[Senate Hearing 112-839]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 112-839
Senate Hearings
Before the Committee on Appropriations
_______________________________________________________________________
Energy and Water
Development
Appropriations
Fiscal Year 2013
112th CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION
H.R. 5325/S. 2465
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES
S. Hrg. 112-839
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013
=======================================================================
HEARINGS
before a
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
ON
H.R. 5325/S. 2465
AN ACT MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT FOR THE
FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2013, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
__________
Department of Defense--Civil
Department of Energy
Department of the Interior
Nondepartmental Witnesses
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/
committee.action?chamber=senate&committee=appropriations
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
72-311 PDF WASHINGTON : 2013
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii, Chairman
PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi, Ranking
TOM HARKIN, Iowa MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky
BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama
HERB KOHL, Wisconsin KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas
PATTY MURRAY, Washington LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California SUSAN COLLINS, Maine
RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana MARK KIRK, Illinois
JACK REED, Rhode Island DANIEL COATS, Indiana
FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey ROY BLUNT, Missouri
BEN NELSON, Nebraska JERRY MORAN, Kansas
MARK PRYOR, Arkansas JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota
JON TESTER, Montana RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin
SHERROD BROWN, Ohio
Charles J. Houy, Staff Director
Bruce Evans, Minority Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California, Chairman
PATTY MURRAY, Washington LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky
JACK REED, Rhode Island KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas
FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama
TOM HARKIN, Iowa SUSAN COLLINS, Maine
JON TESTER, Montana LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina
DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii (ex
officio)
Professional Staff
Doug Clapp
Roger Cockrell
Leland Cogliani
Carolyn E. Apostolou (Minority)
Tyler Owens (Minority)
Tom Craig (Minority)
Administrative Support
Molly Barackman-Eder
LaShawnda Smith (Minority)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
Page
Department of Energy............................................. 1
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
Deparment of Energy: National Nuclear Security Administration.... 63
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Department of Defense--Civil: Department of the Army: Corps of
Engineers--Civil............................................... 123
Department of the Interior: Bureau of Reclamation................ 142
Nondepartmental Witnesses
Department of Defense--Civil: Department of the Army: Corps of
Engineers--Civil............................................... 221
Department of Energy............................................. 241
Department of the Interior: Bureau of Reclamation................ 313
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013
----------
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 14, 2012
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 2:31 p.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Dianne Feinstein (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senators Feinstein, Murray, Johnson, Reed, Tester,
Alexander, Cochran, Collins, Murkowski, and Graham.
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Office of the Secretary
STATEMENT OF HON. STEVEN CHU, SECRETARY
opening statement of senator dianne feinstein
Senator Feinstein. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.
Mr. Secretary, welcome to the Energy and Water
Subcommittee's budget hearing on the Department of Energy's
(DOE) fiscal year 2013 budget request.
DOE has requested $27.2 billion for fiscal year 2013. That
is an increase of $1.5 billion, or 5.7 percent, from fiscal
year 2012.
Approximately $535 million--that is about one-third--of the
$1.5 billion increase is for the National Nuclear Security
Administration's (NNSA) nuclear weapons nonproliferation and
naval reactor programs. This is a 5-percent increase. The
subcommittee will explore NNSA's budget request with
Administrator D'Agostino next week.
The rest of the Department's proposed increase is largely,
as we understand it, for the Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy (EERE) projects, Advanced Research Projects
Agency-Energy (ARPA-E), and basic energy research.
The budget request clearly prioritizes some programs while
making difficult choices to cut funding to other programs. This
is where we have a lot of questions. The Congress must now
determine whether or not we can agree on those priorities.
Mr. Secretary, I hope you will highlight the
administration's priorities today and make the case for the
choices that you have made.
I would like to highlight the three largest increases in
the budget.
First, the single largest increase would be for EERE which
would see an increase of $512 million, or 28 percent. A
significant portion of this increase would be used for the new
advanced manufacturing program.
The second, ARPA-E, would see an increase of $75 million,
or 27 percent. As the Secretary says, ARPA-E holds the promise
of advancing high-risk, high-reward technology. An early
indicator of success has been that 11 projects, which received
$40 million from ARPA-E, have now secured more than $200
million in outside private capital investment to further
develop these technologies, and that is good news. So we would
like to encourage the Department to continue tracking these
projects and demonstrate how Federal investments have developed
more energy-efficient technologies and potentially new
industries.
Third, the Office of Science would see an increase of $118
million, or 2.4 percent. The science budget has clearly
prioritized the subprograms exploring materials research,
advanced computing, and biological research. So the Department
is making its priorities clear there.
However, in the non-priority subprograms, it is more
difficult to understand the administration's position because
the Department has failed to prioritize activities within the
very limited funding.
One example is fusion energy science. The overall budget
for fusion energy science is not large enough to accommodate
our commitment to the International Thermonuclear Experimental
Reactor (ITER) project in France while at the same time
maintaining our domestic program. The difficult decision was
apparently made to cut funding to the fusion facility at
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). The budget,
though, fails to fully fund the commitment to ITER. This will
likely increase our total contribution to ITER in the future
and delay the project. I understand the decision not to
prioritize fusion energy sciences in a tight budget
environment, but if we are making that decision, then we need
to follow through and make the tough decisions within the
program itself and not leave them floundering around. It now
appears that we are simply going to cripple both our domestic
and international efforts.
While renewable energy, ARPA-E, and the Office of Science
saw increases in the budget, there are two energy programs that
were cut. The proposed budget for the Office of Fossil Energy
(FE) is $428 million. That is a decrease of 20 percent, or $106
million. The single largest cut in fossil energy comes from
zeroing out the fuel cells subprogram, and we would like to
know the reason.
The proposed budget for the Office of Nuclear Energy is
$675 million, excluding security costs. This is a cut of $93
million, or 12 percent. The major cuts in nuclear energy come
from the advanced reactor program, which is largely focused on
fast reactors and high-temperature reactors.
Today, I am sure we will hear various opinions about the
decisions made in the administration's budget request for
energy, but this is an important first step. I know the choices
are difficult for you, Mr. Secretary. Before welcoming you and
having your presentation, I would like to ask for the remarks
of the ranking member.
statement of senator lamar alexander
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, welcome. It is a pleasure to work with the
Senator from California always, and it is a pleasure to work
with you, Mr. Secretary. We appreciate your service to the
country. It is a long way to go home for you, I know. So we
appreciate that. You have attracted some very good people to
work with you.
There are a great many areas of the President's proposal,
your budget, that I support. In a recent visit to Sandia, the
science director told me that it would be hard to think of any
major advance in the biological and physical sciences in our
country that had not had some Government research support and
most of it through our 17, I guess is the number, laboratories
and our great research universities, which are in my view our
secret weapons in a very competitive world economically where
we are a country that has only 4 or 5 percent of the population
but regularly produce 23-24 percent of the wealth. That is
going to be harder and harder to do to keep our standard of
living, and those will help us do that.
And your Office of Science is identified as an important
part of our America Creating Opportunities to Meaningfully
Promote Excellence in Technology, Education, and Science Act
(America COMPETES) initiative which our Congress has passed in
a bipartisan way and reauthorized in a bipartisan way and
funded to a great extent over the last several years. And I am
glad to see a priority there.
I applaud your energy hubs. We have talked about that many
times before, but I was calling them mini-Manhattan projects
and you are calling them hubs. I think it is a very good way to
manage and to organize around priority areas. The idea of
installed solar at a kilowatt hour with clear metrics about
each of these areas--and I would be interested to hear from
you, as we go along, what your metrics are for each of your
hubs. In other words, how will we know when we succeed? And as
my experience in Government teaches me, that is a pretty good
way to take a big, complex program like you have and establish
some clear priorities. So I would like to talk more about the
hubs.
I am a strong supporter of ARPA-E, a major recommendation
of the America COMPETES legislation, and we do not know if
ARPA-E will be successful, but it would not have to be nearly
as successful as the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
(DARPA) to be a great success. It does not have the same kind
of customer that DARPA has at the Defense Department. But the
early signs are promising, very talented people there. And I
hope we continue to support it.
I am increasingly of the view that--I support the idea and
made an address last week saying that we should double over the
next several years Federal support for clean-energy research. I
know that is a priority of yours. The question quickly comes
up, well, then how would you pay for it. I think the way we pay
for it is get rid of long-term subsidies for energy such as
those for big oil and I would add to that big wind. We had $14
billion of Federal subsidies for wind programs over a 5-year
period which we are in the midst of. More than $6 billion are
the production tax credit. I think we should let that credit
expire and take $2 of the savings and reduce the debt and $1 of
the savings and add it to the energy research budget and do the
same for the oil subsidies that oil companies have that other
companies do not have. Sometimes we get a little clumsy when we
talk about oil subsidies because they have manufacturing tax
credits. Well, so do many other manufacturers have
manufacturing tax credits. So I would like to talk about that
too. Clean-energy research, yes. Long-term subsidies, no. And
in between what are those technologies that we seek to jump
start for a limited period of time? The small modular reactors
might be one. The electric car incentives that we are now in
the midst of might be one. ARPA-E might be one. But they should
be specific and limited.
You have recommended funding for the Blue Ribbon Commission
(BRC) on Nuclear Waste. That is a concern that Senator
Feinstein and I share equally. My passion for it does not equal
hers because I do not think anyone's does, but it is right up
there with hers. And it is something that we are working on
with Senators Bingaman and Murkowski, and we appreciate your
cooperation on that. We intend to make some progress on it.
Finally, in our State, if I may make an additional point,
Madam Chairman, we are concerned about environmental cleanup.
Over the last year, the Government has made a lot of progress
in cleaning up radiological waste in Oak Ridge that is left
over from the hot war and World War II and the cold war ever
since. And you have begun to remove the waste and get it out of
Oak Ridge and the cleanup is scheduled to be completed in 5
years. And it is very expensive. It is hundreds of millions of
dollars. And once it is gone, it will reduce the cost of
operating the facilities in Oak Ridge and reduce the risks.
But we now need to go to work on mercury, and we have
talked about that. To date, there are more than 2 million
pounds of mercury unaccounted for and the continued releases of
mercury in Poplar Creek that run through the town. This is a
dangerous substance. It is going to take a long time to do an
appropriate job of cleaning it up, but we need to get started.
And I would like include in the record, Madam Chairman, an
article by Frank Munger from the Knoxville News Sentinel today
entitled ``Mercury's Priority is Rising, but Cleanup is Years
Away.''
So I thank you for what we are doing on radiological waste.
I look forward to working with you to getting started on
cleaning up the mercury.
And I thank the chairman for her generous allocation of
time.
Senator Feinstein. I thank you very much, Senator
Alexander.
It is now my pleasure to introduce the Secretary. He hails
from my home State. I think it is fair to say he is brilliant.
I do not think you win a Nobel unless you can have that
appellation attached to your name. He is from Lawrence Berkeley
Lab, and it is with a great deal of pleasure, because there
will be a lot of hard questions, that I boost your ego a little
bit before we begin.
I know it has been hard to adjust to life here, but we want
to warmly welcome you, Mr. Secretary. Please proceed with your
remarks.
summary statement of hon. steven chu
Secretary Chu. Well, thank you, Madam Chairman, and also
Ranking Member Alexander. I should say my reputation for
intelligence has taken a downturn since I have accepted this
job.
But in any case, I am happy to be here today and be given
the opportunity to discuss the President's fiscal year 2013
budget request for DOE.
To promote economic growth and strengthen national
security, President Obama has called for an all-of-the-above
strategy that develops every source of American energy. The
President wants to fuel our economy with domestic energy
resources while increasing our ability to compete in the clean-
energy race.
The Department's fiscal year 2013 budget request for $27.2
billion is guided by the President's vision, our 2011 strategic
plan, and our inaugural quadrennial technology review. It
supports leadership in clean-energy technologies, science and
innovation, nuclear security, and environmental cleanup.
Decades ago, the Energy Department's support helped develop
technologies that have allowed us to tap into America's
abundant shale gas resources. Today, our investments can help
unlock the promise of renewable energy and energy efficiency.
The budget request invests approximately $4 billion in energy
programs to advance progress in areas from solar to offshore
wind to carbon capture utilization and storage to smart grid
technologies. It develops next-generation biofuels, advanced
batteries, and fuel-efficient vehicle technologies to help
reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
As the President and I have said, there is no silver
bullet. We can and must pursue a long-term, all-of-the-above
approach that diversifies our transportation sector, protects
consumers from high gas prices, harnesses American resources,
and creates jobs here at home. That is exactly what this budget
does.
The budget also invests $770 million to help develop the
next generation of nuclear power technologies, including small
modular reactors. It includes funding for continuing nuclear
waste research and development (R&D) which aligns with the
recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Commission (BRC) on
America's Nuclear Future.
America's fossil fuel energy resources continue to play an
important role in our energy mix. The budget request includes
$12 million as part of a $45 million research and development
initiative by the Departments of Energy, Interior, and
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to understand and
minimize the potential environmental, health, and safety
impacts of natural gas development through hydraulic
fracturing.
The budget also promotes energy efficiency to help
Americans save money by saving energy, and it sponsors R&D on
industrial materials and processes to help U.S. manufacturers
cut costs.
To maximize our energy technology efforts in areas such as
batteries, biofuels, and electric grid technologies, we are
coordinating research and development across our basic and
applied research programs and ARPA-E.
And to encourage manufacturing and deployment of clean-
energy technologies, the President has called for extending
proven tax incentives, including the production tax credit, the
1603 program, and advanced energy manufacturing tax credit.
As industry, the Congress, and the American people make
critical energy decisions, it is also important that we
adequately fund the Energy Information Administration.
Competing in the new energy economy will require our
country to harness all our resources, including American
ingenuity. The budget includes $5 billion for the Office of
Science to support basic research that could lead to new
discoveries and help solve energy challenges. These funds
support progress in materials science, basic energy science,
advanced computing, and more.
The budget request continues to support the Energy Frontier
Research Centers which aim to solve specific scientific
problems to unlock new clean-energy development. It supports
the five existing Energy Innovation Hubs and proposes a new hub
in electricity systems. Through the hubs, we are bringing
together our Nation's top scientists and engineers to achieve
game-changing energy goals.
Additionally, the budget request includes $350 million for
ARPA-E to support research projects that could fundamentally
transform the way we use and produce energy. ARPA-E invests in
high-risk, high-reward research projects that if successful
could create the foundation for entirely new industries.
In addition to strengthening our economy, the budget
request strengthens our security by providing $11.5 billion for
the NNSA. As the United States begins the nuclear arms
reduction required by the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty
(New START), the science, technology, and engineering
capabilities within the nuclear security enterprise will become
even more important to sustain the U.S. nuclear deterrent. That
is why the budget request includes $7.6 billion for weapons
activities. It also includes $1.1 billion for the naval reactor
program. Additionally, it supports NNSA's work to prevent
nuclear terrorism, one of President Obama's top priorities. It
includes $2.5 billion to implement key nuclear security,
nonproliferation, and arms control activities.
Finally, the budget request includes $5.7 billion for the
Office of Environmental Management to clean up radioactive
legacy waste from the Manhattan Project and the cold war. This
budget request builds on the program's progress. By the end of
2011, the program has reduced its geographic footprint by 66
percent.
prepared statement
The budget request made strategic investments to promote
prosperity and security. At the same time, we recognize the
country's fiscal challenges and are cutting back where we can.
We are committed to performing our work efficiently and
effectively. Countries in Europe, Asia, and throughout the
Western Hemisphere recognize that energy opportunity and are
moving aggressively to lead. This is a race we can win, but we
must act with fierce urgency.
So thank you. And I now welcome your questions.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Steven Chu
introduction
Chairman Feinstein, Ranking Member Alexander, and members of the
subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today
to discuss the President's fiscal year 2013 budget request for the
Department of Energy (DOE).
To promote economic growth and strengthen national security,
President Obama has called for ``an all-out, all-in, all-of-the-above
strategy that develops every source of American energy--a strategy that
is cleaner and cheaper and full of new jobs.'' The President wants to
fuel our economy with domestic energy resources while increasing our
ability to compete in the global clean-energy race.
Although the United States has reclaimed the title of world leader
in clean-energy investments, we are at risk of falling behind again
unless we make a sustained Federal commitment to supporting our
domestic clean-energy economy. To compete globally, America has to do
more than invent technologies, we also have to produce and sell them.
Our country faces a stark choice:
--we can create jobs making and exporting the energy technologies of
tomorrow; or
--we can cede leadership to other countries that are investing in
these industries.
As President Obama reiterated in his State of the Union Address,
passing a clean-energy standard is a vital step that the Congress can
take to broaden our clean-energy market and promote U.S. leadership.
Making the most of America's energy resources is a pillar of the
President's economic blueprint to build an economy that lasts. The
Energy Department also supports other key elements of the President's
agenda including leading in innovation, reducing our dependence on oil,
cutting costs for families, businesses, and manufacturers through
energy efficiency, and reducing nuclear dangers worldwide.
Guided by the President's vision, the Department's 2011 Strategic
Plan and our inaugural Quadrennial Technology Review, our fiscal year
2013 budget request of $27.2 billion invests in the following
priorities:
--Accelerating the transformation of America's energy system, and
securing U.S. leadership in clean-energy technologies;
--Investing in science and innovation to promote our Nation's
economic prosperity; and
--Keeping Americans safe by enhancing nuclear security through
defense, nonproliferation, and environmental cleanup.
