in
funding for the new Offshore Wind Technology Program. Investment in
pilot projects will enhance learning, improve infrastructure, and pave
the way for commercial scale offshore wind to become a reality in the
United States.
For emerging offshore as well as maturing onshore applications,
blades and drive trains are the most critical wind turbine components.
Research and development into advanced materials, advanced
manufacturing, design for logistics, advanced power conversion, and
drive train systems can increase energy production, increase
reliability, reduce material cost, and lower the overall cost of
energy. New power generation technologies, such as higher torque
density generators, can be adapted to wind. As penetration of wind
energy increases, significant advances are needed to develop solutions
for grid integration of this variable resource. Government investment
in these areas, when combined with industry cost share, can
significantly accelerate technology advancements beyond what industry
can accomplish on its own.
Fossil Energy.--In Coal R&D, within the Fuels and Power Systems
line item, an $8 million reduction is being proposed for the Advanced
Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle program while funding for the
Innovations for Existing Plants program would be increased by $13
million. GE is concerned that these funding changes indicate a
fundamental and troubling shift in DOE's emphasis. The increased
funding for Existing Plants will be focused on small-scale pilots--
essentially returning to the bench. This is a flawed strategy. It
implies DOE's acceptance of the long time span--over a decade or more--
from bench to commercial deployment. Over this timeframe, while the
creation of jobs associated with commercializing CCS is delayed,
existing plants that would benefit will be moving closer to retirement,
and therefore unlikely to warrant investment in new technology to
extend their lives.
Rather than focusing taxpayer dollars in numerous small pilot scale
cleaner coal experiments, the time has come to invest in technology
enhancements applicable to new cleaner coal plants and proven
technologies for carbon capture such as gasification within integrated
gasification combined cycle (IGCC). In contrast to combustion
technology, gasification is well suited for carbon capture and proven
in commercial chemical applications. IGCC with carbon capture is
commercially available to the utility industry today. However the
higher initial capital cost of IGCC combined with the additional cost
and parasitic loads from carbon capture currently place it at a
disadvantage relative to power generation from natural gas. If coal
with its economic, jobs and infrastructure benefits is to continue in
our energy mix, improvements in IGCC cost and performance are needed to
reach cost-parity with natural gas. While we believe much of the cost
gap can be closed through deployment of IGCC with carbon capture,
further technology improvements in IGCC have the highest chance of
making their way to commercial deployment and reducing the ultimate
costs of CCS.
We therefore recommend that the fiscal year 2011 budget for IGCC be
increased by $25 million for total funding of $80 million, with the
increase focused on the development of key cost and performance
enhancements consisting of (1) IGCC construction optimization ($6
million); (2) syngas cooler fouling prevention ($4 million); (3)
fundamental gasification modeling ($4 million); (4) startup and
shutdown optimization ($2 million); (5) HAPS characterization ($2
million); (6) advanced instrumentation and controls ($4 million); and
(7) trace metals balance and detection ($3 million).
Water Management (Innovations for Existing Plants).--Large amounts
of water are needed to produce or extract energy, and large amounts of
energy are needed to treat or transport water. What is more,
CO2 capture increases raw water usage by up to 125 percent,
depending on the underlying technology. In order to achieve DOE's
aggressive goals of reducing freshwater withdrawals and consumption 50
percent by 2015 and 70 percent by 2020, water-related R&D funding is
needed. Yet DOE requested no new funding for the water management
subprogram under the Innovations for Existing Plants program in fiscal
year 2011. GE believes that funding for water R&D should be provided in
the amount of $40 million for innovative water reuse technologies and
demonstration projects including: cooling tower blowdown reuse, Flue
Gas Desulphurization (FGD) wastewater reuse and recovery, ash pond
solids reduction, and treatment and reuse of produced water from
unconventional oil and natural gas production to further reduce
environmental impacts and operational costs of upstream energy
processes. Support also is needed to advance reuse/treatment
technologies for the conversion of impaired wastewater streams into
sources of renewable water in areas of water scarcity, reducing the
need to use energy to transport water over long distances and to
support electricity generation.
Clean Coal Power Initiative (CCPI).--The CCPI plays a vital role in
validating and testing advanced technology. The significant number of
applications in response to the CCPI-3 solicitation demonstrates
industry's interest in undertaking CCS-related coal projects. DOE
should move forward with a new CCPI-4 solicitation. Any future CCPI
solicitations must acknowledge current economic realities, including
constriction in the capital markets and the difficulty that utilities
have in justifying rate recovery for any non-compulsory additional
capital or operating cost. DOE should (1) increase emphasis and
evaluation weighting on the financial viability of projects; (2) tailor
technical requirements so that they do not compromise financial
viability; and (3) structure the program so that sufficient time and
funding are available to complete front-end engineering designs (FEEDs)
and sequestration site characterizations and access evaluations. The
latter will allow a utility to provide accurate cost data to its
regulators and demonstrate that it has a sequestration resource with
sufficient capacity for the life of its plant.