These priorities will be enabled through a continuing commitment to
fiscal responsibility and management excellence.
leading in the energy technologies of the 21st century
Last year, a record $260 billion was invested globally in clean
energy, and trillions of dollars will be invested in the coming
decades. To seize this market and job-creation opportunity, the
President's budget request invests in programs that advance research,
development, manufacturing, and deployment of the energy technologies
of the future.
Decades ago, support from the Energy Department helped to develop
the technologies that have allowed us to tap into America's abundant
shale gas resources. Today, our investments can help us advance
technologies that will unlock the promise of renewable energy and
energy efficiency.
The budget request invests approximately $4 billion in our energy
programs. It supports the Department's SunShot initiative to make solar
energy cost-competitive with any other form of electrical energy,
without subsidy, by the end of the decade. It advances technological
progress in areas ranging from offshore wind to carbon capture,
utilization, and storage to smart grid and energy storage. And it helps
reduce our dependence on oil by developing the next generation of
biofuels and accelerating research in advanced batteries and fuel-
efficient vehicle technologies. Families, again, are feeling the pinch
of high gas prices. As the President and I have said, there is no
silver bullet to this challenge, but we can and must pursue a serious,
long-term, ``all-of-the-above'' approach that diversifies our
transportation sector, protects consumers from high gas prices,
harnesses American resources, and creates jobs here at home. That's
exactly what this budget does.
Leadership in nuclear energy technologies is also essential to our
ability to compete globally. The budget request invests $770 million in
the nuclear energy program to help develop the next-generation of
nuclear power technologies, including small modular reactors. It also
includes funding for continued research and development (R&D) on the
storage, transportation and disposal of nuclear waste, which also
aligns with the recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Commission on
America's Nuclear Future.
As we move to a sustainable energy future, America's fossil energy
resources will continue to play an important role in our energy mix.
President Obama is committed to developing our oil and gas resources in
a safe and sustainable manner. Last year, our oil import dependence was
at its lowest level in 16 years, oil production reached its highest
level in 8 years and natural gas production set a new record. Building
on this progress, the Energy Department's budget request includes $12
million as part of a $45 million priority research and development
initiative by the DOE, the Department of the Interior, and the
Environmental Protection Agency to understand and minimize the
potential environmental, health, and safety impacts of natural gas
development through hydraulic fracturing (fracking).
The budget request also promotes energy efficiency to create jobs
and to help Americans save money by saving energy. It supports home
weatherization and calls for passage of the HOME STAR program to
provide incentives to homeowners to make energy-efficiency upgrades. It
also invests in research and development to improve building efficiency
and supports the President's ``Better Buildings'' initiative to
catalyze private sector investment in commercial building efficiency.
Finally, the budget request sponsors R&D on industrial materials and
processes to help U.S. manufacturers cut costs and improve their global
competitiveness.
To maximize our energy technology efforts, the Department is
breaking down silos and coordinating R&D across our program offices.
Modeled after our SunShot initiative, we're bringing together our basic
and applied research programs and Advanced Research Projects Agency-
Energy (ARPA-E) to harmonize their work in areas including batteries,
biofuels, and electric grid technologies.
And to encourage manufacturing and deployment of clean-energy
technologies, the President has called for renewing and extending
proven tax incentives including the Production Tax Credit, the 1603
cash payment in lieu of tax credit program, and the Advanced Energy
Manufacturing Tax Credit (48C).
As industry, the Congress and the American people make critical
energy decisions and require greater understanding of domestic and
international energy markets, it's important that we adequately fund
the Energy Information Administration (EIA), the Nation's premier
source of independent statistical information about energy production
and use. That is why the budget request includes $116 million for EIA.
unleashing u.s. innovation to create jobs and lead in the global
economy
Competing in the new energy economy will require our country to
harness all of our resources, including as the President said, the
``one critical, renewable resource that the rest of the world can't
match: American ingenuity.'' A key part of our country's success has
been our leadership in science and technology, but we can't take that
leadership for granted. According to the National Science Foundation's
``2010 Science and Engineering Indicators'' report, from 1996 to 2007,
the average annual growth of R&D expenditures in the United States was
about 5 to 6 percent compared to more than 20 percent in China.
To help keep the United States at the forefront of science and
technology, the budget request invests in cutting-edge research that
could spur new jobs and industries. This includes $5 billion for the
Office of Science to support basic research that could lead to new
discoveries and help solve our energy challenges. These funds support
progress in materials science, basic energy science, advanced
computing, and more. They also provide America's researchers and
industries with state-of-the-art tools to help take their work to the
next level.
The budget request continues to support Energy Frontier Research
Centers (EFRCs). The EFRCs are working to solve specific scientific
problems to unlock new clean-energy development. So far, the EFRCs have
published more than 1,000 peer-reviewed papers and filed more than 90
patent applications or patent/invention disclosures. Researchers are
reporting multiple breakthroughs in areas ranging from advanced battery
technology and solar energy to solid-state lighting and nuclear power.
The budget request also supports the five existing Energy
Innovation Hubs and proposes a new Hub in electricity systems. Through
the Hubs, we are bringing together our Nation's top scientists and
engineers to achieve game-changing energy goals. The Hubs continue to
make progress. For example, the Modeling and Simulation for Nuclear
Reactors Hub has released the first versions of its software that, upon
completion, will simulate a virtual model of an operating physical
reactor. The Fuels from Sunlight Hub has filed multiple invention
disclosures and published scientific papers. And the Energy Efficient
Building Systems Hub is developing advanced building modeling tools and
has built one of the country's first 3-D building design labs.
Additionally, the budget request includes $350 million for the
ARPA-E to support research projects that could fundamentally transform
the ways we use and produce energy. ARPA-E has invested in roughly 180
high-risk, high-reward research projects that, if successful, could
create the foundation for entirely new industries. These companies and
research teams are working toward a prototype of a battery that has
double the energy density and one-third the cost of batteries in 2010,
bacteria that use carbon dioxide and electricity to make fuel for cars,
grid-scale electricity storage, and other potentially game-changing
breakthroughs. Eleven projects that received $40 million from ARPA-E
over the last 2 years have done such promising work that they have now
received more than $200 million in combined private sector funding.
Taken together, our research initiatives will help rev up America's
great innovation machine to accelerate energy breakthroughs.
nuclear safety and security
In addition to strengthening our economy, the budget request also
strengthens our security by providing $11.5 billion for the
Department's National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA). NNSA
plays a key role in achieving President Obama's nuclear security
objectives.
As the United States begins the nuclear arms reduction required by
the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START), the science,
technology, and engineering capabilities within the nuclear security
enterprise will become even more important to sustaining the U.S.
nuclear deterrent. The budget request includes $7.6 billion for weapons
activities, a 5-percent increase more than the fiscal year 2012 enacted
levels. This increase provides a strong basis for transitioning to a
smaller yet still safe, secure, and effective nuclear stockpile. It
also strengthens the science, technology, and engineering base of our
enterprise.
The budget request also includes $1.1 billion for the naval
reactors program to ensure the safe and reliable operation of reactors
in nuclear-powered submarines and aircraft carriers and to fulfill the
Navy's requirements for new nuclear propulsion plants that meet current
and future national defense requirements.
Additionally, the budget request supports NNSA's critical work to
prevent nuclear terrorism--one of the most immediate and extreme
threats to global security and of one President Obama's top priorities.
It includes $2.5 billion to implement key nuclear security,
nonproliferation, and arms-control activities. It supports efforts to
detect, secure, and dispose of dangerous nuclear and radiological
material around the world. And it will help the Department to fulfill
its role in accomplishing the President's goal of securing all
vulnerable nuclear materials worldwide in 4 years.
Finally, the budget request includes $5.7 billion for the Office of
Environmental Management to protect public health and the environment
by cleaning up hazardous, radioactive legacy waste from the Manhattan
Project and the cold war. This funding allows the program to continue
to clean up and close sites and positions it to meet its fiscal year
2013 enforceable agreement milestones. This budget request builds on
the significant progress that has been made by the program. By the end
of 2011, the program had reduced its geographic footprint by 66
percent--far exceeding its goal of 40 percent.
fiscal responsibility and management excellence
DOE's fiscal year 2013 budget request makes strategic investments
to promote our country's future prosperity and security. At the same
time, we recognize the country's fiscal challenges and our
responsibility to invest in much-needed programs while cutting back
where we can. That is why the President's budget request eliminates $4
billion in inefficient and unnecessary fossil fuel subsidies.
Given the urgency of the challenges we face, the Department is
committed to performing our work efficiently and effectively. We are
streamlining our organization to improve performance and save taxpayer
money. For example, the Department achieved approximately $330 million
in strategic procurement savings in fiscal year 2011. We are taking
several other steps such as reducing the size of our vehicle fleet,
cutting back travel costs, and consolidating Web sites.
We are also breaking down barriers to make it easier for businesses
to move technologies from our national labs to the marketplace, which
can help the United States seize technological leadership and create
jobs. For example, we've started a program which makes it easier,
quicker, and less costly for start-up companies to sign option
agreements to license national lab technologies. And to make it easier
to work with the labs, we've reduced the advanced payment requirement
and streamlined the Cooperative Research and Development Agreement
contract and approval process.
Throughout American history, the Federal Government has played a
critical role in supporting industries that are important to our
prosperity and security, from aviation and agriculture to
biotechnologies and computer technologies. We should continue to do so
today to lead in the new clean-energy economy. Countries in Europe,
Asia, and throughout the Western Hemisphere recognize the energy
opportunity and are moving aggressively to lead. This is a race we can
win, but we must act with fierce urgency.
Thank you, and now I am pleased to answer your questions.
MESOSCALE
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.
I will begin with, hopefully, three rather short questions.
The largest increase in the Office of Science is for a
program called mesoscale science. It is not defined. I do not
know what it is. I do not know why it is a priority, and I do
not know why we need to start a new $42 million program called
mesoscale science. Can you explain that?
Secretary Chu. Sure. First, some definitions.
You understand what is the atomic, molecular, and so-called
nanoscience. This is of the scale of maybe a few hundred
nanometers and below. It is largely at a molecular scale.
Then you have another branch, the macroscopic size. If you
think of a hunk of silicon that has certain electronic
properties and things of that nature, you go smaller and
smaller and smaller. There is this intermediate scale, not
quite nano scale, but bigger than that at the thousand
nanometer to sub-millimeter scale, microns scale, which we see
popping up in very many things, from the properties of
semiconductors to the new advanced materials, for example,
high-strength steel. To understand this whole gradation of
sizes is very important.
So I would not say it is a new area so much as a
recognition that while we have made great progress in the nano
scale and we know what bulk materials are, there is this middle
gap where many of the properties of materials seem to lie.
Senator Feinstein. Why is it necessary now?
Secretary Chu. We always knew that there are these size
scales and that different things affect these different size
scales. As we understand more about advanced materials and as
we develop these diagnostics and see what are the material
properties and what is the size scale that they are due to, we
are finding out that the mesoscale is an important part of
that.
Senator Feinstein. We are going to have to talk more about
it later.
Secretary Chu. I would love to brief you.
FUSION--INTERNATIONAL THERMONUCLEAR EXPERIMENTAL REACTOR
Senator Feinstein. Let us go to fusion and ITER and the
$150 million this year with the United States contribution to
ITER subject to grow to $300 million. Now, this is going to
take money away from domestic fusion programs--they are already
concerned about it at National Ignition Facility (NIF)--and
also other scientific priorities such as materials and biology
research.
Here is the question: Should the United States consider
withdrawing from ITER or at least reducing the United States'
contribution? If we do continue to fund it, where will the $300
million come from?
Secretary Chu. Well, Senator, you are asking a very
important question that we have asked ourselves. But first, let
me assure you that the program at NIF is not actually competing
with ITER. NIF is supported by the NNSA budget, and we want to
make sure that that NIF program goes forward.
Now, ITER is an international science collaboration. In the
view of the fusion community, it represents the most advanced,
best chance we have of trying to control plasmas in a way that
can potentially bring about controlled fusion for power
generation. And it is an international cooperation. We want
this to go forward. We want to be seen as reliable
international partners, but we are also very cognizant of the
spending profiles and we are working with the fusion community
in the United States, as well as internationally, to see if we
can satisfy both the needs of the fusion community in the U.S.
and this ITER commitment. In these tight budget times, it is
tough.
Senator Feinstein. Yes. At a later time, I want to know
where the $300 million is going to come from. If we keep
continuing and do not know where we are going to get the money
next year, that is a serious concern.
WASTE ISOLATION PILOT PLANT
The last question: Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP), New
Mexico, currently operates to dispose of transuranic waste from
DOE cleanup sites. We provided $215 million for WIPP
operations. With this total amount of funding, the Department
decided to put $37 million of it toward characterization
activities. The fiscal year 2013 request for WIPP is $198
million, with $23 million allocated for characterization.
I have met with members of the Carlsbad community and force
who are concerned that this total level of funding is not
adequate. Can you speak to that? Is it in fact adequate?
Secretary Chu. Well, again, it is a very tight budget
situation, but we believe it is. We enjoy the support of the
Carlsbad community, and a lot of what we are doing there is
very important not only for the disposal of the transuranic
waste, the low-level waste, but potentially that type of
geological strata could be useful.
Senator Feinstein. Yes. I think Senator Murkowski has been
working on this, as have Senator Alexander and myself. I think
we would agree with that, and WIPP is really the only thing
that we have at this time, it seems to me. So what I want to be
sure of is that it is adequately funded. Can you say
categorically that it is?
Secretary Chu. Well, we believe it is, but we understand
your concerns with that. Again, it is one of several types of
geological sites that we would be very interested in exploring
vis-a-vis the BRC report.
But again, I am going to make it very clear. We have not
even set up a process for actually doing sites, but just the
research of salt and the research in the ability of salt to
contain high-level waste is something we are looking at very
seriously and following the recommendation of the BRC.
Senator Feinstein. Senator Alexander.
NUCLEAR PROJECTS AND WASTE CLEAN UP
Senator Alexander. Thanks, Madam Chairman.
Two nuclear questions, Mr. Secretary, quickly if I may.
You have a decrease of 12 percent for nuclear energy, and
most of it comes from reactor concepts which focuses on
advanced reactors like fast reactors. Are those not essential
if we are going to deal with the question of nuclear waste?
Secretary Chu. Well, we are going to have to deal with the
question of nuclear waste. Period.
Senator Alexander. But in the end, we will have to have a
fast reactor. Will we not?
Secretary Chu. We may and may not. The verdict is not in.
We do want to look at research, the idea that the fast reactors
use high-energy neutrons that help burn down transuranic waste
and greatly reduce the amount of eventual waste as compared to
the electricity generated.
Senator Alexander. Yes. And my second is you have $65
million for the small modular reactor, and I appreciate the
chairman's willingness to support this while we take seriously
the waste problem at the same time. But this is $30 million
short of what we described last year. How does that meet the
needs of the 5-year $452 million program that you outlined last
year?
Secretary Chu. Well, again within our budgets, we are
trying to move forward on this. We believe the money we asked
for in fiscal year 2013 will help with the engineering design
of two of these reactors. There are a number of companies that
are gearing up. They see this as an opportunity for them, and
so we are going to have to make some tough decisions.
If I may, I just want to go briefly back to the advanced
reactor concepts.
Senator Alexander. I have two or three more questions I
want to ask you. So if I may, I just want to highlight these
areas during the time allotted to me.
I mentioned in my opening remarks you have made good
progress on cleaning up the radiological waste in Oak Ridge,
but to date there are more than 2 million pounds of mercury
unaccounted for and the continued releases of mercury in Poplar
Creek run through the town. Do you have a plan for addressing
mercury and its cleanup in Oak Ridge? And what steps should we
begin to take to keep it from getting into the water?
Secretary Chu. First, you are quite right to be concerned
about this. We have already taken some steps in the sense that
when there are rains, we have a holding pond for the storm
water so that the solids get deposited before it is returned to
the river, and we know that this is mitigating this problem.
But we eventually have to address this problem. It is a very
important problem, and it is very much on our radar screen.
Senator Alexander. Well, I appreciate your making it a
priority. And Governor Haslam of our State and I and you--we
have met on this, talked about it.
As we finish the cleanup job on radiological waste in Oak
Ridge, I want to make it an increasing priority to develop a
plan to clean up the mercury. And I look forward to working
with you on that. Because you visited there, you know this very
well. This is not a remote site way out in the desert
somewhere. This is a very highly metropolitan area which makes
mercury in the water even more of an issue.
ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY INCREASE--WIND TECHNOLOGY
One other question: This is a time for priority setting. A
29-percent increase in energy efficiency seems to me to be not
something we are likely be able to do this year, especially
given the other important priorities in your budget.
But I want to ask you one other question. You said that you
recommend extending the production tax credit and the 1603 cash
grants which go primarily to wind developers who do not want to
take the production tax credit. The Treasury Department says
that over the 5 years between 2009 and 2013, that that cost
taxpayers--those two things together cost $14 billion. The
Joint Tax Committee says the production tax credit is $6
billion and the cash grants are $8 billion. Now, that is about
$3 billion a year and we only spend a little more than $5
billion a year on energy research in our Government. I would
like to get that energy research number up to $10 billion.
You have testified that wind is a mature technology. If it
is and if we are in a time of priorities and if we need to
double our funding for energy research, why would it not be a
good idea to phase out these long-term subsidies. The
production tax credit started as a temporary tax credit in
1992. Why would we not phase those out and use it for research,
for your hubs, for solar, for carbon recapture, for offshore
wind, but not to subsidize a mature technology?
Secretary Chu. I think there is not that much disagreement
between you and the wind industry in the sense of allowing a
phase-out period. But the wind industry has made great
progress. It is becoming a mature technology, as they note. The
good news is that their costs are becoming comparable to any
new form of energy. They are still more expensive than new
natural gas, but they are within striking distance. To actually
begin to think of a way to phase this out is something that
even the representatives of the wind industry acknowledge
should happen.