Advanced Turbines.--GE recommends funding of $45 million in fiscal
year 2011 to maintain needed progress in the Advanced Turbines program
for the development of enabling technologies for high efficiency
hydrogen turbines for advanced gasification systems with carbon
capture. The program is on target to enable future advanced coal-fueled
IGCC power plants to offset much of the performance penalties
associated with carbon capture while also achieving very low
NOX emissions.
In addition, in view of the significant role that natural gas fired
generation will play in a low carbon energy future, Congress should
support efforts to develop technologies to drive efficiency in new
turbines and the Nation's existing gas turbine fleet, as proposed in
H.R. 3029 and S. 2900. GE urges the subcommittee to consider an annual
investment of $85 million as envisioned in this legislation. Efficiency
improvements from implementing technology on new advanced turbines or
retrofitting existing gas turbines will result in reduced emissions and
reduced CO2 for the same power output.
Nuclear Energy: New Plant Activities and Loan Guarantees.--Although
there has been significant interest in new plant development, only a
fraction of the utilities that applied for Combined Operating Licenses
(COLs) in the United States are proceeding with new plant projects on
their original timelines. GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy (GEH) commends DOE
for the highly successful NP2010 program to license and assist in the
development of standardized advanced plant designs, but more needs to
be done. In particular, GEH supports the President's call to
significantly grow the nuclear loan guarantee program, as it
underscores the benefits of nuclear power while addressing the capital-
intensive nature of nuclear plant deployment. Congress should provide
the requested $36 billion in loan guarantee authority for nuclear power
projects in fiscal year 2011, and should also recognize that providing
loan guarantees for other advanced nuclear technologies is critical to
ensuring a competitive landscape in the United States. GEH recommends
that the new Nuclear Energy Enabling Technologies (NEET) program be
expanded to address near term challenges such as domestic nuclear
manufacturing capabilities, simulation and training programs to support
near term deployment of generation III+ reactor designs, and the
application of advanced modularization and construction techniques to
help reduce new plant capital costs. The Reactor Concepts RD&D and Fuel
Cycle R&D requests are both critical for the deployment of new
technologies such as PRISM and Global Laser Enrichment (GLE), and GEH
believes that the programs should be provided sufficient funding.
Non-proliferation and Spent Fuel Minimization.--GEH supports used
nuclear fuel recycling as a means to fully close the nuclear fuel
cycle, minimize nuclear proliferation risks and provide an alternative
to a large permanent repository. It is in the best interest of national
security that U.S. technology be used to close the fuel cycle in a
manner that does not result in separated plutonium. GEH looks forward
to working with the Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future
and the Congress to discuss ways to address fuel cycle challenges and
to support the further development of advanced small modular reactors
like GEH's PRISM reactor.
International Nuclear Energy Cooperation.--As interest in civil
nuclear power grows around the world, it is critical that the United
States lead in efforts to insure that the industry grows in a
responsible manner. DOE must have resources to support President
Obama's call for a new framework for civil nuclear cooperation. GEH
supports the funding request to initiate this new program.
RE-ENERGYSE/Workforce Development.--GEH applauds the recognition
that the Government can be a partner in encouraging students to pursue
careers in clean energy. GEH is a strong supporter of the industry
program for a uniform nuclear curriculum and also has a Nuclear
Maintenance Technicians Program with the local community college. These
kinds of programs are critical to our continued development of the next
generation of nuclear workers.
Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability: Clean Energy
Transmission and Reliability.--GE strongly supports the inclusion of
funding for R&D on the dynamic analysis capability of a phasor
measurement unit (PMU)-based network in the Transmission Reliability
and Renewables Integration subprogram. When coupled with power
electronic devices, phasor data can provide grid operators with the
capability to rapidly respond to and correct power quality problems.
Government investment in PMU-based networks can significantly improve
the ability of grid operators to maintain reliability, particularly as
operators face the need to integrate increasing amounts of intermittent
generation.
GE commends DOE for establishing the new Advanced Modeling Grid
Research subprogram. Advanced modeling capabilities will serve as a
critical tool in the modernization of the electric grid by assisting
grid operators in identifying the technical limits of conventional grid
technologies, and facilitating development of new technologies and
solutions to respond to a changing energy mix and an increasingly
responsive consumer base. In addition, advanced modeling capabilities
can enable grid operators and power systems planners to aggregate,
analyze, and act upon the vast quantities of data collected by smart
grid technologies, thereby unlocking the full potential of the smart
grid. DOE should expand industry participation in this program to fully
leverage work already underway.
Smart Grid Research and Development.--The smart grid can
fundamentally change the way electricity is generated, transmitted, and
consumed, thereby delivering substantial improvements in the efficiency
and reliability of our Nation's electric grid. Additional research is
needed in areas such as the integration of plug-in hybrid electric
vehicles and advanced management of distribution voltage. In addition,
GE views as essential DOE's continued support for ongoing efforts to
establish smart grid standards through the National Institute of
Standards and Technology.
GE is concerned that the Power Electronics subprogram emphasizes
basic science over technology application. GE recommends that Congress
provide support for DOE to conduct research into applications of power
electronics to support smart grid technologies.
Energy Storage.--While GE supports further research into energy
storage technologies, we are concerned that this program places
disproportionate emphasis on lithium-ion battery technology. Industry
has conducted a great deal of research and development into a range of
advanced battery technologies, including sodium-metal-halide, zinc
bromide, and vanadium redox. To foster further innovation in this
promising field, GE recommends that the focus of the energy storage
program be broadened to encompass a range of battery storage
chemistries and technologies. The program should cover all potential
storage modalities, including flywheel technology.
Cyber Security for Energy Delivery Systems.--GE recommends that
Congress restore funding to the fiscal year 2010 level, and that DOE,
to support smart grid deployment, determine the most appropriate next-
generation communications and control system technologies, as well as
the cyber security requirements for each.
______
Prepared Statement of the Biomass Energy Research Association
SUMMARY
This testimony pertains to fiscal year 2011 appropriations for
biomass energy research, development, and demonstration (RD&D)
conducted by the Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Energy Efficiency
and Renewable Energy (EERE), Biomass Program (OBP). This RD&D is funded
by the Energy and Water Development bill, under Energy Supply and
Conservation, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. BERA recommends a
total appropriation of $360 million in fiscal year 2011 for Biomass and
Biorefinery Systems R&D. This is an increase of $140 million over the
U.S. Department of Energy request for fiscal year 2011 for this
programmatic area. Specific lines items are summarized below (also see
Table 1).
--$30 million for Feedstocks (regional partnerships, high yield
feedstocks, simpler/cheaper algae routes).
--$130 million for Conversion Technologies, distributed as follows:
--$50 million for Biochemical Conversion (emphasis on low cost
sugars, advanced fuels, traditional plus non-traditional
conversion routes, e.g., aqueous processing, chemical
catalysis).
--$80 million for Thermochemical Conversion (conversion to oils,
long chain hydrocarbons, or other fuels/intermediates via
pyrolysis, gasification, and non-traditional routes; low
cost reactive intermediates such as CO and hydrogen).
--$100 million for Integrated Biorefineries. (Systems integration,
risk reduction through technology demonstrations, sustained
support for first-of-a-kind projects).
--$20 million for Sustainability and Analysis to assess life cycle
impacts.
--$80 million for Biopower for pilot scale RD&D on decentralized
applications; studies to assess cost, environmental impacts,
and permitting issues; RD&D to address performance and other
issues for larger scale boiler repowering.
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 biomass, and to serve as a source of information on biomass
RD&D policies and programs. BERA does not solicit or accept Federal
funding.
TABLE 1.--FISCAL YEAR 2011 BIOMASS & BIOREFINERY SYSTEMS R&D, ENERGY
SUPPLY & CONSERVATION, DOE/EERE BIOMASS PROGRAM
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Program Area Description of RD&D Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feedstocks......................... Regional feedstock 30.0
partnerships.
Research to improve energy
crops, including super
high yields: achieve 10
to 25 dry tons/acre/year
via R&D compared with the
2 to 7 dry tons/acre/year
possible today.
Plants species amenable to
thermochemical (e.g.,
high lignin) and
biochemical (e.g., more
easily processed lignin)
processes.
Simpler, less expensive
algae production.
Conversion Technologies: Conversion to next 50.0
Biochemical. generation biofuels/
processes (broader range
of liquid fuels beyond
ethanol).
Reduction of sugar costs
through cheaper enzymes
and other routes.
Non-traditional
technologies such as
aqueous phase processing,
chemical catalysis.
Conversion Technologies: Next generation biofuels 80.0
Thermochemical. and processes that can
use a range of feedstocks
(pyrolysis, gasification,
other routes).
Low cost reactive
intermediates such as CO
and hydrogen.
Synthetic routes to expand
beyond Fischer-Tropsch
fuels.
Integrated Biorefineries........... Risk reduction through 100.0
demonstrations of
biochemical and
thermochemical conversion
technologies in
biorefineries, sustained
support for first-of-a-
kind projects, and
underwriting of loan
guarantees.
Analysis and Sustainability........ Life cycle analysis of new 20.0
technology pathways.
Land use issues.
Large Scale Biopower............... RD&D at pilot scale for 80.0
decentralized biopower
applications.
Studies to analyze cost,
permitting, and
environmental issues.
--------
TOTAL........................ .......................... 360.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is a growing urgency to diversify our energy supply, develop
technologies to utilize indigenous and renewable resources, reduce U.S.
reliance on imported oil, and mitigate the impacts of energy on climate
and the environment. The benefits are many--economic growth, new
American jobs, enhanced environmental quality, and fewer contributions
to climate change. Economic growth is fueled and sustained in large
part by the availability of reliable, cost-effective energy supplies. 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 can diversify U.S. energy supply in
several ways:
--Biomass is the single renewable resource with the ability to
directly replace liquid transportation fuels.
--Biomass can be used as a feedstock to supplement the production of
chemicals, plastics, and materials now produced from crude oil.
--Gasification of biomass produces a syngas that can be utilized to
supplement the natural gas supply, generate electricity, or
produce fuels and chemicals.
--Biomass can be used directly or in combination with coal to
diversify our electricity supply.