Senator Alexander. Well, that is an encouraging comment. My
reading of history suggests that long-term subsidies--and 20
years is long-term--tend to cause costs to stay high instead of
introduce the competition that cause costs to go lower.
But I have used all my time, Madam Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Feinstein. Well, thank you very much, Senator
Alexander.
Senator Johnson and then Senator Murray, Cochran,
Murkowski, and Collins.
Senator Johnson. Secretary Chu, welcome and thank you for
being here today.
As you know, over the past year, operations of South
Dakota's Homestake mine have been moving forward and tremendous
progress has been made on the development of the Sanford
underground research facility. Given major scientific
discoveries recently announced in the field of high-energy
physics, it is more important than ever that the U.S. invest in
a domestic underground research facility in which we can
provide global leadership in science and technology.
Unfortunately, it is my understanding that the Department's
request would reduce funds for sustaining operations by about
one-third below the fiscal year 2012 level. This reduction
would likely result in layoffs at the lab and undermine
confidence of our longstanding State, international, and
private partners that have dedicated significant funding to
this project.
How does the Department plan to sustain this critical U.S.
underground research facility to continue to attract
international interest and keep dedicated private and State
partners together given the current budget request?
Secretary Chu. Well, Senator, we want very much to have
this underground laboratory continue. We recognize the
leadership of your State, actually of Mr. Sanford as well. We
are completing plans for exactly what type of detector we are
going to be putting in there for this long baseline experiment.
There has been a shift. There have been new technology
developments, and the Office of Science tells me that they
think that a liquid argon detector might be the best detector.
So what we have done is we have said, ``All right, let us
continue studying this liquid argon detector.''
We do want to move forward on this type of work and this
experiment. Despite all of the strains in our budget, we do
believe that you cannot really tell where basic research will
give us new insights and new opportunities. And high-energy
physics, nuclear physics, cosmology, these are areas that are
essentially flat, but we still treasure them and want to
continue them.
Senator Johnson. The administration has been focusing on a
broad energy policy to address high-energy costs which includes
expanded domestic oil and gas production, alternative fuels,
and energy efficiency. I do agree that oil and gas production
can and should be increased in a safe and responsible way where
we can.
But as you know, the United States has about 2 percent of
the world's oil reserves and we account for about 21 percent of
the world's petroleum consumption. Our current level of
dependence on oil, no matter where it is from, subjects us to
the price volatility of world oil markets and the shocks that
come from both real and threatened supply disruptions.
Accordingly, I would like to focus on the importance of
diversity on our energy mix and specifically advances in
biofuels that can be developed in rural America.
BIOFUELS
Could you elaborate on efforts in the budget both within
DOE and across agencies, for example, with the Department of
Defense (DOD) and United States Department of Agriculture
(USDA), to drive development and commercialization of advanced
biofuels?
Secretary Chu. Well, Senator, we share your enthusiasm for
advanced biofuels. We think that research, development, and
demonstration of those advanced biofuels is something very much
in the interest of the United States so that we can diversify
our supply of transportation energy. Liquid transportation
energy will be with us in this century, and there is a great
deal of pain that our citizens businesses feel if oil is the
only source.
Now, the good news is that there has been remarkable
research in transforming, biowaste feedstocks, feedstocks that
do not necessarily compete with prime agricultural land for
food. We are very bullish on this because this is one of the
most rapidly advancing areas in science and technology.
We have these bio-energy centers that were started in the
previous administration under Sam Bachman's leadership that are
going great. As a measure of how well they are going, just this
last year agreements with about 23 companies to share
technology, now totaling about 50. In this ramp-up period over
3\1/2\ years, you just see it ramping up, but lots of people in
the private sector have gotten very interested and are taking
this technology. So that is a very good sign. That is a measure
of success.
But we want to actually diversify not only for the biofuels
but also so that electrification can take some of the load.
Natural gas can take some of the load, that will also bring
relief to Americans.
Senator Johnson. Thank you, Dr. Chu.
Senator Feinstein. And thank you very much, Senator
Johnson.
Senator Murray.
Senator Murray. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.
And, Secretary Chu, welcome. Thank you.
You probably think all I care about is Hanford and the
Waste Treatment Plant (WTP) because every time you are in front
of us and we talk, I bring that up. And there is actually a
real reason for that. It is one of the most difficult projects
that DOE has ever undertaken, and the Federal Government, as
you well know, signed a consent decree legally obligating
itself to complete the cleanup of the Hanford site with very
specific milestones.
It has been very frustrating over the past couple years.
The funding needs that were identified by DOE have changed, and
those milestones have not changed. And you can expect that the
Congress does not like to be surprised. So it has been
challenging. And over time, it has become even more difficult
to understand how much annual funding you believed we were
actually going to receive as you wrote that agreement, but it
is pretty clear now that the Congress does not have ever-
increasing funding to apply to one project.
WASTE TREATMENT PLANT
So as you draft a responsible spending profile as you again
re-baseline the WTPs, I really caution you to be mindful of
that and to work with all of us and consult with the Hill as
you work on that.
But I did want to ask you, as you do work to re-baseline
this funding profile, how will you make sure that your agency
meets its obligations that were set forth in that consent
decree and under the Tri-Party Agreement? And actually, what
will happen if DOE fails to meet those?
Secretary Chu. Well, Senator, as you know, this has taken a
lot of my personal attention, the attention of the Deputy
Secretary, and the attention of the Under Secretary. We have
made some changes in the program. I think we have brought in
some very good people, and we are balancing the tank farm and
the WTP project as much as we can. We are certainly working
very hard and recognize our obligations. We feel in fiscal year
2013 our obligations are going to be met. But you are quite
right to be concerned, and we will work with you going forward.
Senator Murray. Well, what happens if the DOE does not meet
the consent decree requirements?
Secretary Chu. First, we do not know for sure, but it
really depends a lot on the budgets we do get from the Congress
and what we can do with those----
Senator Murray. And what budgets the administration sends
to us, I would add.
Secretary Chu. Right. Yes, it is a combination of both of
those.
Senator Murray. Well, we need to be consulted as that moves
forward. It is extremely important.
But, you know, the WTP has been under construction now for
over a decade and has progressed to nearly complete design and
more than 60 percent of the construction work is finished. Yet,
here we are, well into this project, and there have been
several significant technical issues raised about the WTP.
These issues have been raised by people working on the site, by
outside interests, and even the Department itself. Now, we all
know the WTP is a one-of-a-kind construction project and some
twists in the road are expected, but it is time to move here
and inside those black cells, there is no room for error. And I
wanted to ask you how confident you are that you have
identified all of the major technical issues and that those can
be resolved.
Secretary Chu. Well, the technical issues that have added
to the budget demands are issues that were known several years
ago, I think even known before I became Secretary. We are
trying to resolve those issues with the Defense Board, with our
people. We agree with you that once that goes hot, you want to
make sure it is going to work. So that is why we, for the sake
of prudence, agreed that we should do additional testing, for
example, with the pulse jet mixers so that we have some
confidence that there would be no unforeseen event that could
occur that would mean we would have to go in once it is hot.
There are several other issues, and we worked through those
issues.
Senator Murray. What is your level of confidence?
Secretary Chu. I think with the pulse jet mixing, there are
many ways of doing it. So we can buy additional insurance. It
has to do with the solid waste and the suspension of the solid
waste in the tank farms, and there are different ways of doing
that. We could essentially pre-filter so that not all the solid
waste goes in. So there are things like that just to give us
added confidence.
In the meantime, we have a very rigorous way of testing
whether it is going to work or not. So it is a program that we
are going to be doing. Until we actually go through and then do
the testing, I cannot really say.
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION--BONNEVILLE POWER ADMINISTRATION
Senator Murray. Okay. Well, my time is almost out, and I
did want to mention that you know that the Northwest is really
struggling last spring with too much hydro and wind generation.
And Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (FERC) December
ruling caused more uncertainty. I am concerned about
suggestions that FERC-mandated regulations are the best way to
resolve renewable integration issues, and I expect to be
consulted if at any point you or your staff are considering any
policies that would increase FERC jurisdiction in the
Northwest, directly impact our Northwest ratepayers, or affect
our Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) rates. So I just
wanted to make sure you knew that.
Secretary Chu. Absolutely. We will consult with you.
Senator Murray. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Senator Murray.
Senator Cochran.
Senator Cochran. Madam Chairman, we appreciate the
Secretary's presence before our subcommittee today and thank
you for your cooperation with us since your confirmation as
Secretary of the Department of Energy.
I do not know of any hotter seat in the country right now
than yours, looking at the gasoline prices at the pumps up and
down the roads and streets and trying to imagine the challenges
being faced by people who depend upon using their vehicles in
business or for whatever purpose they have to use that vehicle.
They have no other options. No mass transit in some cities and
towns. People have to rely on that as their primary source of
mobility. And once you start thinking about the consequences of
ever-increasing costs of energy, including gasoline, in the
operation of vehicles, we are going to be in really serious
trouble. A lot of people individually are suffering terribly
right now, losses of income and downturns in economic
activities. Some businesses are becoming obsolete because they
cannot function as they used to on gasoline that was more
reasonably priced.
OIL PRICES
What is your outlook right now? What should we be doing as
the Congress and you as the Secretary of Energy to turn this
thing around?
Secretary Chu. Well, Senator, first I feel the pain of the
American public, the personal stresses, as you very clearly
described. There are many situations where you are in a certain
situation. You have no other choice and you have to pay for
that increasing gasoline bill. As the President has made it
very clear, we are looking at every tool we have in order to
try to bring down those prices.
In the tools that I have personally, we are all looking at,
short- and mid-term, but they are rather limited. We are going
to look at all those tools, but in the longer term the first
thing is to help U.S. auto manufacturers build more efficient
cars so that people can have those vehicles and have their
mobility but not have to spend as much at the gasoline station.
We are very much trying to offload some of the things where
we can offload. Natural gas--liquid natural gas vehicles for
long-haul trucks already makes good commercial sense. So we at
the Department of Energy (DOE) are encouraging this. Private
enterprise is willing to fund a concern we know of, more than
$300 million in liquefied natural gas stations because long-
haul trucks that use diesel and go 100,000 miles consume 20
percent of our petroleum energy for transportation in the U.S.
So you can make a significant dent in that because of the fact
that you do not need a service station at every corner. You
need key service stations on interstates.
We are just announcing that we intend to--we are asking for
comment right now, and we are going to put out a FAR on the
street so that we can get compressed natural gas down in cost.
The biggest cost is the storage tank in a delivery van vehicle
or in a personal vehicle. So we are going to be looking at ways
to reduce the cost of that storage tank, either better
materials for the high-pressure tanks and research that allows
us to use adsorbates in the tank so that you are going to have
the same range with the same volume. If we can get that to
occur, then we can offer to the public at large, not only the
American public but the world a different kind of flex fuel.
You can fill it up with natural gas or you can have gasoline or
diesel. The same engine will burn both. So depending which cost
of fuel is less, you have that opportunity.
We are doing anything we can do--we talked about biofuels.
Batteries. Batteries are very expensive, but the research we
have supported have done a great deal. Very recently one of our
grantees has announced that they have just doubled the world
record of energy storage in a lithium-ion battery where we
think that the cost of manufacturing will be no greater. So we
have just literally halved the cost of the battery. That
company thinks they can halve it again. At that point, electric
vehicles that have the same range as today's electric vehicles
or plug-in hybrids become the low $20,000 range, and that would
be fantastic because the costs of ownership would then be
competitive and be even better than competitive with internal
combustion engines.
So we are working very hard. We are very focused on this
problem.
Senator Cochran. Well, I cannot think of another higher
priority on our list of challenges that we face in the domestic
economy than the cost of gasoline in operating vehicles,
private family vehicles, those that are used in work and
business. It is very disturbing, and I think we need to come
together, the Congress and the executive branch, with a
strategy that produces some results. You made an impressive
list off the top of your head of things that are being done by
the DOE, and I would just urge you to do more. Let us get on
with it.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you, Senator.
Secretary Chu. Can we just----
Senator Feinstein. Go ahead.
Secretary Chu. We just had a quadrennial technology review,
a very thoughtful report led by Steve Koonin, the Under
Secretary of Energy. We made it quite clear in that report we
have to reapportion the amount of money we are spending. We
were spending far too little on transportation energy, and it
was very clearly stated in that report that we have to refocus.
Senator Cochran. Thank you.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you.
Senator Murkowski.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
And following on the discussion here, I think we recognize
that there is no one silver bullet. We recognize that there is
a--it takes a long time to translate what you have been talking
about into a difference in the market, the price to the
consumer. They say that recognizing that it takes decades for a
tree to grow to maturity, the best time to plant a tree is now.
We have faced the argument for decades now that, well, if
you bring on additional oil out of Alaska's North Slope,
particularly Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), it is
going to take too long to impact the price of oil or the price
at the pump. And again, I am just reminded that it does take a
long time to make it happen. So we should have started decades
ago. That is my little pitch.
HYDRAULIC FRACKING
I am now going to talk about hydraulic fracking, if I may.
And this is in regards to a comment that came from one of the
members of the advisory board, your advisory board, Mr.
Secretary, that looked at hydraulic fracturing. And we had had
a presentation before the Energy Committee by the board. I
thought it was a very informative report, and I was pleased to
learn of their outcomes.
But one of the members, Mr. Zorbach from Stanford, said--
his words, ``We think the mystery surrounding hydraulic
fracturing has actually been exacerbated and people have been
paranoid really for no reason.''
There is a lot of discussion right now going on about
hydraulic fracturing and for lots of good reasons. We are
seeing an incredible boon across the country in the Marcellus
and the Barnett, and it is all because of the technologies that
are out there.
I came from a hearing this morning where we had the head of
the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Mr. Abbey, speaking to
what United States Geological Survey (USGS) is doing with their
hydraulic fracking study, the rule that they will be
promulgating sometime in April I believe. EPA is also doing a
study.
The question that I would have to you--I understand in your
budget, you are asking for $17 million to again review the
process. You have clearly spent money to do this review, and
the board has considered that. So I guess the question is: Do
we need to spend an additional $17 million within the DOE
budget when we have got other agencies that are also looking at
it when you have already done it, and at least when one of your
members has said there's really no reason for this mystery and
the paranoia. So are we overlapping here?
Secretary Chu. Well, I sincerely hope not. The whole intent
of having several agencies, Interior, EPA, and DOE to work
together is so we do not overlap.
Senator Murkowski. Are you working together I guess is the
question that I am asking.
Secretary Chu. We have begun this process.
But as far as DOE's role, we with USGS, within the
Department of the Interior, are pretty knowledgeable about how
fluids move around in rock. We have gotten a lot more
knowledgeable about oil and gas since the events of two summers
ago. And our focus is let us help industry develop; let me also
say they are making great leaps and improvements in their
technology. So to continue to help industry improve their best
practices so we can develop this very important natural
resource in an environmentally responsible way. So we see
ourselves as technologists that can help understand when you
frack, exactly what is happening, help control so that you do
not over-frack.
Senator Murkowski. Let me ask then on that because the
process has been around for decades. It has been around for
about 40 years. So what are you looking at within DOE in terms
of the technologies that you are finding is new or unusual or
can be enhanced or what have you?
Secretary Chu. Let me give you a couple of examples.
Seismic sensitivity has been increasing over the last decade.
So you know exactly how much to frack, when to stop. We think
we can help with using potentially different fluids if there is
a source of carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide as a fracking fluid
might be a good substitute for water if there is a readily
available source; there may be in many regions because carbon
dioxide is produced with oil and natural gas, things of that
nature.
I think actually that is well under hand because industry
has taken a leadership there already. You need antimicrobials.
Some of the older antimicrobials could have a worse
environmental impact. So industry, again, has gone in the right
direction.
The subcommittee you spoke about talked about helping
assemble data so that the industry can use it and know because
best practices improve year by year. Those are some of the
things we are thinking of.
Senator Murkowski. Well, it is something I think--it is
important for those of us that are looking at this from
different agencies to understand that there is a different
perspective that is ongoing because otherwise there is a lot of
studies out there on a technology that, again, has been around
for a long period of time, and we want to make sure that you
are talking from agency to agency to understand what the
purpose and the goal of your reports are.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Collins.
Senator Collins. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Secretary Chu, welcome to the subcommittee.
As you might suspect, I do want to talk to you today about
deep water offshore wind and the demonstration project. But I
want to begin my questioning today talking to you about the
weatherization assistance program.
WEATHERIZATION PROGRAMS
There are four factors that make weatherization programs
particularly important for the State of Maine. First, we have
the oldest housing stock in the Nation. Second, some 80 percent
of our homes use home heating oil, and with the price of oil
going sky high, that places a real burden. Third, we are a low-
income State with a lot of elderly individuals. And fourth--and
I know my colleague from Alaska also has been concerned about
this--has been the harmful reduction in the Low-Income Heating
Assistance Program (LIHEAP). So the weatherization effort
becomes even more important.
What we have found in Maine is that if you weatherize one
of these older homes, the homeowner can save approximately $500
annually in heating costs, and that is real money that we are
talking about. I know the Department's estimate is heating
bills could be reduced by about 32 percent. Thanks in part to a
grant from DOE, there are three new weatherization training
programs at our community colleges and a technology center. And
that is important because we need to train people who know how
to do the weatherization effectively.
My question to you is: How committed is the Department to
ensuring an adequate level of funding for weatherization. It
has sort of gone up and down over the years. There was a big
increase in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA).
Then in 2011, it was $171 million. It dropped substantially
last year, and now you are requesting about $136 million, which
is way better than last year's final number, which was cut by
the House, but it is still substantially below the fiscal year
2011 number.
Secretary Chu. Well, Senator, this is a very important
issue. In fact, not only in your State, but in the entire
Northeast, there is a lot of homes on home heating oil. I see
several thousands of dollars worth of heating bills when you
are on home heating oil, which is very, very scary.
So what are we doing? Well, within our budgets, we are
trying our best. But there is something else I think we can do
within our limited budget, and that is to look at ways to
stimulate investments. Many of these people do not have the
cash on hand, and yet, if they could get moderate cost loans,
their out-of-pocket expenses would be zero, but their monthly
expenses in the savings from the heating bills could be less--
those savings could be greater than the payment of the interest
and the principal. So if done right, we believe that is
possible.
So what would be the structures in order to do this? Some
States already have them. The utility companies could be a
supplier of the capital, as long as the utility companies are
allowed to make a return on that investment to help their
customers. Home heating oil is not actually attached to utility
companies, but utility companies do have access to capital.
There may be other businesses that have access to low-cost
capital.
We are also looking at Maine. It is already a brisk
business, and we are looking at how can we help in the wood
chip/wood pellet because there, if done right, you are using
your forests in a recycled way. So your net carbon is zero in
terms of that. It is much less expensive right now than home
heating oil. We are also doing research on taking biomatter in
what is called a pyrolysis. It does not convert it into diesel
or gasoline, but that is a technical issue that we have to
stabilize that, but it could be a direct subsidy for home
heating oil.
So, we are looking at it in a number of ways to bring
relief to much of the Northeast. Even with this expansion of
natural gas, we look very hard into is it possible to run
natural gas lines. In many places we find it is not. They are
either too remote, the ground is too rocky--there are many,
many reasons why you cannot do that. So we are looking at all
the ways to bring relief to Americans with respect to heating.
Going back to efficiency, it is really getting a financial
mechanism in place where people who do not have the $5,000 or
$10,000 can they get something where the repayment of that debt
is less than the savings that they make on a yearly basis. We
all recognize that we will not have the ability to invest the
way we did during the ARRA days. This is some of our thinking.
Senator Collins. Thank you. I will wait for the next round
for the next question.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Senator Collins.
Senator Tester.
Senator Tester. Yes, thank you, Madam Chair.
Real quickly, Dr. Chu. You are a smart guy, a researcher.
From what you know about fracking right now--because I get
different input from different folks, I do not know if either
one of them knows exactly what they are talking about. But from
what you know about fracking right now, is it having negative
impacts on our water?
Secretary Chu. Well, I would say from what I know about
fracking, you can develop it in an environmentally responsible
way.
Senator Tester. Is it being done that way now?
Secretary Chu. Well, I cannot guarantee that everyone who
is fracking is doing it that way, but certainly what appears to
be is that a lion's share of the people are doing it
responsibly.
TECH TRANSFER
Senator Tester. I am interested in developing and expanding
tech transfer from research agencies throughout Government to
the private sector. I think it is important. In recent years,
DOE has done a great job, probably the best of any agency. In
2009, your agency had 15 times the number of active licenses as
the Defense Department.
With those successes that you have had in tech transfer,
have you been able to recommend to other agencies a way to
implement--to repeat your success as far as tech transfer goes
in other agencies?
Secretary Chu. We are always talking to other agencies, as
we are also trying to improve the way we transfer technology
even within the DOE. Thank you for that praise, but we can
actually do better ourselves and are very focused on that
because, as I think Senator Alexander said, our research
universities and our national labs are an incredible asset.
Senator Tester. And I appreciate that. I think you do a
good job. I think you probably just admitted you can even do a
better job. I would just encourage you to share any sort of
information that you have to other agencies so that they can do
as good a job as you.
FUEL CELLS
In the 2012 State of the Union Address, President Obama
exhorted the Congress to not let other countries win a race to
the future, saying that he would not cede the wind, solar, or
battery industry to China or Germany because we refused to make
the same commitment here. Given that Germany, Japan, and South
Korea's commitments, among other countries, to fuel cell
electric vehicles and hydrogen infrastructure, are we ceding to
other countries?
Secretary Chu. Well, this goes, I think, back to the
statement of Senator Alexander again. There was a question
about our FE budget and our solid state fuel cells. We still
want to continue the support of fuel cells for transportation.
We think solid state fuel cells are in a stronger position.
Industry is investing pretty heavily in it--United Technologies
Corporation (UTC), Rolls, others. And so again, with a tough
decision, we think solid state fuel cells are actually getting
to the point where they, especially for backup power and a
substitute for emergency diesel, look increasingly promising.
So we do not want to cede fuel cells.
I would also say that through DOE investments, there has
been remarkable progress in fuel cells themselves in reducing
the costs and increasing the longevity. It is not completely
there yet, but there has been remarkable progress there.
The bigger issues have to do with the storage of hydrogen,
something that we still want to work on because it is
compressed hydrogen. We now have an additional incentive, as I
said before, about the adsorbate natural gas storage. So we see
those as real opportunities.
Senator Tester. So you are still moving forward on your
commitment to fuel-cell technology.
Secretary Chu. Yes. But the solid state ones are in a
better technological place, a more mature place.
Senator Tester. Have you had the opportunity to meet with
industry to ask them whether the policies that you have are
adequate to keep the industry here?
Secretary Chu. Several times. They are very concerned, and
they have convinced me that we want to keep this program going.
BONNEVILLE POWER ADMINISTRATION--PUMPED STORAGE HYDRO
Senator Tester. Real quickly because I am about out of
time. I want to talk about pumped storage hydro, and I will not
go through all this. But 2 weeks ago, you testified in front of
the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee that you are
pushing BPA to do more pumped storage hydro. I am sure you know
the background on this. Does this mean that you will reconsider
the project awaiting investment which will push aside last
year's by BPA in Montana?
Secretary Chu. Well, that is trickier. You are absolutely
right. I am pushing BPA to begin. They have within their series
of dam within their jurisdiction, they can pump from one dam to
another. And the first pass, they have looked at it, and they
said there were other ways of solving this problem. But they
are looking at pumped hydro. It does get trickier once you are
pumping from someplace in Montana. Legally they are permitted
to do it. That is my understanding, but I have to get back to
you on that.
We are also very much committed to very inexpensive forms
of utility-scale storage at the cost of compressed air or
pumped hydro, but anywhere in the world is something that would
be very important for the development of our grid system.
Senator Tester. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Dr. Chu.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you, Senator Tester.
Senator Graham, welcome.
Senator Graham. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Are you having fun, Secretary Chu?
Secretary Chu. Oh, sometimes and sometimes not. Sometimes
they are more fun than others. Thank you for asking.
Senator Graham. Thanks for being willing to serve. I know
it is tough at times.
YUCCA MOUNTAIN
I want to talk to you about a couple things very quickly.
Yucca Mountain. Do you envision President Obama being able to
certify that Yucca Mountain will be the central repository for
spent fuel?
Secretary Chu. Do I envision that? Well, I think----
Senator Graham. Probably not?
Secretary Chu. Probably not.
Senator Graham. Okay. Well, that is an honest answer, and I
agree with you. I disagree with his conclusion, but I think
that is probably where he will be.
So I have legislation. There are $35 billion sitting in a
trust fund that is being collected from ratepayers all over the
country to deal with the spent fuel issue, and we got a big
hole in the ground and nobody is going to use it at least for
spent fuel. So I have got legislation that says that 75 percent
of the $35 billion will be rebated back to the consumer through
the utilities so people can get a reduction in their power bill
for the money they have already paid, and the other 25 percent
will be used to upgrade on-site storage facilities in a manner
to make sure they are safe. If we do not have a central
repository, we are going to have to use existing facilities at
least for a while.
Does that make sense to you?
Secretary Chu. Well, Senator, I am going to side with the
BRC on this one. I think that we have a spent fuel problem, and
the BRC has recommended, we are collecting a lot of money
directly from the people who generate that power. We would like
that money to go directly to this issue so that we actually
begin to solve this.
Senator Graham. How much did Yucca Mountain cost thus far?
How much have we spent on Yucca Mountain?
Secretary Chu. Certainly billions, but I do not know
exactly. We can get the number back, but I think you have it.
Senator Graham. Well, I do and I will not share it with
you. I will tell you later. It is not $35 billion. I guess my
point is that I do not see any system costing $35 billion. So
we would like to work with you to get some of this money out of
the trust fund back to the ratepayers and in all seriousness
improve on-site storage because there is not going to be
anything new in the next 5-10 years.
Senator Feinstein. Oh. We will talk.
Senator Graham. Okay. She is going to fix it.
Assuming that Senator Feinstein does not fix it in the next
5 years, I think we need to improve on-site storage. So I would
like to talk with you about how to do that with existing funds.
NUCLEAR REACTOR LOANS
The loan guarantee program. I am very impressed with the
administration's embracing the nuclear power. Quite frankly, I
think you have been very pro nuclear as Secretary of Energy. Do
you still support the loan guarantee program for nuclear power
reactors?
Secretary Chu. I do.
Senator Graham. And the couple that are being built now in
South Carolina and Georgia--you would urge the country to stay
behind that program, building these two reactors?
Secretary Chu. Yes. I think it is important, with the good
Senator from California here as well, I think it is important
that we have a diversity of energy sources. I think the power
countries themselves do not want to be----
Senator Graham. I do not want to speak for her, but I think
her concern is what do you do with the spent fuel because if
you build more reactors, you got more spent fuel. So if we can
solve that problem, we kind of help her.
So I appreciate you supporting the loan guarantee program.
I think as a temporary program, if we can get a handful of
these things up and built, the private sector will have more
confidence in building reactors.
So the other issue is the Savannah River site has--you have
got $15 billion underfunded pension plans. We are going to
transition in January 2013 to a new healthcare retiree benefit
plan, and we are working with your office about how to do that
gradually and fair to people on fixed incomes. So I am going to
personally visit with you on this to make sure that we can
transition to a new healthcare benefit without putting people
who have won the cold war in unnecessary jeopardy.
Secretary Chu. I would be glad to.
Senator Graham. Will you please tell the people at the
Savannah River site we are talking?
Secretary Chu. Yes.
Senator Graham. Okay, good because I hope they believe me,
but we are. We are really working hard on that.
OIL/GAS
Now, let us talk quickly about gas. You are for small
modular reactor research? That could be the future?
Secretary Chu. I think it is going to be a very important
part of our energy option.
Senator Graham. Okay. I could not agree with you more.
Now, how many barrels of oil do we use a day in America?
Secretary Chu. Barrels of oil we use a day. I have to work
backwards. We are producing about----
Senator Graham. What if I said 20 million?
Secretary Chu. That is about right.
Senator Graham. So how many do we produce here at home?
Secretary Chu. Petroleum liquids generalized.
Senator Graham. Oil.
Secretary Chu. Oil includes petroleum liquids as long as it
goes into a refinery. About 12, almost 11.5 million barrels if
you include just the petroleum liquids.
Senator Graham. I was told 7 million.
Secretary Chu. That is why I was so careful.
Senator Graham. Well, the bottom line is I know what
Senator Murkowski said was true about planting a tree, but I am
of the opinion if we announced tomorrow that we would embrace
responsible extraction in ANWR, reopen the eastern Gulf in a
robust way, and signed the Keystone Pipeline agreement with
Canada and made it a reality, that the market would respond
positively to that because that would create 3 million barrels
of domestically produced oil or bought from Canada, one of our
best friends. Do you think those three announcements would have
a positive effect on oil prices in our efforts to be energy
dependent?
Secretary Chu. As we announce more tracts of offshore oil
and Federal lands open for exploration and bids, that directly
does not seem to have as big an effect as one might think.
Senator Graham. I do not want to take time away from
Senator Reed. He has waited patiently.
I just cannot believe that it would be a positive. I do not
think it would be a negative thing. I just cannot believe that
you cannot say yes because clearly, if we opened up more
domestic production and bought oil from Canada and created 3
billion barrels that we do not have today, people would see
that as a positive sign. I just encourage you to look at those
three things.
Thank you for your service.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Senator.
Senator Reed.
Senator Reed. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being here.
I want to associate myself with the comments that the
Senator from Maine made about weatherization. I thought she was
particularly eloquent and precise about the importance of the
program. And I appreciate your response which is, you know, we
are trying to compensate for the fact that we will not see this
money go up again. We all understand, as Senator Collins
pointed out, there was a big burst of funding under the
Recovery Act. It took a while to get out.
WEATHERIZATION
But I think there is an important point to be made. The
studies I have seen suggest that for every $1 we invest, we get
$2.51 back in terms of demand reduction, in terms of avoided
costs. We have also put, as you certified last December--we met
the Recovery Act goal of 600,000 homes weatherized; 14,000 jobs
were supported. Up our way, this is not just an issue of demand
reduction and compensating for the LIHEAP. This is good work
for people who are really out--you know, they are carpenters
and they are tradesmen and women, et cetera.
So I appreciate your very thoughtful ways of trying to get
around a lack of funding, but I think the point that I would
make--and I hope you would agree--is that this is a program
that can be justified based upon its cost benefits, its job
creation, its demand reduction. And I do not think either she
or I or Senator Murkowski--I will just speak for myself--are
going to just simply sit back and say, well, that is not worth
pursuing. I think we have got to pursue this weatherization
more aggressively. And so your comments.
Secretary Chu. As we rebuild the infrastructure,
weatherization, and energy efficiency in buildings I see as
something we could be doing for the next 30, 40, 50 years
creating jobs at home and helping American families and
businesses save money. It is one of the big opportunities we
have to grow our economy, to grow our jobs, to help us save
money. That money goes directly back into the economy. So it is
a very big deal, and we will be looking at spending a lot of
time on programs such as the Better Buildings program, programs
that we can actually get off the ground because it can be
leveraged. I see a leverage of 100 to 1, a much bigger
leverage, and I see the opportunity for decades of growth.
Senator Reed. Well, I do too, and I think that is why we--I
will speak again for myself--we are going to push very hard to
get more resources for weatherization.
The other irony is it took such a long time to get these
programs up and running. If we let them atrophy, which this
budget will, we will be right back where we started from in
2009 which is the States were not prepared to spend the money.
We did not have the certified weatherization people. Now we are
ready to move. I mean, you demonstrated that when you concluded
we finally met the Recovery Act goal and we have supported
those jobs.
So I think we are just going to ask you, in your internal
counsels, be aggressive about not just alternatives to
weatherization but weatherization.
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT EFFORTS
Let me ask you another question, Mr. Secretary, just as a
general comparison. I cannot think of anyone more superbly
qualified to lead our research efforts when it comes to R&D in
sophisticated energy technologies. How is your budget and how
are we doing relative to other countries? And is that a source
of concern to you or confidence?
Secretary Chu. No. It is a concern to me. If I look at
other countries and how they are borrowing from our playbook--
we have a long history of funding our research and development
through our national labs, through our universities, and even
in some companies. They see this as a great way to speed up
their development, their competitiveness.
If I look at, for example, a random country, China--not
quite random--the Chinese Academy of Sciences have been
increasing their efforts, it is not an honorific society there.
It is a funding agency. Their budget, 20 percent per year over
the last decade. They are thinking of going to 30 percent per
year. When you are compounding at 20 and 30 percent per year,
this is remarkable. The number of undergraduates who graduate
with degrees in engineering, in the physical sciences has gone
up fourfold, fivefold. Ours is roughly flat. These are
disturbing trends.
Senator Reed. Just a final point. It sort of reminds me of
the United States in the 1950s and 1960s where we were, through
NASA, through the National Science Foundation, spending,
relative to the rest of the world, huge amounts of money, and
we were benefitting from it for the last 20-30 years, and now
the wheel is turning, I think, the wrong way.
But thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.
And thank you, Madam Chair.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Senator Reed.
OIL/GAS
Now, one question on gas. I have been reading articles that
say there is ample supply to meet the demand in America today,
and in fact, companies are selling oil from America abroad. Are
both of those statements correct?
Secretary Chu. Well, if you look at the net import of----
Senator Feinstein. I do not want to waste a lot of time.
Can you say yes or no?
Secretary Chu. Right now, the net export/import of refined
products has tipped a little bit towards export. We refine a
lot of diesel that we do not use here we ship to, for example,
Europe and we import gasoline.
The net import of petroleum and petroleum products--we are
still importing 48 percent roughly.
Senator Feinstein. So it is not fair to say that we have
ample supply for current demand.
Secretary Chu. We do not have ample domestic supplies of
oil or petroleum products today. That is correct.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much.
NUCLEAR SAFETY
Now, let us go to the nuclear stuff. When all the reactors
except for two went off line in Fukushima, it really caused me
to think. One of the things that I have learned is that you
cannot out-guess Mother Nature, and therefore going beyond
design specification in these reactors is important.
We started last year trying to help you by including money
to work with industry to improve fuel cladding, and you had
mentioned fuel cladding and the small modular reactors and
accident-tolerant fuel. We did this because experts believed
zirconium fuel cladding played a role in Fukushima, and that
when the ability to pump water into the reactor was lost at
Fukushima, the zirconium cladding failed and then likely
released the uranium pellets. Once the rods reached more than
1,200 degrees Celsius, the zirconium is believed to have
interacted with the steam to produce hydrogen which accumulated
and then exploded. Is that a fair statement?
Secretary Chu. That is certainly what we suspect. First,
lots of things will melt at very high temperatures, but
zirconium is known to interact at very high temperatures with
water to create hydrogen. And there were hydrogen explosions.