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. Goals could be to reach at least the 10 percent to 15 percent
levels in both the electricity generation and motor vehicle
transportation sectors by the 2020 to 2030 decade, up from on the 1
percent to 25 percent levels today in these two sectors. Unlike solar
and perhaps wind, biomass will be constrained to far below 100 percent,
due to land use and water availability concerns. However, biomass can
be developed from a minor role to a major role in a diversified,
domestic and renewable energy supply for the United States, based on an
expansion of our Nation's agriculture and forest products industries.
The Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) of 2007 mandates
increased use of alternative fuels, with a substantial portion to come
from cellulosic biomass. A Federal Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS)
is now under consideration (many States have already passed such
legislation) which would increase the use of renewables for
electricity, including biopower. To meet the EISA goals and potentially
a Federal RPS will require aggressive support for RD&D to move
technology forward and reduce technical and economic risk.
overall bera recommendations for us doe/eere biomass rd&d
--Pursue a Balanced Approach to Biomass R&D [All R&D Areas].--It is
important for DOE to pursue a balanced approach to biomass R&D.
This means striking a balance between the involvement of
national labs, academia, and industry to take advantage of
their distinctive strengths, rather than relying heavily on
national laboratories, as in the past. The DOE should also
pursue a balance between understanding fundamentals, advancing
the technology, applying the technology, and integrating the
technology. There has been a particular neglect of
understanding fundamentals to provide a technology platform
that would catalyze development of better technologies and
enhance commercial success. Technology breakthroughs are needed
because the scale (large) and the costs (too high) are barriers
for the technology development pathways needed to meet today's
energy and climate challenges. Mechanisms are needed to ensure
that fundamental research and new processes and science get
into the hands of the companies most likely to deploy the
breakthroughs.
--Make Investments to Bring Down the Cost of Sugars From Biomass
[Biochemical and Thermochemical Conversion R&D].--One key to
competiveness is reducing the cost of producing reactive
intermediates from biomass. For biological systems, this means
getting low cost sugars, as expensive sugars result in
expensive products whether the product is ethanol or an
advanced, infrastructure-compatible (drop-in) fuel. Making a
drop-in fuel from expensive sugars is a pathway for failure.
Similarly, for thermochemical approaches, the key is getting
low cost reactive intermediates such as CO and hydrogen. The
balance advocated in Item 1 can help reduce the cost of making
such intermediates. Include advanced biological routes that
better integrate simplified combined biological methods with
pretreatment to reduce enzyme costs dramatically, as enzymes
followed by pretreatment are the major cost items that are
susceptible to change.
--Provide Support for Both Traditional and Non-traditional Conversion
Routes [Conversion Technologies].--We recommend that while both
biological and thermochemical processes be funded, greater
emphasis should be given to thermochemical conversion for
transportation fuels and substitutes for other petroleum-
derived products to mitigate our dependency on imported oil.
Thermochemical technology has been historically under-funded
despite its potential to produce more infrastructure-compatible
fuels. Biofuels R&D should be expanded beyond just ethanol and
Fischer-Tropsch products. We advocate funding for chemical
catalysis (rather than just fermentation) to broaden the
spectrum for products from sugars; new catalysts and synthetic
routes are needed. In addition to the traditional focus of
biological and thermochemical routes, it is important to
support new emerging technologies such as aqueous phase
processing of biomass to diesel and jet fuel substitutes.
--Reduce the Risk of New Fuel Production Technology Via
Demonstrations, Loan Guarantees, and Sustained Support for
First-of-a-kind Projects [Integrated Biorefineries].--It is
important that DOE and the Congress understand the substantial
challenges of introducing new fuel production technology,
particularly in a market with large swings in prices. A fortune
can be made when oil prices are high--and twice as many
fortunes lost when they drop. A key approach is for DOE to
``buy down'' risk in a meaningful way to compensate for the
huge fluctuations, and enable a few first-of-a-kind projects to
succeed. DOE must also provide sustained support and avoid
dropping projects prematurely. Technology demonstrations reduce
technical and economic risk and accelerate the potential for
private investment. A high level of guarantee is vital--as
introducing any new fuel in today's petroleum-heavy market is
extremely challenging. The capital costs for petroleum
processing are paid off, making it a cash producer, while a
biofuels facility must cover not only cash costs but make a
high return on capital to compensate for first time risk. This
is a heavy lift for first-of-a-kind technology.
--Pursue Simpler and Less Expensive Systems for Utilizing Algae
[Feedstocks].--Much simpler and less expensive systems are
needed, especially to harvest algae. This technology
advancement should be pursued before other any new large scale
projects are initiated.
--Increase Support for High Yield Feedstocks.--The cost efficient
production and handling of energy crops--which is necessary for
any significant impact on our national needs--continues to be a
major cost and issue. However, it historically has been given a
disproportionally small portion of funding.
--Conduct RD&D to Enable Greater Use of Decentralized Biopower.--A
substantial increase over the requested $50 million should be
made to support hands-on, applied RD&D to accelerate use of
biopower. The bulk of these funds should go to RD&D rather than
paper studies. Research activities of at least a pilot scale
are a priority. While expensive, these are where the real path
to commercialization happens. Biopower RD&D activities should
emphasize decentralized generation (5-50 MW), which plays to
biomass's strengths (flexibility in delivery, broad
applicability, localized/sustainable power) and environmental
benefits (less transmission lines, less fuel hauling, less
intrusiveness, more efficient/CHP). Biomass can also be pursued
for centralized generation (large power) as a strategy for
reducing greenhouse gases, and may be more attractive than
other renewables as it is readily available and can be
combusted much like coal. Large power uses may have a role for
building biomass fuel supply infrastructure via fuel supplies
developed locally with low capital cost because the coal plant
is already built. RD&D could potentially focus on performance
issues related to re-powering boilers with biomass.