Senator Feinstein. So I think Senator Alexander mentioned
that we had that meeting. I remember it well on December 14
with you and the two chairs of the BRC, and the four of us
resolved that we would work together, the authorizers and the
appropriators. We will shortly have another meeting and try to
move from there.
This is disjointed, but the other day, the chief executive
officer (CEO) of Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) walked
in and said that they are ready to move nuclear waste now. I
mentioned that to staff. They said so are others. Senator
Murkowski's State has had big quakes. Oregon has had big
quakes. We in California have had big quakes. We have two huge
reactors right on the coast. I am where I am and we have to do
something about it, and it is so hard to move this.
I am very frustrated by it because we know what we have to
do. I think Senator Alexander, at least, and I will likely be
in strong agreement that we have to move it, and we have to
enable people to move their waste. Everybody talks about
nuclear. It is 20 percent of what we have, and it is 70 percent
of the clean energy. But if it is not safe and if we cannot do
anything with the fuel other than store it next to a reactor,
count me out. I mean, I do not want to be there. I now know
that a 30-foot tsunami hit, and people say, ``Well, do not
worry. It is not going to happen on the California coast.'' I
do not know that and you do not know that. And getting rid of
the waste--securing the waste, to me, is all important.
So if there is anything that you need in this budget to do
it quicker, faster, to make the decisions quicker, faster, at
least I want to advocate for it.
So here is my question. Do you have what you need to get a
new nuclear waste policy and find a repository and/or storage
to move all of this burgeoning waste?
Secretary Chu. We would need your help and support, the
help and support of this subcommittee, because as the BRC
noted, in order to move forward in an expeditious way and an
effective way, would require a modification of the Nuclear
Waste Act. Meanwhile, we share your sense of urgency, that is
why when I spoke with both of you we were taking steps to begin
the standards and get licensed not only on the dry cast storage
but the container that you can use to ship it and get the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to license several of these
things, we are on our way to doing that. There are a few
standardized designs. The spent fuel in your sites is in very
large casks not suitable----
Senator Feinstein. All I know is what the CEO told me----
Secretary Chu. Right.
Senator Feinstein [continuing]. That they are ready to
transfer.
Secretary Chu. In addition, the BRC pointed out that there
are sites where you no longer have operating nuclear reactors
and yet we are spending a lot of money to guard that material.
They said you can begin to consolidate those sites, which means
you have to begin to work towards getting NRC-licensed
containers for the dry cask storage. There are several vendors
who have these designs. We are, within the Department, working
towards that. So we can begin to consolidate. We have 104
operating sites, and there is probably half a dozen that are no
longer in operation. It is a terrible burden to be having
guards and guns for those sites.
Senator Feinstein. We have a no earmarks policy. I feel
passionately about this. I want to find a way to get you what
you need. Can you put on a piece of paper what you need? We are
to have a meeting. The chairman of the authorizing committee
has already taken some action and done a lot of work, and we
will be meeting and talking with him and with Senator Murkowski
about that. I would like to bring to the meeting what, if we
took an aggressive position, could be done from the Department.
Secretary Chu. I would love to do that. As we talked about
before, there are things that we can do now this year and next
year, but we would also like to get moving on things that we
can do to set up this public/private that we also talked about
and how to get that going as well and begin to have access to
the yearly take of the money that we are charging ultimately
the ratepayers so that one has direct access to that. But we
agree in the first year or so, it would need DOE action and
what can we do to get it started. In the longer term, I think
the recommendation of the BRC should be taken very seriously
about this.
Senator Feinstein. And we do.
Secretary Chu. You know, private partner organization.
Senator Feinstein. I think we are both in agreement. Are
we?
Senator Alexander. Well, yes, sure. We are agreed on taking
it seriously. Absolutely.
Senator Feinstein. Well, that is what he said.
Secretary Chu. I mean, the exact design we do not really
know, but all of us should be considering that very seriously.
Senator Feinstein. Well, if WIPP can be used for a
repository, if the State wants to do that, it seems to me that
there may be other places too. But you have got to go on a
search. We have got to look and I think move relatively
quickly.
Secretary Chu. The good news is there are other States who
are beginning to show interest.
Senator Feinstein. Well, that is good. Then we need that
process. So if you would do that----
Secretary Chu. Right.
Senator Feinstein. That is a commitment.
Secretary Chu. Right, it is a commitment.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you.
Senator Alexander.
Senator Alexander. Well, I appreciate the chairman's
comment. There is a scientific principle that I have forgotten
which basically--I think it starts with an S which says that
when you can, you try to do something the simplest way
possible, not the hardest. Maybe if you want a loaf of bread,
you do not go to San Francisco and then to Alaska and then down
to the corner grocery store. You walk straight to the grocery
store and come back.
And I think one of the things that we need to do--and I am
absolutely committed to work with----
Senator Feinstein. I know you are.
NUCLEAR WASTE STORAGE AND DISPOSAL
Senator Alexander [continuing]. The Senator from California
on this--is we need to be really creative and think of what is
the simplest way to do this right, not what is the most
complicated way to do it right, and look at a variety of
options.
I mean, we have a really ridiculous situation here. I mean,
the $35 billion just in a pile that we cannot spend. We are
collecting $750 million a year, some number, that we cannot
spend, and we should not be collecting it if we are not going
to spend it. And the practical thing would be to probably do
this in some stages because there are some closed sites where
it is very expensive to have all the security just to guard
some used fuel. There are some other sites, such as the two
reactors in California, where they would like to get rid of
their used fuel probably more rapidly than some other sites.
And we ought to be able to figure out a simple way to
accommodate that.
So I am looking forward to this. I am thinking of this
particularly since I have such a strong ally here--I am a
strong ally of hers. I think we can figure this out, and I am
determined to set in motion a process that begins to deal with
this problem. And I appreciate the help you have given us so
far.
I want to switch gears a little bit. I have two questions I
want to ask.
ADVANCED COMPUTING
One is about advanced computing. Is it your goal that the
Office of Science have the world's most powerful supercomputer?
Secretary Chu. It is our goal that we not only have the
most powerful supercomputer but that it is put to the maximal
use. The ability to now simulate things that we could never
have dreamed of simulating 10 years ago and 5 years ago are
helping industry immensely. Our first hub--you call them mini
Manhattan Projects, I wanted to call them Bell Lablettes----
Senator Alexander. That would be good.
Secretary Chu. Because it was a mixture of the Manhattan
Project and the radar lab at MIT and what I saw at Bell
Laboratories.
Our very first hub was computer simulation for nuclear
because anything you do in nuclear takes a long time, very
expensive, NRC approval. For example, simulation so we can make
safer fuel rods to the Senator's point.
Senator Alexander. Well, we agree, Dr. Chu, that we ought
to have the most powerful computer if we are going to maintain
our competitive position in the world. When I first got here,
Senator Bingaman encouraged me to go to Japan and see their
simulator. At that point, Japan had the most powerful computer,
and thanks to Senator Bingaman--and I was involved--we
introduced legislation and pretty soon the United States had
taken over the lead, and we held it for a while. Now China has
the most powerful computer.
Secretary Chu. We are third.
Senator Alexander. And we are third. Japan first, China.
Secretary Chu. We are third. We have five of the top 10----
Senator Alexander. Well, the point I am getting to is there
was a reduction of $11 million for the leadership computing
facilities, and I am concerned about that. I would like to look
for other parts of this budget and fill that back up because I
am afraid that might interfere with our goal of having the
world's most powerful supercomputer for all these goals that we
share I think.
Secretary Chu. Well, we will certainly work with you and
the Congress.
You may not know. We just had a workshop to help improve
the transfer of technology of the national labs with industry.
There was one on materials and there was one on high-
performance computing. I attended both of them and gave talks
at both of them.
Senator Alexander. Good.
Secretary Chu. I outlined during my, I think, 35-minute
talk some of the incredible achievements that we have been able
to do with high-performance computing in industry to give us
technological advantage.
Senator Alexander. I am agreeing that they are very
important. I just want to make sure that we upgrade the new
leadership class of supercomputers so we can maintain that
lead.
I have one question I would like to ask and that will be it
for me.
EFFICIENT AUTOMOBILES
I had an interesting visit not long ago with the chief
executive officer of a major automobile company who produces
electric vehicles. And I said to him, well, I guess you have
told your engineers that you want a 500-mile battery. He said,
no, I have told them I want a $20,000 car because people who
drive--and I am one who does--electric cars now on the average
drive it 30 or 40 or 50 miles a day. Until we satiate that
market, it is more important to me commercially to have a
$20,000 car rather than a 500-mile battery.
What would your comment be on that?
Secretary Chu. I absolutely agree with you. It could go up
a little bit to $23,000. When you are in that range, guess
what. It is cheaper to own that car and operate it than it
would be to own a $16,000 gasoline car. That is what will
generate real excitement.
Senator Alexander. Cheaper to own it than a what?
Secretary Chu. Than an internal combustion car. If you
drive 10,000 miles and let us suppose that your internal
combustion car has reasonably good mileage, combined city and
highway of, let us say, 30 miles to a gallon, in today's prices
you are paying $1,400 a year in gasoline. If you take a Nissan
LEAF--and how much are you paying for electricity? Well, it
depends, but if it is 10 cents a kilowatt hour, you are paying
$300.
Senator Alexander. I have a LEAF and I plug it in in my
apartment at night.
And I think back--if Senator Collins will excuse me for
telling a story on her time, but we never know what the
marketplace will tell us. I remember when Federal Express first
saw a fax coming in in the 1980s, they wondered how it would
affect their business. And so Fred Smith, who is almost always
right, came up with the idea of putting a FedEx fax machine on
every corner, and you would walk down to the corner and send
your fax and get your fax. Of course, that was not the way it
worked. People got them at their homes and their offices.
And I wonder about the charging stations. I do not mean to
get you in a long discussion about it. But I just plug my LEAF
into the wall at night on 110-volt battery and that turns out
to be plenty for me. I do not have a charging station which is
recommended by most people. My guess is that it is likely that
instead of a lot of charging stations everywhere, which I have
supported in the past, that we will get the battery up to a
certain level, the people will just plug it in at home and at
work, and that will be it for 95 percent of the plug-ins.
Secretary Chu. I am with you. I think if you get a 100-150
mile range, that is going to make it work, there are people in
rural areas who need more range, of course. But once you get a
cheap battery, then the plug-in hybrid also becomes very
inexpensive.
Senator Alexander. Yes, that is true. That may be the way
the market goes.
Thank you.
Secretary Chu. Well, either way, we are very pro that.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Senator Alexander.
Senator Collins.
Senator Collins. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
And, Senator Alexander, that was a very interesting
discussion, and I think that you raise a good point.
I am looking to generate that electricity for your LEAF
through the production coming from deep water offshore wind
energy to help provide the electricity to charge your LEAF and
other electric cars.
Secretary Chu, I want to thank you again for coming to the
University of Maine and seeing the consortium of public/private
partnership that we have there that truly has the potential to
position America as the global leader in the field of clean-
energy development, as well as creating a lot of jobs in the
manufacture of composite wind turbines.
OFFSHORE WIND
And it has been a very long road, as you know, to get to
this point, but I am very pleased that the Department has made
good on its commitment to dedicate $20 million for offshore
wind demonstration for this fiscal year. I really do not want
to see other countries in the world, which are making
investments in offshore wind energy, beat the United States
because we did not make sufficient investments to spur the kind
of private investment that is going to be needed.
With the funding opportunity announcement for offshore wind
advanced technology demonstration projects, we have an
opportunity to really position our country well. And I know
that the commitment is for $160 million over the next 5 years.
To reach what I understand is the ultimate goal of the $20
million for this fiscal year, $160 million over the next 5, of
$180 million over 6 years, what portion of the fiscal year 2013
EERE budget request do you plan to devote to offshore wind
demonstration projects?
Secretary Chu. Well, Senator, my trusty staff just gave me
the numbers.
Senator Collins. You have good staff.
Secretary Chu. Yes, I do.
So offshore wind funding in the fiscal year 2013 request is
$36.2 million; fiscal year 2012 enacted, $37.2 million. It is
essentially flat.
We do want to concentrate on offshore wind. In fact, we
shifted it completely to offshore wind, as you well know,
because as the good Senator from Tennessee knows, it is a
mature technology.
Senator Collins. For onshore wind.
Secretary Chu. But he can probably get his offshore wind
from the Great Lakes. But in any case, we remain committed to
developing this technology.
Senator Collins. I do think it is very important and that
it is going to require a sustained, clear Federal investment in
order to secure the matching private investment and bring this
to fruition.
I have learned that many other countries such as the United
Kingdom, Canada, Germany, and Portugal have established test
sites for ocean energy, and they are funding the environmental
permitting. They are providing the electrical infrastructure,
including the undersea cabling and the grid interconnection for
these test sites. And then private industry comes in and has
these ready sites to build on and to test the advanced offshore
wind turbines.
Do you see the Department as developing plans that would be
similar to other countries and, in particular, to help them
develop these offshore sites that have the grid
interconnection?
Secretary Chu. I think certainly you are correct, and many
of the countries in Europe which have very limited land and the
ability to construct large wind farms on their land look to
offshore for the same reasons we look to offshore. If you can
bring the cost down, it is certainly, in terms of the impact on
people, a lot less.
We would have to look at that. There was for a while--I
think it is still alive--a consortium that was looking at,
along the Atlantic coast, having a direct DC line in part
because by constructing a DC line from--I think it is--
Virginia, someplace around that, up to the mid-Atlantic States,
that could be actually funded by just the ability to transmit
electricity and then when people can put their turbines. So we
would certainly consider looking at these partnerships to do
something like that.
Senator Collins. I very much hope you will since that
infrastructure does not exist now as you go further north, and
when you look at where the population centers are, there really
is great potential for tapping the offshore winds which are so
strong off the coast of Maine.
Madam Chairman, I would like to, since my time has expired,
submit for the record some questions that I have on modernizing
nuclear weapons, a whole different issue. I was a supporter of
the New START treaty. I was one of the Republicans who did vote
for the treaty. And my decision was influenced in part by the
administration's commitment to modernize the U.S. nuclear
weapons complex, and I am concerned about the dollar levels in
this budget not matching the commitment that I thought we
received. So that is a complicated issue and rather than trying
to get into it today, if I could, with your permission, submit
those questions for the record.
Senator Feinstein. Absolutely.
Both Senator Alexander and I were aware of what was
involved in that. The problem is our allocation. Our allocation
does not allow it because there is the security part of the
budget, and there are the other portions, energy, Army Corps of
Engineers. The security part is always expanding and it is
pushing out the other part of the budget. So it is complicated
and difficult.
But thank you.
Senator Collins. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Secretary Chu. You are welcome.
BLUE RIBBON COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS
Senator Feinstein. Before we let you off the hot seat, I
think you are aware that the fiscal year 2012 bill directs you
to develop a strategy for the management of spent nuclear fuel
6 months after publication of the BRC report. So I want to
politely, respectfully, and in awe remind you that the clock is
ticking.
I understand you have set up a task force within the agency
to develop that strategy. Could you tell us a little bit about
the progress you have made so far?
Secretary Chu. Well, we have stood it up. This is also, as
you might guess, an interagency issue as well, and there must
be lots of discussions with the other relevant parts of our
Government to move forward on this. I think both of you know
where I stand on it. We do want to move forward on this issue.
It is a solvable problem, and I would agree with Senator
Murkowski. The full quote that I remember is it takes 20 to 30
years to grow a tree, so you better plant it today.
Senator Feinstein. Right. We also provided funds to jump
start the BRC recommendations----
Secretary Chu. Right.
Senator Feinstein [continuing]. To study management models,
to begin characterizing potential geologic media for a
repository, and to develop new transportation aging and
disposal casks. Are you using that money, and if so, for what?
Secretary Chu. We have contracted Research and Development
Corporation (RAND) to look into the details of any design of
what organization might be. So we have contracted RAND.
We are in discussions with the University of Chicago to
look at what would be a good business model. There are serious
questions having to do with Government-liability issues. You
cannot have an organization not have the liability and the
Government have the liability and they go off and do something.
They have to have the liability. But ultimately it is the
Federal Government, DOE's responsibility, but you have got to
design it right. Otherwise you can get into a very perverse
situation where you have an organization doing something. Oh,
by the way, they do not have the liability. So we have done
things like that.
As I said before, we are looking at how to proceed with at
least consolidating the storage sites. As Senator Alexander
said, there are sites that are motivated to move it off their
site. There are other sites, if properly compensated, would not
mind. So that is part of the simple walk to the grocery store.
Senator Feinstein. Have you spent the 2012 money?
Secretary Chu. I cannot say how much of it we have spent,
but we have not been idle. We can give you a detail of some
things we have done.
Senator Feinstein. I think somebody behind you knows.
Secretary Chu. Pardon?
Senator Feinstein. I think somebody behind you knows.
Secretary Chu. All he said is we have the base financial
report. We will give it to you.
Senator Feinstein. Yes. I really want to know. Do you need
continuation of the funding in 2013 or do you have enough
funds?
Secretary Chu. We can supply you with all that information.
But within our jurisdiction now, we are not sitting idly
by. And the things that we hope the Congress will allow us to
act on--we are moving forward on these things because many of
the recommendations we believe are sound recommendations. The
details need to be spelled out.
Senator Feinstein. Well, could we receive in writing how
these monies have been used this past year----
Secretary Chu. Sure.
Senator Feinstein [continuing]. And what the plan is for
2013?
Secretary Chu. Yes.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much.
Senator Alexander.