--Conduct Studies Needed to Assess Cost, Permitting, and
Environmental Issues Related to Biopower.--Studies are needed
to inform industry, Congress, and the general public, but
should not be the primary focus of biopower efforts. The cost
and time for permitting of plants is already a significant
factor in biomass industrial use and is growing. Permitting
processes should be reviewed with a goal of facilitating
industry growth by making permitting as simple, quick, and
reasonable as possible. Regulators and companies need to be
confident that they can obtain permits for biomass power or
fuel plants. A scoping study of potential technologies meeting
near-term scale-up potential or useable in retrofitting
existing facilities could be useful, if it facilitates
permitting or building of plants or retrofits. Detailed cost
estimates for potential power generation and biomass conversion
facilities could stimulate serious consideration from the
business community raise awareness of successful DOE projects.
Assessment of potential GHG emission reductions is needed to
clarify the impacts on fossil energy and fossil CO2
that result from biomass crops, harvesting, energy from
forests, etc., and moving to power plants. The goal is a fair
net CO2 and net energy reduction value compared to
fossil alternatives.
--Leverage Results From Existing/Ongoing Work on Biomass to Support
Biopower Efforts.--Cost-benefit analysis on feedstock type and
delivery systems, for example, is not entirely unique to power
and similar studies conducted for biomass feedstocks and
biofuels can be leveraged to understand the biopower landscape.
______
Prepared Statement of The University of Texas at Austin
CONTINUE FUNDING FOR U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY (DOE) OIL AND GAS
RESEARCH PROGRAMS, INCLUDING RPSEA (EPACT SECTION 999)
I appreciate your leadership efforts and support for oil and
natural gas research. I urge you to continue to support and grow
important fossil energy research and development (R&D) in the fiscal
year 2011 Energy and Water Appropriations bill.
The President's fiscal year 2011 budget request to Congress
recommends repeal of section 999 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005
(EPACT), which funds RPSEA, the industry-led research consortium. The
President's budget also recommends elimination of the (already paltry)
DOE Office of Fossil Energy budget for oil and gas R&D.
Although I can, perhaps, understand the political underpinnings of
these administrative recommendations, I find the recommendations to be
short-sighted and hard to reconcile with the stated and real needs of
our Nation. These needs include, but are not limited to: (1) access to
vital energy as we try to recover from a recession and the largest
increase in deficit spending ever; (2) energy to get the U.S. economy
back on its feet; (3) access to increased domestic energy for national
security; (4) keeping and adding (non-government) American jobs, such
as those the domestic energy industry provides; and (5) science and
technology innovation in fossil energy in U.S. universities.
I have been engaged in energy production and research for nearly
three decades. In the past 2 years, I have visited many of the premier
energy locations and facilities:
--Hydro in Norway
--Wind in Denmark and West Texas
--Geothermal in Iceland
--Solar in Spain and California
--Biofuel in the United States
--Carbon sequestration in the United States
--Liquefied natural gas (LNG) in Qatar and shale gas in the United
States
--Oil in the Middle East and the United States
--Nuclear in France and the United States
During these visits I have met one-on-one with industry,
government, and academic leaders, including:
--CEO of BP, London
--CEO of Statoil, Norway
--CEO of Chesapeake, Oklahoma
--CEO of BP Capital, Dallas
--CEO of RasGas, Qatar
--CEO of Kuwait Energy
--CEO of Abengoa Solar, Spain
--CEO of Renewable Energy Corporation, California
--Deputy CEOs of Kuwait Oil and Bahrain Petroleum
--President of Denbury, Texas
--Vice President of Shell Offshore, Louisiana
--Director of MIT Energy Initiative and former U.S. Under Secretary
of Energy
--Director of U Texas Energy Institute and former U.S. Under
Secretary of Energy
--Director of Energy Institute at Stanford
--President of Iceland
--U.S. Under Secretary of Energy
--Minister of Oil, Bahrain
--Director of the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency, Paris
--Deputy Director of the IEA, Paris
--Leading scientists and engineers across several energy sectors
Perhaps most important from these visits, I have learned that there
are no silver bullets in energy. We cannot turn off coal and switch on
solar. We cannot turn off natural gas and turn on wind. To imply
otherwise is disingenuous. Innovation in renewable energy is exciting
and as the decades unfold these sources of energy will improve, address
the intermittency, storage, cost, energy density, storage and
transmission challenges, and become more prevalent! Meanwhile, nations
have and will continue to use ``the energy they have, where they have
it,'' and thus the transition to a non-fossil-fuel future will take
many decades and will be unevenly distributed among developed,
developing, and undeveloped nations. It is not a matter of political
will but rather a matter of economics, scale, infrastructure, access,
thermodynamics, and kinetics.
Many large and developing nations continue to ramp up their
acquisition and use of fossil fuels. This is a reality. Philosophical
hope notwithstanding, the United States is getting its tail whipped as
the National Oil Companies (e.g., PetroChina, Petrobras, Petronas,
Total, Statoil, ARAMCO, and others) build on their own national
resource base and strong government support to become major
international players. At the same time, the few surviving
International Oil Companies (ExxonMobil, Shell, BP, Chevron, and
ConocoPhillips) struggle to compete, as evidenced by layoffs in the
past year and continued mergers and acquisitions. Combined, the public
companies of the world control less than 10 percent of world oil
reserves. Read and digest that line again, and then think about U.S.
security and the health of the economy as we attempt to transition into
the future.
Energy research is vital to stay competitive and meet the energy
needs of our Nation. That includes research in fossil energy, which
together supply 85 percent of our energy demand. Research is needed in
areas such as unconventional oil, unconventional gas, carbon
sequestration, extreme environment (Arctic, deep water, subsalt,
subvolcanic, etc.) conventional oil and gas, and nanotechnology
applications in oil and gas, to name just a few.
Policy makers need to get past the notion that research support of
fossil energy should only be supported privately. That notion is
politically motivated, and to continue to promulgate it is hurting our
Nation. Federal-private partnerships are everywhere and just as
important in fossil energy as they are in renewable energy, biotech,
pharmaceuticals, agriculture, or high tech. U.S. universities are
woefully under funded with regard to Federal support for fossil energy.
We are naively and idealistically giving away the U.S. science and
engineering advantage in fossil energy research. To what end?
I strongly support increasing DOE oil and gas research funding.
This includes the RPSEA program, which has been instrumental in
providing Federal support of crucial research in unconventional onshore
natural gas and ultra-deepwater oil and gas, both of which are critical
to U.S. energy security (affordable, available, reliable, and clean).
RPSEA provides competitive grant monies to universities, which in turn
leverage those monies significantly by partnering with industry. DOE
fossil energy used to have a similar program--when they had a budget. I
cannot say it emphatically enough: A real budget needs to be
reinstated! Students and faculty benefit directly from research funding
and from the insight they each can gain from working on these research
projects. Unfortunately, this kind of research is not supported by NSF
or other blue-sky programs.
Both DOE fossil programs and RPSEA provide tremendous value to our
country, creating and supporting jobs and increasing technology
development for small and independent companies. Independent companies
are the drivers behind the dramatic increase in natural gas reserves
that the United States is enjoying today. Although they lack research
facilities and staff, they are voracious fast-adapters of useful
technology. Thus, the Federal investments we make in research funding
are paid back many times over.
A few final thoughts as you consider this important decision:
--Developing nations (China, India) are aggressively pursuing and
acquiring energy and other resources around the globe. Ignoring
our huge domestic fossil energy resource base is tantamount to
capitulation on an international scale.
--The United States should be conducting resource assessments of all
of its continental shelf areas, and we should encourage energy
companies to pursue these resources. Companies are willing to
make the huge capital outlays required to explore and develop
resources safely and cleanly, if they are allowed to do so. The
consumer and the Nation will reap the benefits, and the
environmental track record in the offshore is impressive and
well established.
--Hydraulic fracturing has been the key to the resurgence of gas
production and reserves in the United States in recent years.
This technology is not new--it has been in use for over 50
years in hundreds of thousands of wells--but it has recently
been refined for maximum impact in unconventional gas systems,
particularly in horizontal wellbores. Hydraulic fracturing has
a safe and environmentally clean track record. Claims to the
contrary are unsubstantiated or fabricated and should be
challenged at every opportunity.
I understand Congress' budget constraints, but it is essential to
maintain a robust fossil energy R&D program aimed at maximizing our
domestic fossil-energy resources. Natural gas development should be at
or near the top of the list of the Nation's priorities. New and
promising areas of natural gas development, such as the Barnett,
Bakken, Marcellus, Haynesville, and Fayetteville shale, have been made
possible through advances in technology, many of which were funded
through DOE's research efforts and are now augmented by Roseau's
efforts.
Your support of fossil energy oil and natural gas R&D programs, as
evidenced by continuing funding for RPSEA (EPACT section 999), provides
the resources to power America's economic recovery, the new workforce
to do it, and a solid energy foundation for the future.
______
Prepared Statement of the University Corporation for Atmospheric
Research (UCAR)
On behalf of the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
(UCAR) and the larger university community involved in Earth sciences
research and education, I submit this written testimony for the record
of the Senate Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Energy and
Water Development, and Related Agencies. DOE's programs and initiatives
in science and education directly support university and laboratory
communities. They are also key to building a broad-based national
resiliency to handle the great challenges of the future, including
climate change. DOE is on the frontlines building the capacity needed
to address these challenges, maintain a competitive advantage for the
United States internationally, and secure an economically and
environmentally sustainable future.
For these reasons, I urge the subcommittee to fund the President's
full fiscal year 2011 budget request for the DOE Office of Science at
$5.121 billion and the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
(EERE) at $2.355 billion. Furthermore, it is critical that the
subcommittee take every step to ensure that the DOE's Science budget
stays on track to double this decade, as authorized by the America
COMPETES Act of 2007.