Senator Alexander. It is the law of parsimony which is
succinctness or economy. The simplest answer is the best. It is
the idea of walking to the grocery store instead of going
through San Francisco and coming back. That is what Spencer
Wells--I first saw that in the work he--he is a National
Geographic explorer who has done all the work about DNA
archaeology, and he talks about the law of parsimony. I think
we should apply that to what we are doing and use the creative
talent of our Nobel Prize winning Energy Secretary to say, now,
just forget about all the hoops we have to jump through, you
know, the Congressional Budget Office.
All those things can theoretically be changed by law. So if
we did not have to think about all the problems that we have,
as we jump through this, what would be the common sense, simple
way to accelerate finding a safe, adequate place, maybe step by
step, to put used nuclear fuel? And then what steps would we
need to take as Members of Congress to get it done? And I bet
if we thought about it that way, that we might surprise
ourselves with a simpler answer.
So I am going to try to apply the law of parsimony to the
problem of used nuclear fuel.
Senator Feinstein. I agree with you on the law of
parsimony. I also know this is an election year, and this is
controversial. We want to make progress, so it is very
frustrating. I think what Senator Alexander is referring to is
just tell us what you think, disregard everything else. Tell us
what you think straight on.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
Secretary Chu. I think we had a great session in your
office, and I would love to continue that because we were
exploring our ideas in that session.
Senator Feinstein. Okay.
No other questions?
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Patty Murray
health, safety, and security
Question. Secretary Chu, you are proposing to eliminate the Illness
and Injury Surveillance Program (IISP), the only active surveillance
program across the Department of Energy (DOE) and National Nuclear
Security Administration (NNSA) that allows for an immediate evaluation
and monitoring of potential health effects of working at these nuclear
sites. This program benefits active works--both Federal and contractor
employees--who put their lives on the line on a daily basis working
with nuclear material. The IISP currently monitors the health of
approximately 79,000 current Federal and contract workers at 13 DOE/
NNSA sites across the country, but this budget proposes to shift the
funding for this important program to the National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) for unrelated health studies,
which would not actively monitor and survey workers.
Can you please explain the reasoning behind your proposal to
eliminate this program and shift work to NIOSH?
Answer. The reference to the Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS) in the Office of Health Safety and Security (HSS) fiscal
year 2013 budget request is specifically associated with the public
health studies activity. That funding supports the conduct of public
health studies and other activities performed by HHS on behalf of DOE
through NIOSH, the National Center for Environmental Health, and the
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry to provide third-party
objectivity regarding the effect of DOE operations on communities
surrounding DOE sites. The public health studies activity is not
associated with the epidemiological studies or IISP.
DOE Office of Health Safety and Security (HSS) has re-examined
every aspect of its budget to identify opportunities to reduce
spending. Programs are assessed to determine:
--overall value to the health, safety, and security posture of the
Department;
--if HSS is the proper organization for funding responsibility versus
the DOE Program offices, other staff offices, the sites, or
another department or agency; and
--overall priority among activities for which HSS has funding
responsibilities.
Upon examination of the IISP, HSS determined that the program is:
--redundant of other mandatory corporate injury and accident data
collection systems, such as the Occurrence Reporting Program
System (ORPS) and the Computerized Accident/Incident Reporting
System (CAIRS);
--better conducted and paid for by the site organization(s) since it
is voluntary; and
--of a lower priority than other programs for which HSS has sole or
primary responsibility, such as nuclear safety and cyber
security oversight.
bonneville power administration
Question. Secretary Chu, as you know, 19 out of 21 bipartisan
members from the Pacific Northwest recently sent you a letter
describing our view that the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA)
environmental redispatch policy issues should be resolved in the
region, where we have a long tradition of working together to resolve
difficult challenges. The Northwest delegation has a long history of
working together across State and party lines to support the work our
region does. Let me reiterate to you that I fully expect you to consult
me should you or your staff consider any proposal that would increase
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) jurisdiction in the
Northwest, impact Northwest ratepayers, or affect BPA's rates.
As I told you, I am concerned about suggestions that FERC-mandated
regulations are the best way to resolve this issue and other renewables
integration issues. As you know, the Northwest suffered as a result of
out-of-control energy markets during the West Coast energy crisis. And,
our region has thrived without this additional layer of Federal
regulation--for example, my understanding is that there is now more
than 4,000 MW of wind connected to BPA's system.
Do you support regional solutions to renewables integration issues?
Answer. Yes, I have supported BPA's collaborative working
relationships with its customers and stakeholders to seek regional and
legally sustainable solutions to the environmental redispatch policy
issues and other regional issues. My understanding is that BPA also is
working collaboratively with its customers and stakeholders to develop
open access transmission tariff provisions that address renewables
integration issues in a manner that recognizes the diversity of
interests involved and seeks to develop a regionally acceptable balance
of them.
Let me assure you we are very supportive of maintaining the
excellent and effective cooperation that Bonneville has developed with
regional stakeholders, including the Northwest Congressional
delegation. You and the rest of the Northwest delegation will continue
to be consulted on these issues to ensure that the concerns of your
constituents are understood and appreciated.
Question. Some potential solutions are short-term and others long-
term. Are you aware of all of the short-term solutions BPA has taken
the initiative to implement to deal with these new operational
challenges?
Answer. Yes. My staff and I are familiar with many of BPA's
activities, starting with reconvening the Wind Integration Forum
Steering Committee to analyze solutions and their costs and benefits.
My understanding is that BPA and regional stakeholders have developed a
significant number of new operating tools and business practices over
the past 24 months. These include:
--regulation sharing;
--intra-hour transmission scheduling;
--a new electronic bulletin board for intra-hour transactions;
--new scheduling protocols for wind generators;
--improved wind forecasting;
--flexible bilateral contracts; and
--a new dynamic scheduling system.
There have also been initiatives developed to explore ways to
leverage diversity in variable energy resources between balancing
authorities. These tools will be evaluated in various combinations as a
further extension of the region's bilateral markets. The region has
also looked at potentially reconditioning the Keys Pump Generating
Plant.
Question. What additional short-term actions have not been explored
in your view?
Answer. I have confidence that BPA and the many regional
stakeholders involved have scoped all viable options and that all of
the short-term actions have been or are currently being explored.
Question. Do you agree that long-term solutions need to make sense
operationally and economically?
Answer. As with all significant infrastructure, longer-term
solutions, such as new storage, additional transmission, and better
utilization of the grid, can be expensive and could affect grid
reliability and safety. Before deciding which long-term solutions are
appropriate, I agree that BPA and the region must determine how they
might affect current system operations, whether they are cost-effective
and, if so, how to fairly allocate those costs consistent with law.
Question. Mr. Secretary, I have seen statements from you and your
senior staff that there is a general need for more transmission. This
Committee supports our Nation's energy infrastructure and wants to
assure it is clean, adequate, reliable, and safe. I am concerned,
however, about views that transmission isn't being built in my part of
the West.
The Northwest has a long history of building transmission when it's
necessary and economically sound to do so. I am aware of transmission
projects that are being built or are in environmental review by various
entities, including BPA. In fact, BPA recently completed the 75-mile
McNary-John Day transmission project, and is looking at more
transmission in the region based on need.
If there was a market for more transmission, wouldn't those
additional projects already be reflected in what currently is being
studied?
Answer. I have been very appreciative that utilities in the Pacific
Northwest, including BPA, have been very active in planning, siting,
financing, and constructing new transmission lines, and we are very
pleased with BPA's completion of the McNary-John Day line under budget
and ahead of schedule. I know that BPA also pioneered the Network Open
Season model to determine the market demand and business case for
transmission system expansion, and BPA is working with regional
customers to continue to refine that model. I also want to challenge
BPA and other utilities to maximize the capability of existing
transmission infrastructure to gain efficiencies. We are committed to
overcoming any significant barriers to construction and financing of
additional transmission capacity in those cases where there is a
legitimate business need for transmission.
Question. The Northwest, including British Columbia, has a long
history of mutual cooperation to operate one of the largest clean power
systems in the United States. I'm hearing from my constituents that you
may have a differing view.
What specifically would make you conclude that there isn't
operational cooperation?
Answer. I understand that there is a long history of cooperation
among utilities within the Pacific Northwest. At the same time, the
generation landscape in the Northwest and the rest of the United States
has evolved to the point where non-utility developers play a very
significant role in the wholesale power market. I am interested in
challenging all utility and non-utility participants within a regional
grid to work together to maximize opportunities to gain efficiencies
and otherwise promote the public interest.
I believe there is significant operational cooperation between the
utilities, wind developers and advocates, policy makers, and regulators
in the Pacific Northwest, but there is always room for improvement. The
Nation can look to the Pacific Northwest as a model for such
cooperation and improvement. We want to promote parties' interests in
pursuing even greater cooperation to enhance their own systems as well
as building on the legacy of operational coordination that has been
going on for decades.
If there are efficiencies to be captured from operational
improvements in the West, what specifically do you believe they are,
and who do you see as the financial beneficiaries of any savings?
Answer. Efficiencies may be achieved by a more reliable and cost-
effective system with lower costs of managing system variability with
more efficient use of available assets. However, issues and
efficiencies will vary by region and should be worked out by an
inclusive regional committee. I believe the efficiencies will bring
broad benefits, but decisions must be informed by rigorous cost-benefit
analyses involving all relevant stakeholders in the region.
fuel cell and hydrogen program
Question. Secretary Chu, this committee expressed its support last
year for ``stable and consistent funding, now and in the future,'' for
fuel cell and hydrogen energy technologies.
Why was the budget for these programs cut by more than 40 percent
overall? Why was the budget for these programs in Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy (EERE) cut by 20 percent while EERE overall was
increased by more than 25 percent?
Answer. The budget request for hydrogen and fuel cells has been
reduced as part of rebalancing the Department's portfolio of advanced
technologies. However, hydrogen and fuel cells remain an integral part
of that portfolio. The budget request for fiscal year 2013 allows the
Department to focus on hydrogen and fuel cell activities that will
yield technology advancements in key areas--including ongoing
reductions in the cost and improvement in the durability of fuel cells,
reductions in the cost of renewably produced hydrogen, and improvements
in systems for storing hydrogen. Within EERE, funding has been reduced
for aspects of the program with less impact on research and development
(R&D) progress, such as technology validation, codes and standards, and
market transformation. Rebalancing the portfolio will allow the
Department to focus on nearer-term transportation technologies while
maintaining a robust longer-term effort in hydrogen and fuel cells to
address fuel cell vehicles in the 2015 timeframe and beyond.
Question. The Obama administration has championed regulations to
reduce pollution from power plants and from idling trucks. The Solid
State Energy Conversion Alliance (SECA), the solid oxide fuel cell
(SOFC) program in the Office of Fossil Energy, is developing and
commercializing technology to address these issues that will result in
highly efficient power from gasified coal and natural gas, and
eliminate idling emissions with auxiliary power units
Why did the budget request propose elimination of SECA, which meets
this important goal?
Answer. The Clean Coal Research Program has prioritized development
of near-term carbon capture utilization and storage (CCUS)
technologies, to be available for demonstration in the 2015 timeframe.
As a result, fiscal year 2013 funding for longer-term fuel cell
technologies has not been requested. Some SECA Core Technology R&D will
continue in 2013 using prior year funding. Industry team work on fuel
cell stack technology to enable low cost, 50 percent-plus efficiency,
99 percent carbon capture power generation systems will also continue--
at reduced scale. Work will focus on improving fuel cell stack
reliability and endurance and on preparing for the manufacturing of a
250 kilowatt (kW) SOFC system module. Demonstration and testing of this
system module, which represents a building block of future multi-
megawatt coal-based power plants, will be delayed from 2013 to 2015.
Development and demonstration of commercial-scale fuel cell systems, as
a CCUS transformational technology, can still remain on schedule for
2020, dependent upon future program funding.
As you may be aware, South Korea has made SOFCs a major part of
their clean-energy plan. Additionally, the United States recently
negotiated a free-trade agreement with South Korea.
Question. As I am sure you are aware, South Korea has made SOFCs a
major part of their clean-energy plan. We just completed a free-trade
agreement with South Korea last year.
Are you concerned that eliminating support for this technology will
drive the industry overseas?
Answer. Although support for SOFC technology has been deferred to
allow funding for higher priority CCUS technologies, both Core
Technology and Industry Programs will continue to be supported in
fiscal year 2013 using prior year funding. Industry teams have
communicated their commitment and domestic investment in R&D to make
progress towards improving fuel cell stack reliability and endurance.
office of electricity delivery and energy reliability
Question. Mr. Secretary, you have called attention to the Nation's
chronic underinvestment in R&D supporting the modernization of the
electric power grid. I am referring specifically to grid-scale energy
storage technologies and other control technologies that will enable
the integration of larger shares of renewable energy, give operators
better tools to manage the grid in real time, and make it more reliable
and efficient.
Moreover, DOE's Quadrennial Technology Review (QTR) emphasized grid
modernization and related R&D as critical to many of the strategic
areas highlighted in the Review. So, I am concerned and puzzled by the
substantial cuts to the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy
Reliability's (OE) R&D budgets in your budget request. For example, the
Smart Grid R&D budget request for fiscal year 2013 is 40 percent lower
than the fiscal year 2012 budget, and the request for energy storage
R&D is 24 percent lower than last year.
It appears that some $20 million is carved out from existing OE R&D
programs for an Electricity Systems Innovation Hub. I strongly support
the inclusion of the Innovation Hub, but I am not comfortable with the
proposal to fund it by reducing other OE R&D programs that are
strategically critical to achieving many of our national energy policy
goals, that have been--by the Department's own acknowledgement--
historically underfunded, and that are already being reduced in the
fiscal year 2013 budget request.
Could you explain your strategy for the Office of Energy Delivery,
as it is reflected in the budget request?
Answer. The fiscal year 2013 budget request of $143 million for the
OE supports the President's commitment to an ``all-of-the-above''
energy strategy that includes critical investments in innovative
technologies, tools and techniques that will enhance the capabilities
of a modern power grid. As such, strategic decisions were made to
prioritize activities providing a balanced portfolio of projects and
activities that increase electricity reliability and security
nationwide by taking a systems-level approach to grid modernization,
developing the computational capabilities to improve system planning
and operations, and emphasizing cybersecurity. Fiscal year 2013 also
reflects our ongoing efforts to continue to leverage funding throughout
the Department, with other Federal agencies and the industry to
maximize cost effectiveness.
Question. How is this request consistent with DOE's emphasis in the
QTR and elsewhere, in which grid modernization has been identified as a
key priority for DOE and the Nation?
Answer. The fiscal year 2013 request factors in grid-related R&D
investments across the Department such as storage, power electronics,
and control architectures that are being explored within Advanced
Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E) programs. Strategic priorities
and tradeoffs were made to maximize resources and results while at the
same time minimizing programmatic impacts. Investing in the Electricity
Systems Hub will allow us to focus on the seam between transmission and
distribution--a pinch point of grid modernization where power flows,
information flows, policies, and markets intersect--to tackle the
critical issues and barriers associated with integrating, coordinating,
and facilitating the numerous changes that are happening system-wide.
The Hub activities will accelerate adoption of new technologies within
a policy and regulatory framework that allows efficient utilization of
assets and capital investment, including minimizing consumer costs for
grid modernization.
Question. What steps will the Department take to ensure that any
Electricity Systems Hub funding does not come at the expense of key
ongoing OE R&D priorities, including energy storage, advanced modeling,
and smart grid analytics?
Answer. The Grid Tech Team, with DOE-wide representation, has been
established through the Office of the Undersecretary of Energy to focus
on improving communication and coordination across the Department on
grid-related R&D. This diverse group is tasked with developing an
internal strategy and identifying priorities for grid R&D. The
Electricity Systems Hub is one of many topics that are under the
purview of this group and efforts will be made to balance strategic
priorities and limited resources. The Electricity Systems Hub will
serve as a platform that can support ongoing OE R&D priorities,
including energy storage, advanced modeling, smart grid analytics,
cybersecurity, as well as the ARPA-E investments in power electronics
and control architectures.
Question. Mr. Secretary, I am likewise concerned that DOE is
proposing to fund multiple Electricity Systems Innovation Hub with a
$20 million budget, while each of DOE's previous innovation hubs has
been funded at $20-$24 million each. In the Pacific Northwest, we are
keenly aware that ``one-size-fits-all'' solutions to electric grid
issues don't work--there are simply too many key differences between
regional systems.
But at the same time, the Northwest and its institutions have a
history of pioneering technologies and grid management paradigms (such
as Phasor Measurement Unit deployment and some of the earliest real-
world experiments in demand response) that have been subsequently and
successfully exported to regions across the country and other nations
across the globe. Moreover, the stated purpose of the hub concept is to
accelerate innovations that can deliver national outcomes, such as
enhanced energy security, and to enable new markets and technologies
that will bolster U.S. leadership in global energy markets.
Please describe the steps the Department will take to ensure that
the effectiveness of any Electricity Systems Innovation Hub(s) will not
be diluted by the proposed budget number, coupled with the concept of
multiple hubs. If the Congress chooses to fund the hub(s) as proposed,
will the Department seriously consider limiting the number of hubs to a
manageable, non-dilutive number?
Answer. Ideally, the Electricity Systems Hub will be comprised of
two to three regional hubs that will communicate, coordinate, and
collaborate on a regular basis. Linking activities and comparing
results from the different regional hubs will help identify solutions
that can be applied across the Nation while simultaneously addressing
unique regional challenges. The decision to pursue one, two, or three
regional hubs will ultimately depend on the cost-share generated to
leverage the Federal investment and the quality of the applicants.