UCAR is a consortium of 75 universities that manages and operates
the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) on behalf of the
National Science Foundation and the university community. UCAR and NCAR
serve as national hubs for research and education for the atmospheric
and Earth system sciences community. UCAR also houses community
programs that bring geosciences communities together to address large-
scale, integrated research and education challenges. Our mission is to
better understand the behavior of the atmosphere and related global
systems and to help communities, States, and nations use this
information to sustain and improve life on Earth.
I applaud the DOE's ongoing leadership in the management of
programs to develop clean, alternative sources of energy, enhance
national security and independence from foreign oil, address climate
change, and educate the workforce for the emerging global clean energy
economy. With the following, I specifically want to highlight several
science research and education programs that represent the DOE's
critical investments toward a more resilient and adaptable society.
CLIMATE AND EARTH SYSTEM RESEARCH
The Office of Biological and Environmental Research (BER) within
the DOE Office of Science makes fundamental contributions to the
Nation's premier climate and Earth system models. Such models provide
the scientific foundation for national and international decisionmaking
on climate change--how we should respond to climate change, whether we
should adapt or mitigate, etc.
In particular, BER provides indispensible support to the Community
Climate System Model (CCSM), which is being released this year in its
fourth major iteration for use in the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change's (IPCC) Fifth Assessment Report, expected for release
in 2014. A comprehensive and sophisticated model for analyzing Earth's
past, present, and future, CCSM contributed the most simulated data of
any global model to the IPCC's 2007 Fourth Assessment Report. It is
providing decisionmakers around the world with a clearer picture of
what the impact of sustained climate change will be on a global scale.
CCSM is also laying the scientific foundation for higher-
resolution, downscaled models which will provide regional and local
predictions about the impacts of climate change. This regional,
downscaled approach is BER's stated focus for climate and Earth system
modeling research in fiscal year 2011. Regional and local predictions
will help States, communities, businesses, and individuals develop
effective long-term strategies to minimize damages of climate change
impacts, by either adapting or mitigating.
Thanks in part to BER support, the Nation's climate models are
becoming more realistic, incorporating more precise and complex natural
and now human processes that are shaping the global climate. While
uncertainties will always persist, these new capabilities will allow
the climate science community to address the new class of societally
relevant questions in a way that has never been done in the past. CCSM
4, for example, will for the first time feature fully interactive
carbon and sulfur cycles, as well as dynamic vegetation, aerosol
effects on clouds, carbon chemistry, natural carbon sequestration via
land surface and oceans, and interactions between the carbon cycle and
climate.
Frontiers for climate modeling in fiscal year 2011 include
understanding more fully how aerosols affect cloud formation, and in
turn radiative forcing, and how modes of natural climate variability
(e.g., the El Nino Southern Oscillation, Pacific Decadal Oscillation,
and Northern Annular Mode) will change as atmospheric greenhouse gas
concentrations continue to increase. Feedback cycles such as high
latitude ocean-ice interaction and methane release from Arctic
permafrost are also areas of study where scientists still have much to
learn and models still need improvement.
Understanding and responding to climate change extends far beyond
the capabilities of any one laboratory or agency. This is a broad,
interagency effort, in which DOE is a key partner. New contributions to
the design and scientific content of CCSM will not come from NCAR
alone. While CCSM is housed and managed at NCAR, it is an open source
climate model, which means that scientists across the Nation and the
world make contributions and improvements.
In order to develop more accurate, increasingly realistic, and
higher resolution climate models, with better predictive capabilities
for individuals, businesses, and communities, I urge you to fund the
Office of Biological and Environmental Research (BER) within the DOE
Office of Science at the President's full fiscal year 2011 budget
request of $627.0 million. BER support is critical to the university
community's most important and recognized climate modeling work.
ADVANCED SCIENTIFIC COMPUTING RESEARCH
Also within the 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
necessary to research the major scientific questions being addressed by
the Office of Science and the larger university community.
ASCR's continued progress is of particular importance to
atmospheric scientists involved with climate model development, because
an enormous amount of computing power is required to address the
interaction of the Earth's systems and global climate change. The
complex nature of the climate processes being simulated in climate
models requires very advanced software engineering to compute
efficiently at the petascale. For this reason, ASCR played a critical
role in developing the computing and networking resources for the U.S.
contributions to the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, and ASCR is one of
the most important resources supporting the next generation of state-
of-the-science climate simulation tools for this country.
Because the complex and high-resolution climate scenarios produced
using the CCSM are too processor intensive to be run at NCAR alone,
they are outsourced to the DOE's Leadership Computing Facilities,
located at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (OLCF), where a 2.33 petaflop
system is openly available to the scientific community, and also at
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory/NERSC, Argonne National
Laboratory, and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Last year,
scientists at NCAR and the University of Wisconsin used Oak Ridge's
OLCF to simulate abrupt climate change and shed new light on an
enigmatic period of natural global warming in Earth's relatively recent
history. The work was featured in the July 17, 2009 issue of the
journal Science and provides valuable new data about the causes and
effects of global climate change. The scientists used nearly a million
processor hours in 2008 to run one-third of their simulation. With 4
million processor hours allocated for 2009-2011, they will complete the
simulation, capturing climate from 14,000 years ago to the present and
projecting it 200 years into the future.