Question. Likewise, will DOE consider a mechanism that allows for
linkages or participation in multiple hubs, in order to maximize
learning, innovations, and commensurate benefits for consumers?
Answer. Regional hubs are expected to routinely communicate,
coordinate, and collaborate in order to identify innovative solutions
that are broadly applicable. The Electricity Systems Hub will produce
valuable information that will be disseminated to various stakeholders
to ensure shared learning.
Question. DOE's proposed 3-to-1 industry-to-Government cost share
for the Electricity Systems Innovation Hub sets a potentially high
hurdle and, by some accounts, will be prohibitive to the assembly of
successful public-private partnerships given the patchwork of
regulatory requirements under which electric infrastructure owner/
operators including utilities currently operate. Please explain the
Department's rationale in requiring such a high private sector cost
share: can the Department cite successful precedents?
Answer. DOE recognizes that a 3-to-1 cost share is an ambitious
target, but the ratio has been proposed to ensure stakeholder
commitment to the regional hubs. Teams are expected to apply with
representation from industry, academia, national labs, utilities,
States, and other relevant stakeholders. DOE believes there will be
sufficient interest in the Electricity Systems Hub to generate
significant cost-share which includes direct funds and contributions
in-kind. However, we understand your concern about this significant a
cost-share requirement, and DOE will evaluate this factor as it
develops the solicitation.
water power program
Question. Secretary Chu, as you well know, my State of Washington
relies on hydropower for the majority of its electricity supply. Hydro
is the main reason the Northwest as a whole has a lower air emissions
profile and enjoys some of the lowest electricity rates. Northwest
projects are at the forefront of innovation, employing new
technologies, operating regimes, and environmental enhancements--some
of which resulted from the DOE waterpower program.
You have indicated your support for the potential of hydropower as
an ``incredible opportunity'' that our ``lowest cost, clean energy
option,'' and the thousands of jobs it can create across our country.
The Water Power Program also supports R&D on emerging technologies
in the marine and hydrokinetics arena. Washington State has tremendous
potential for this technology, and if we can get this off the ground,
this work could provide the basis for a base load source of clean
energy--a consistently stated priority of yours and the President.
But despite these factors, your budget yet again proposes to cut
the program--this year by 66 percent from fiscal year 2012 levels.
Why isn't the Water Power Program more of a priority for the
Department?
Answer. A robust $59 million budget in fiscal year 2012, a nearly
70 percent increase over fiscal year 2011, has allowed the Department
to continue and complete a number of important water power technology
R&D projects. The $20 million requested in fiscal year 2013 would allow
the Department's Water Power Program to complete the majority of its
ongoing research efforts to advance water power technologies and
accelerate their market adoption. This funding level would allow DOE to
support a number of water power technologies for both conventional
hydropower and the emerging marine and hydrokinetic (MHK) energy
technologies. For hydropower specifically, DOE selected 16 new
innovative hydropower technology development projects for funding in
fiscal year 2011, and that work will continue into fiscal year 2012 and
fiscal year 2013. Additionally, DOE expects to continue its efforts to
analytically quantify the benefits that conventional and pumped-storage
hydropower provide to the electric grid, which can also support the
integration of variable renewable resources like wind and solar. For
MHK technologies, fiscal year 2013 activities will focus on developing
and demonstrating a suite of technologies that harness the energy from
wave, tidal, and current resources. Specifically, MHK research is
expected to focus on development and maintenance of advanced open water
test infrastructure for MHK devices (including at the Northwest
National Marine Renewable Energy Center) and research into the costs
and performance of innovative, early-stage MHK systems and components.
Finally, the Department anticipates completing resource assessments in
fiscal year 2012 and fiscal year 2013 to accurately characterize all
opportunities for water power development. DOE intends to use data from
ongoing techno-economic MHK assessments to establish baseline levelized
energy costs for these new devices, which DOE will use along with
resource assessments to evaluate the opportunities for further
innovative water power R&D. The identification of potential future
water power research needs for beyond fiscal year 2013 will consider
available opportunities and the progress of ongoing research efforts.
Question. You recently characterized the Department's intention to
continue to support the development of hydrokinetic renewable energy as
distinct from run-of-river hydropower and new hydro at existing dams,
which you described as ``very mature technologies.''
However, there are no currently active solicitations under the
Department's Water Power Program, for hydrokinetic or any other
technologies.
Can you clarify when the Department intends to issue new funding
opportunities for hydrokinetic technologies, and what aspects of
hydrokinetic development will be supported by these solicitations?
Answer. DOE is pursuing an aggressive research, development, and
demonstration effort to determine the technical and economic viability
of a wide range of MHK technologies. We seek to advance the technology
readiness of MHK systems through cost-shared industry research and
demonstration projects. DOE is currently supporting more than two dozen
such projects and has recently notified two applicants whom had been
selected as alternates for previous funding opportunities that they
will now receive funding. The Department is currently evaluating
options for future funding opportunities for MHK technologies and will
notify interested parties via a Notice of Intent or Funding Opportunity
Announcement when more information becomes available.
The Department also intends to complete a comprehensive techno-
economic assessment in 2013 that will assess the viability of MHK
systems and identify strategic opportunities to develop and deploy
these systems in the near term. DOE is also addressing environmental
and permitting issues in order to proactively address environmental
performance issues and lower these costs to developers. Finally, the
Department has also established three National Marine Renewable Energy
Centers that are centers of excellence for ocean energy, and these
Centers will cost-effectively support industry demonstration and
performance monitoring (technical and environmental) efforts. In fiscal
year 2012, we are investing heavily in testing infrastructure for these
Centers as directed by the Congress, and the Northwest National Marine
Renewable Energy Center recently began its first rounds of in-water
testing.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Mary L. Landrieu
strategic petroleum reserve
Question. Mr. Secretary, I see that in your budget you propose
using the $2.4 billion remaining in budget authority related to the
2011 Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) selldown to purchase 27 million
barrels of oil to replenish the reserve. I am very interested in the
management of the SPR, not only because of its great importance to
national security, but also because it is located on the gulf coast and
largely stocked with oil produced on the gulf coast. I will point out
that this purchase of 27 million barrels--which will not even refill
the reserve--is coming at a time when oil prices are relatively high.
Given that I opposed the initial sale of oil from the SPR, I am
concerned about your plans to both manage and refill it, particularly
in light of continued threats of unrest in the Middle East.
Will this remaining balance of $2.5 billion be adequate to
replenish the emergency supplies of oil we so quickly sold off last
summer, given that $2.4 billion will purchase roughly 24 million
barrels of oil, which is short of the 27 million you intend to buy and
the 31 which were actually sold out of the SPR?
Answer. The SPR will develop an oil acquisition plan to repurchase,
over a 5-year period beginning in 2013, 27 million barrels of the 31
million barrels sold using funds available in the SPR Petroleum
Account, which will provide the Nation with sufficient import
protection.
Question. With the threat of further unrest in the Middle East,
will the Department of Energy be recommending a further selldown of the
SPR, and if so will it propose a timely replenishment of the stocks
sold off?
Answer. The United States and the International Energy Agency are
monitoring the global markets and are in daily communication on supply
and distribution issues. The SPR has not been directed to sell
additional stocks and we cannot speculate about the replenishment of
supplies.
Question. Mr. Secretary, I also see that funding for both Research
and Development activities--activities like developing both new reactor
technologies and ways to extend the life of our existing fleet--are
being cut by 35.9 percent. With this funding being used to develop the
next generation of reactor technologies, including Small Modular
Reactors and the Next Generation Nuclear Plant (NGNP), and extend the
life of existing reactors, I am concerned about the effect this cut
will have on nuclear technology into the future.
Where does this reduction in funding leave our efforts to develop
new reactor technologies?
Answer. The Advanced Reactor Concepts research and development
program remains an important program for the Department. Reflecting
difficult resource allocation choices, R&D activities associated with
lead/lead-bismuth and fluoride high temperature reactors will be
significantly reduced. The energy conversion R&D, which includes
supercritical CO2 turbomachinery and related heat
exchangers, will be consolidated under the Small Modular Reactor
Advanced Concepts R&D Program in fiscal year 2013. Impacts to sodium-
cooled fast reactor R&D will be minimized as much as possible given
this concept's potential role in addressing fuel cycle issues, and in
order to sustain collaborations conducted under international programs
such as the Generation IV International Forum and various bilateral
international agreements. Fuel development efforts that support sodium-
cooled fast reactor technology also continue under the Fuel Cycle R&D
budget. The funding request for the Next Generation Nuclear Plant
Demonstration Project is sufficient to fund the research activities in
fuels and graphites, including essential irradiation and post-
irradiation examination.
Question. What effect will this have on our existing reactor fleet,
given that these funds are also used to extend the life and improve the
performance of existing reactors?
Answer. The Light Water Reactor Sustainability (LWRS) program is
extremely valuable for addressing both the safety and economic issues
that could affect how long our existing fleet of nuclear power plants
operates. Under an austere budget, we made some very difficult
prioritization decisions. To reduce costs, we are maximizing
opportunities for cost-share with industry by working very closely with
the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). DOE believes the budget
request maintains the necessary research on the most critical issues to
support the continued operation of our existing nuclear fleet.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Frank R. Lautenberg
Question. The fiscal year 2013 budget dramatically cuts funding for
the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory (PPPL) and general fusion
research. In response to these cuts, DOE's Fusion Energy Sciences
Advisory Committee (FESAC) sent a statement to the Office of Science
stating that ``real damage'' would be done to U.S. fusion research. In
addition, the committee said the proposed funding levels would not
support a viable fusion research program and that U.S. scientific
leadership would be jeopardized.
How do you respond to the concerns of the scientists on the FESAC?
Answer. The fiscal year 2013 budget proposal was developed with a
long-term vision for the U.S. fusion energy sciences program. When
viewed within the context of competing national priorities for energy
research, the fiscal year 2013 budget addresses the highest priorities
in the realm of fusion energy research.
With the fiscal year 2013 budget request, the U.S. continues to
have a strong investment in fusion research. The United States is a
partner in the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER)
Project, which is designed to be the first magnetic fusion facility to
achieve self-sustaining (``burning'') plasmas and, thereby, open a new
era in fusion energy science. The proposed budget will sustain a viable
U.S. program that will continue to make significant contributions to
resolving vital issues in fusion research and, thereby, contribute to
building the scientific foundation needed to develop a future fusion
energy source.
The fiscal year 2013 budget positions the fusion program to
maximize the scientific return on our investment in ITER; address gaps
in materials science, required for harnessing fusion energy; continue
to steward the broader plasma sciences, taking advantage of cross-
agency synergies and provide opportunities for U.S. scientists to
conduct research on a $1 billion-class of new international
superconducting facilities. Although the proposed budget will present
challenges, it will allow the U.S. to continue to have a dynamic
domestic fusion program.
Question. DOE administers the Weatherization Assistance Program
(WAP), which creates jobs and helps reduce energy costs for low-income
families. Due to reductions for the program in fiscal year 2012
appropriations, you chose to allocate funds for project year (PY) 2012
based on remaining funding from the American Recovery and Reinvestment
Act (ARRA). Unfortunately, since the Christie Administration was slow
to spend the ARRA funding, New Jersey received zero funding under the
WAP for project year 2012. Last month, I sent you a letter asking you
to reconsider DOE's decision to eliminate weatherization assistance
funding for New Jersey for project year 2012.
Have you decided whether to adjust the funding formula for project
year 2012 to ensure that New Jersey and other States will receive at
least some weatherization funding this year?
Answer. The 2012 Consolidated Appropriations Act provided $65
million to WAP for allocation of formula grants to grantees for the
2012 fiscal year--a funding level that is less than one-third of the
amount provided in the 2011 Appropriations for the WAP. The Congress
also provided the Secretary of Energy with the authority and a strong
recommendation in House Report language to use an alternate methodology
other than the formula established in regulation to distribute the
available funding--taking into consideration unspent ARRA balances and
other resources available to grantees in 2012 from the U.S. DOE.
The Secretary exercised this authority and allocated program year
2012 funds to ensure two major outcomes:
--grantees that spent their ARRA funds on time have adequate DOE
funds to maintain their operations at post Recovery Act levels;
and
--all grantees have adequate funds to operate throughout program year
2012, given the fund balances that are already allocated but
remain unspent.
The allocations were based on the following criteria:
--Use of an appropriation amount of $210 million as the base ``PY12
Target Allocation'' for establishing funding for each grantee.
This is the amount that would have been awarded to grantees
through the funding formula as established in the regulations
based on a $210 million Appropriation by Congress in 2010.
--Whether a significant portion of the ``PY12 Target Allocation'' was
available in ARRA balances for at least one-half of the program
year 2012. Program year 2012 ``Target Allocations'' were
adjusted downward for grantees with significant ARRA balances.
The DOE contacted the New Jersey Department of Community Affairs
explaining the alternate formula and DOE's determination to allocate
zero funds to the State of New Jersey, which has a total of $26.2
million in unspent WAP funds as of August 2012.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Jon Tester
fuel cells follow up
Question. You stated that you have met with members of the fuel
cell and hydrogen energy industry ``several times'' to discuss the
industry and if you are taking adequate measures to keep it from moving
overseas.
Please provide the dates of the occasions that you have met
personally with members of the fuel cell and hydrogen energy industry
to discuss these issue, and a list of attendees at those meetings.
Answer. The Secretary met with members of the fuel cell and
hydrogen energy industry on the following occasions:
September 29, 2009: Tour and meetings at Rolls-Royce Fuel Cell
Systems in North Canton, Ohio;
March 3, 2010: Meetings at United Technologies Research Center
included meetings on Fuel Cells;
April 13, 2010: Met with Jadoo Power, as part of a constituent
event with Rep. Doris Matsui;
August 22, 2011: Met with the South Carolina Hydrogen and Fuel Cell
Alliance;
January 9, 2012: Meetings on Fuel Cell Technology with
manufacturers at the Detroit Auto Show;
March 5, 2012: Visited the Fuel Cell Research Lab at Indiana
University-Purdue University, Indianapolis; and
May 10, 2012: Meetings and panel discussion with the Hydrogen and
Fuel Cell Technical Advisory Committee.
Question. In your answer to my question regarding our commitment to
this technology compared to that of Japan, Germany, and South Korea,
you spoke only about stationary fuel cells.
What are you doing to support the introduction of fuel cell
electric vehicles and hydrogen infrastructure, does industry believe it
is sufficient, and if not, are you prepared to cede this industry to
overseas competitors?
Answer. The Department includes hydrogen and fuel cells as an
integral part of its advanced transportation technologies portfolio,
maintaining the necessary pace of advancement in anticipation of fuel
cell electric vehicle (FCEV) commercialization in the 2015 timeframe
and beyond. To support the introduction of FCEVs and hydrogen
infrastructure, the Department is focusing on critical research and
development (R&D) to address the key barriers of hydrogen production
and delivery, as well as key analyses to determine technology gaps and
focus areas. For example, the Department actively monitors the efforts
and plans of Japan, Germany, and South Korea along with other
countries, through the International Partnership on Hydrogen and Fuel
Cells in the Economy, which is comprised of 17 nations and the European
Union, as they relate to deployment of FCEVs and hydrogen
infrastructure. Domestically, the Department coordinates closely with
similar FCEV and hydrogen infrastructure planning efforts and State
initiatives including in Hawaii, California, and New York. The
Department also provides critical analysis of issues related to FCEV
deployment and hydrogen infrastructure and continues to support data
collection from FCEVs and key refueling infrastructure technologies
($2.4 million for five projects announced on July 18, 2012). In
addition, the Department plans to continue analyses and workshops to
leverage synergies with natural gas infrastructure.
hydraulic fracturing
Question. Mr. Secretary, both your Advisory Board Shale Gas
Production Subcommittee and the National Petroleum Council have
released reports about Hydraulic Fracturing and domestic production of
oil and gas. These reports provides suggested steps Government,
industry, and researchers need to take to assure that we have a
balanced regulatory regime to protect development and citizens. If
there isn't public trust that this technology can be used safely, that
will inhibit future development. I believe the industry is starting to
recognize it.
With this new input on from these independent panels, what is your
agency doing to implement the recommendations?
Answer. The Department of Energy (DOE) is working with the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and United States Geological
Survey (USGS) to identify research priorities and collaborate on
research associated with development of our Nation's abundant
unconventional natural gas and oil resources. Each agency has a
different combination of experiences, research strengths, personnel,
resources and mission mandates, leading to complementary research core
competencies. The three agencies fiscal year 2013 budget request to
support this work is $45 million, with DOE requesting $12 million. In
addition, the Appalachian Shale Recommended Practices Group (ASRPG), a
consortium of 11 of the Appalachian Basin's largest natural gas and oil
producers, have announced the creation of the Recommended Standards and
Practices for Exploration and Production of Natural Gas and Oil from
Appalachian Shale. The ASRPG Recommended Standards and Practices are
consistent with the key recommendations of both the U.S. Secretary of
Energy Advisory Board's (SEAB) final report issued in November 2011,
and the National Petroleum Council's (NPC) Prudent Development report
issued in September 2011.
Question. What do you still need to do?
Answer. The administration created a new Interagency Working Group
to Support Safe and Responsible Development of Unconventional Domestic
Natural Gas Resources. This new partnership will help coordinate
current and future research and scientific studies, better positioning
the Obama administration to ensure that continued expansion of natural
gas and oil production happens safely and responsibly as part of an
all-of-the-above approach to American energy.
Question. Do you believe that States and companies are taking the
proper steps to fulfill these recommendations as well?