The results of this research and other research like this are
brought to the broader scientific communities through another ASCR
program, the Scientific Discovery through Advanced Computing (SciDAC)
program. SciDAC facilitates the transfer of basic research efforts into
computational science applications through direct partnerships between
ASCR-supported applied mathematicians and computer scientists. In the
case of climate change, there is a growing demand for the development
of tools that will help inform decisionmakers about the options for
addressing and adapting to climate change. With computation and
simulation, scientists can model what is known about the Earth's
systems, identify uncertainties of the models, and determine the
observational data and experiments needed to further refine and improve
the models.
I urge you to fund the Advanced Scientific Computing Research
(ASCR) within the DOE Office of Science at the President's full fiscal
year 2011 budget request of $426.0 million. ASCR provides critical
processor capacity and computational tools like SciDAC that are
essential to predictive climate change research at high resolutions and
over large time scales.
WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT FOR TEACHERS AND SCIENTISTS
The DOE Office of Science's education programs, like the Workforce
Development for Teachers and Scientists (WDTS) Program, are also
essential to strengthening our Nation's resilience to modern challenges
like climate change. DOE is taking a leadership role in educating and
training the Nation's science, technology, engineering, and mathematics
(STEM) workforce and facilitating the development of the knowledge and
expertise that will prepare us to address energy and environmental
challenges.
WDTS aims to recruit and train a pipeline of highly skilled and
diverse STEM workers to meet our Nation's innovation and
competitiveness challenges. To this end, WDTS sponsors workforce
training and education programs, often based at DOE's national
laboratories, that motivate students and educators to pursue careers
that will contribute to both basic and applied science.
WDTS has also launched the DOE Office of Science Graduate
Fellowship Program to support U.S. graduate students pursuing degrees
in areas of basic science and engineering, for up to 3 years of study.
The goal of the Fellowship is to encourage talented students to pursue
research-focused graduate studies in physics, chemistry, biology,
mathematics, computer science, engineering, and environmental science.
Programs like WDTS have produced tens of thousands of leading
scientists, engineers, and technicians who have dedicated their careers
to working on the great challenges of the day, including climate
change, while pursuing answers to many of the most important scientific
questions in physics, chemistry, biology, environmental and atmospheric
science, and other areas of basic science. Their work will be critical
to our Nation's success in the 21st century.
I urge you to fund the Workforce Development for Teachers and
Scientists (WDTS) program within the DOE Office of Science at the
President's full fiscal year 2011 budget request of $35.6 million. We
must ensure that the next generation workforce is better prepared to
address growing energy and environmental challenges.
RENEWABLE ENERGY R&D
Federal investment in the scientific research and technology
development involved with renewable energy is one of the most important
investments we can make in our Nation's future and our ability to build
resilience to economic and environmental challenges. Renewable energy
conveys numerous cross-cutting benefits to society, including reducing
our dependence on foreign oil, transforming the clean energy economy,
decentralizing the energy market, providing new high-tech jobs,
reducing the human toll on the environment, and mitigating global
climate change.
Our national research universities, along with DOE laboratories and
an emerging private sector, are driving the country's growth in
renewable energy and increasing the efficiency of new technologies. One
example of such collaboration includes an NCAR partnership with DOE's
National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) and the regional utility
company, Xcel Energy, to develop sophisticated wind forecasts for
operational use. These provide critical information to select the most
productive locations for new wind turbine farms, better integrate wind-
generated electricity into the power grid, and make critical decisions
about powering down traditional coal- and natural gas-fired plants when
sufficient winds are predicted.
Given the critical importance to the Nation of developing
economically and environmentally sustainable technologies for producing
energy, I recommend that the subcommittee fully fund the President's
fiscal year 2011 budget request for the Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy at $2.355 billion.
RE-ENERGYSE (REGAINING OUR ENERGY SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING EDGE)
Within the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE),
RE-ENERGYSE is a broad educational effort designed to inspire students
and workers to study and pursue careers in science, engineering, and
entrepreneurship related to clean energy. Today at U.S. universities,
opportunities to pursue clean energy education are far and few in
between. RE-ENERGYSE will help universities and community colleges
develop cutting edge programs, with redesigned and new curricula to
produce tens of thousands of highly skilled U.S. workers who can
sustain American excellence in clean energy in industry, trades,
academia, the Federal Government, and national laboratories.
RE-ENERGYSE will also benefit from plans to partner with the
National Science Foundation for program evaluation. This partnership
will build on the scientific and engineering expertise of both agencies
in the energy field and benefit from NSF's successful track record of
integrating research with education in programs it has developed and
administered over the past two decades.
I urge the subcommittee to fund RE-ENERGYSE at the President's
fiscal year 2011 request of $50.0 million.
I want to thank the members of the subcommittee for their continued
leadership in supporting basic and cutting-edge scientific research and
in promoting education and workforce development in the environmental
and other Earth sciences.