Answer. I do believe States and companies are addressing
environmentally prudent methods for shale gas development. Fundamental
to ensuring public safety and community health is the commitment to
excellent environmental performance and continuous improvement that
must be maintained by industry and Government. Shale gas development is
subject to multiple Federal and State regulations. The States
understand the local geology and hydrology. They are regulating
hydraulic fracturing effectively and continue to get better by working
with public and private agencies. State oil and gas commissions and
many operators are collaborating on the development of a public Web
site to report chemicals used in their hydraulic fracturing process
based on the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission and Ground Water
Protection Council chemical disclosure submission. The industry is
educating operators on industry best practices. It supports the
disclosure program created by the Ground Water Protection Council for
listing chemicals in fracturing fluids on the Web site registry called
FracFocus, which already includes data for 16,000 wells from more than
200 companies. Five States have adopted FracFocus in their rules. Also,
the State Review of Oil and Natural Gas Environmental Regulations
(STRONGER) is a nonprofit, multistakeholder organization whose purpose
is to assist States in documenting the environmental regulations
associated with the exploration, development, and production of crude
oil and natural gas. Since its initiation, the state review process has
completed the reviews of 21 State programs responsible for the
regulation of more than 90 percent of the domestic onshore production
of oil and natural gas. In addition, the industry is establishing
regionally focused councils of excellence in effective environmental,
health, and safety practices.
Question. Much of these reports, in particular the DOE Advisory
board's two 90-day reports focus on fracking being used for shale gas.
Do you believe the same suggestions apply to fracking for oil, like
in the Bakken?
Answer. Safety and environmental sustainability underpin our
Nation's energy security concerning both oil and natural gas. Some of
the results from ongoing research by the DOE, EPA, and USGS may have
application to the use of hydraulic fracturing of both oil and gas
shale formations.
Question. Your budget includes only a small increase of $2 million
for the natural gas technology R&D program.
Do you think your budget request is sufficient to address the
recommendations of the previously mentioned committees and continue the
needed research to better understand fracking?
Answer. DOE's fiscal year 2013 Natural Gas budget request for shale
gas will focus on the research recommendations received from the
Subcommittee of the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board, including the
study of methane migration, chemical interactions between fracturing
fluids and different shale rocks, induced seismicity triggered by
hydraulic fracturing and injection well disposal, development of green
fracturing techniques, and improved casing and cementing integrity.
office of inspector general report on the department of energy lab
contracting costs
Question. Mr. Secretary, the Office of Inspector General (OIG)
cited in their Special Report of Management challenges at the
Department of Energy that a $1 billion is spent annually to employ
4,000 staff to protect sensitive sites and labs around the country.
These protective services are provided by 25 different contracts that
Government Accountability Office (GAO) labeled (in a separate process),
``. . . not uniformly managed, organized, staffed, trained, or
compensated.'' Not only do questions like these raise concerns about
the security of these sites they also raise questions about the use of
Federal funds.
OIG suggested three options to help reduce costs: A master
contract, consolidating by region and/or federalizing the protective
force.
Understanding that not all these options are acceptable to DOE,
what actions are you taking to implement the recommendations of the OIG
report and reduce the contracting costs?
Answer. As the OIG report contends, there are nearly 4,000
protective force staff involved in providing security for DOE physical,
nuclear, and information security assets throughout the complex.
Approximately one-half of those work under the purview of the National
Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA). DOE/NNSA has taken the lead in
implementation of graded protection and risk-informed decisions that
will yield significant efficiencies in the use of Federal funds that
are necessary for ensuring the maintenance and security of our
indispensable national nuclear security deterrent. Similarly, DOE's
Office of Science (SC) has developed a Baseline Level of Protection,
based on national standards and rigorous peer reviews, which provides a
common starting point for SC in ensuring adequate physical controls,
development of the site-specific security posture of each of the SC
laboratories, and streamlined budget formulation and execution
processes that minimize the burden on the sites while providing
sufficient information to advocate for security program resources and
maintain the flexibility to allocate resources.
DOE/NNSA agrees with IG-858 and previous GAO reports with respect
to the lack of uniformity and consistency regarding the contracting of
protective force services at DOE/NNSA sites. The Office of Defense
Nuclear Security (DNS) recently completed a detailed analysis of the
various contracting models currently in place throughout the nuclear
security enterprise and confirmed that, while the type of contract has
no bearing on the effectiveness of security, separate prime contracts;
i.e., those that are procured separately from the management and
operating contractor, are generally more cost-effective for procuring
contractor protective force services.
Informed by that analysis, NNSA initiated the procurement of a
consolidated protective force contract for security services at the
Pantex Plant and Y-12 National Security Complex in November 2011. This
procurement is running largely in parallel with the consolidated
management and operating contract procurement at the same sites, and is
expected to yield proportionally similar cost savings and efficiencies.
With respect to the overall protective force contracting approach, DNS
is working with the NNSA Office of Acquisition and Project Management
to implement a more consistent contracting approach for future
protective force contracts throughout the nuclear security enterprise.
The pros and cons associated with regional contracts or the creation of
a ``master'' contract for all sites remain under consideration.
Important factors that must be weighed include the distinction between
nuclear and non-nuclear sites, and the need to balance consolidation
and cost-efficiency efforts with aggressive Departmental small business
goals.
There remains no evidence of cost-benefit or performance-related
enhancements associated with federalizing fixed site protective forces.
Rather than suggesting a fresh look at the situation as suggested by
the OIG report, the current budget environment affirms the Departmental
decision to minimize long-term governmental obligations by maintaining
the current fixed site contractor guard force arrangement. The
``potential benefits'' of federalization cited by the OIG report are
being successfully addressed under current contracting models through
the implementation of Enterprise-wide Mission Essential Task List
(EMETL)-based training, standardized uniforms and equipment procurement
initiatives, and renegotiation of collective bargaining agreements that
are coming due in 2012. Through the ``Implementation Plan for the 29
Recommendations of the Protective Force Career Options Study Group''
dated January 2011, DOE/NNSA has taken decisive action toward achieving
its goals of fulfilling the needs of the Government in terms of
effectively and efficiently contracting for protective force services
at its fixed nuclear security sites, while simultaneously addressing
the critically important needs of the contractor employees who perform
these essential tasks.
IG-858 recommended the engagement of external public sector
security experts to review the issue of protective force configuration
with a view toward reigning in the Department's cost structure. DOE and
NNSA have been actively engaged in a nuclear security collaboration
effort to ``harmonize'' the manner in which nuclear security operations
are implemented throughout the Government. Although the Department of
Defense and DOE/NNSA have significantly different challenges in terms
of their respective physical security work forces, the similarity of
tasks has helped to inform the manner in which NNSA approaches its
tactical, budgetary and contractual approaches toward accomplishing the
nuclear security mission. As existing contracts come up for renewal,
DOE and NNSA are invoking more consistent and cost-efficient
strategies. In addition to the ongoing Pantex/Y-12 procurement, work
has begun to initiate a review of the acquisition strategy for
protective force services at the Sandia National Laboratories, Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory and Los Alamos National Laboratory. SC
has also conducted a separate independent benchmarking study comparing
SC laboratory security to security at research institutions operated by
other Federal agencies and the private sector. The result of these
efforts was the SC Baseline Level of Protection, a streamlined budget
formulation and execution process, and program management approach to
implement technologies where possible and reduce recurring contractor
costs.
geothermal energy budget
Question. Secretary Chu, I firmly believe geothermal power has the
potential to be a significant part of our base load energy portfolio in
the future. Senator Murkowski and I have a bill which would greatly
expand our understanding of geothermal potential, expand use of
enhanced geothermal systems and allow to co-leasing of geothermal and
oil wells, helping to secure our energy future.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) estimates, ``. . . that
with a reasonable investment in R&D Enhanced Geothermal Systems could
provide 100 GW of cost-competitive generating capacity in the next 50
years.'' That is why I am excited to see a 72-percent increase in
Geothermal funding in the department's requested budget and an expanded
area of study.
Could you talk in detail about the new focus and long-term plan for
the geothermal office?
Answer. In 2011, the Program convened a Blue Ribbon Panel comprised
of renowned geothermal experts from industry, academia, and the
national laboratories. The panel recommended that the Program continue
to invest in the promising potential of Enhanced Geothermal Systems
(EGS) but to also fund critical research needed to increase exploration
success for hydrothermal resources.
Consistent with these recommendations, the Program's technology
portfolio focuses on two closely-related areas, which balance a near-
and long-term investment strategy: hydrothermal and EGS. Innovative
exploration technologies and tools support risk reduction for both
near-term hydrothermal systems and long-term EGS. Additional ongoing
investments in economic and systems analysis will help identify ways to
reduce nontechnical costs associated with these efforts.
The Program budget request for fiscal year 2013 reflects confidence
that EGS can be a viable and significant-scale baseload energy
resource: in fiscal year 2012, the first of several EGS demonstration
projects funded by DOE has clearly shown the potential to produce 5 MW
from an engineered reservoir in a deep, impermeable, and unproductive
rock body, with far greater additional potential at this site. This
partially achieves a critical program goal 8 years ahead of the
original forecast. Therefore, the program will pursue the development
of innovative technology solutions through closely managed strategic
R&D, industry-run EGS demonstration projects, and a Government-led EGS
test site(s) focused on EGS optimization and validation.
Simultaneously, the program will advance technologies needed to
reliably identify new hydrothermal resources, thus developing a lower
and more predictable risk profile for the industry to accelerate
deployment in the near and long term. Concurrently, the program has
initiated a first-ever project to build broad-scale geothermal resource
maps that can be used by industry to lower the risk of finding new
prospects.
At the same time, the Program maintains a complementary effort on
low-temperature and co-produced geothermal resources, and will commence
a field project in fiscal year 2013 to actively collect operating data
from a new coproduction site to better frame this broad area of
potential.
Question. Could you also discuss your plans for increasing
investment in this technology?
Answer. To bring more clean energy online in the near-term, the
detection and imaging of subsurface geothermal reservoirs needs to be
reliable and cost-effective. Upfront risks related to unsuccessful
exploration activities are also a major barrier to increased
development of geothermal resources in the United States. Accordingly,
a major objective of the Program is to increase the probability of
success of finding geothermal resources, and to lower the attendant
cost. Lowered risks and costs and greater certainty of outcomes has a
profound impact on the sector's ability to secure attractive financing
and backing for renewable energy projects.
Some of the most promising technologies include innovative
geophysical and geochemical exploration technologies, which will allow
the prediction or location of hidden hydrothermal resources. These
technologies will allow more reliable and predictable subsurface
temperature, physical rock properties, and permeability.
The program is particularly interested in faster and less costly
drilling technologies (spallation or laser drilling), zonal isolation
or diverter technology development, and monitoring tools. These and
other technologies are currently funded through our EGS program. The
ability to develop sizeable and scalable fracture networks through
which fluid can circulate and pick up heat is integral to EGS reservoir
sustainability.
Another example of promising work that has the potential to benefit
a variety of other sectors is geothermal mineral extraction technology.
Strategic minerals, such as lithium used in advanced car batteries, are
often dissolved in the geothermal fluids that are pumped to the surface
to produce power. This technology extracts lithium from the geothermal
brine, combined with electricity generation, before the brine is re-
injected into the subsurface.
In addition, the Program is pursuing development of a Government-
led EGS test site (Site) focused on EGS optimization and validation.
The goals of the Site include testing new technologies, and
demonstrating the ability to drill and complete the first-ever
horizontal well in a geothermal reservoir. The Site is a critical step
towards creating a commercial pathway to EGS, as it will promote
transformative and high-risk science and engineering that the private
sector is not financially or operationally equipped to undertake. This
investment is in fact similar in scope and potential impact to the
ground-breaking DOE investments in shale gas from 1978 through 1991,
which led to the shale gas revolution.
hydro budget
Question. Mr. Secretary, in March of 2010, you signed a memorandum
of understanding (MOU) with the Army Corps and the Department of
Interior to identify existing Federal dams with the potential to
sustainably install or retrofit them with hydropower. In evaluating 530
sites in this process, 191 sites were identified as having some
hydropower potential and 70 have economic potential for retrofitting or
installing to create 225 MW of power.
This MOU also agreed to continue research in traditional hydro to
create more fish-friendly and efficient turbines to update our
infrastructure (since many of these improvements only take a few years
to pay themselves back).
Yet this year's budget cuts the Water power budget by two-thirds,
shifting almost entirely towards marine and hydrokinetic power.
My question is does this budget request support your commitments
made in the 2010 MOU for developing advanced hydropower technologies?
Answer. A robust $59 million budget in fiscal year 2012, a nearly
70-percent increase over fiscal year 2011, has allowed the Department
to continue and complete a number of important water power technology
research and development projects, including a nationwide assessment of
energy opportunities at nonpowered dams across the United States. The
$20 million requested in fiscal year 2013 will allow the Department's
Water Power Program to continue and complete a number of its ongoing
projects to advance water power technologies and accelerate their
market adoption, including several efforts that have been coordinated
and conducted jointly with the Bureau of Reclamation and the Army Corps
of Engineers. These efforts include demonstrations of new, innovative
hydropower technologies including the Alden Fish-Friendly Turbine as
well as low-head small hydropower technologies at Bureau of Reclamation
facilities, the Water Use Optimization Toolset and various water
quality modeling efforts to aid in the prediction and improvement of
water quality at Federal hydropower facilities, and new and refined
assessments of opportunities to develop new hydropower facilities.
Based upon the results and evaluation of ongoing efforts, especially
the identification of new hydropower development opportunities and the
potential for hydropower and pumped storage technologies to help
integrate other sources of renewable energy into the electric grid, the
Department will determine the needs and opportunities for future water
power research beyond fiscal year 2013.
geothermal heat pumps
Question. Mr. Secretary, it's my understanding that buildings
dominate our Nation's energy use, consuming more than one-half of our
electricity and natural gas. Buildings also account for more than 40
percent of carbon emissions in the United States. With that being the
case, I think the Department of Energy ought to be doing more to focus
on the steps we can take to reduce the energy we use to heat and cool
our buildings and homes, including promoting proven technology like
geothermal heat pumps.
What steps does the Department plan on taking to address the market
barriers that prevent commercial building managers and homeowners from
investing in energy efficient technologies like geothermal heat pumps
(GHP)?
Answer. Key barriers to market penetration of energy-efficient
technologies like GHPs include high first costs, limited design and
installation infrastructure, and lack of awareness among consumers,
policymakers, and regulators about technology benefits. The Department
is supporting initiatives that seek to overcome these barriers through
technology development and demonstration, education and training, and
policy analysis. Through the Recovery Act, the Department is currently
funding 26 GHP demonstration and analysis projects and 30 Energy
Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant projects that involve GHPs.
These projects, as well as input from industry experts and
stakeholders, will inform future efforts, which will be described in a
report to the Congress that is in the final stages of preparation. The
report describes the Department's GHP research, development, and
demonstration activities and plans, as well as plans to promote the use
of GHP technologies; analyze policies that affect consumers and
manufacturers of GHPs; and collect, analyze, and disseminate publicly
available data and information about these products.
distributed wind
Question. Secretary Chu, while we're all aware of the myriad
benefits of large, industrial-scale wind projects in the United States,
there is great potential for smaller-scale ``distributed wind''
projects as well. In Montana, we have second best wind potential in the
U.S. In fact, smaller wind turbines or projects can often result in
outsized benefits to rural communities, farmers, ranchers, and other
citizens. And buy-in for smaller wind translates into social acceptance
of larger-scale projects.
It can also help to reinvigorate our Nation's manufacturing base
given that 95 percent of the small wind systems installed in the U.S.
in 2009 was manufactured domestically and much of that manufacturing
activity occurred in economically challenged rural areas.
In fiscal year 2010, the DOE spent approximately $80 million on
research, development, and demonstration (RD&D) for wind energy, but
only about 2 percent of that total, about $1.6 million was for small-
and medium-sized wind. By contrast, your agency spent roughly $250
million on solar RD&D in that same time period.
Given the significant contributions that distributed wind can make
to our rural economy and our clean-energy future; do you think that the
Department ought to place more emphasis on this important renewable
energy technology?
Answer. While the Department has recently increased its emphasis on
less mature wind technologies such as those used in offshore
applications, it should be noted that wind technology innovations and
improvements supported by the DOE Wind Program are likely to benefit a
variety of sizes and applications across the wind industry, and small-
and medium-sized wind remain priorities for the Program. The Department
plans to continue ongoing efforts to support small- and medium-sized
wind, and has also identified several market barrier removal,
deployment, and technology optimization activities as areas for
investment to accelerate the deployment of wind technologies used in
distributed applications and to increase the speed of technology
transfer from low-wind speed utility-scale technology to distributed
systems.
The recent growth and maturation of the U.S. small wind industry
has seen a large number of new products enter the market without a
framework for verifying manufacturer claims about turbine performance,
reliability, noise, and safety. Product certification is essential for
providing consumers, utilities, policy makers, and lenders with
transparent, third-party-verified small wind turbine performance,
durability and safety information, and DOE views certification as a way
to provide manufacturers with the parameters for communicating
transparent and credible information to stakeholders. To address these
concerns, DOE supported the development of a technical standard that
can now be used voluntarily to test small wind systems to performance
and safety criteria. DOE has also supported the establishment of four
small wind turbine regional test centers and the Small Wind
Certification Council, which provides accredited third-party
verification of test results in accordance with internationally adopted
technical standards for testing. DOE plans to continue to support
activities related to achieving its small wind technology goal, which
is to increase the number of small wind turbine models certified to
performance and safety standards from a 2010 baseline of 0 to 40 by
2020. The fiscal year 2012 milestone of five models certified has been
achieved, and State renewable energy programs are establishing lists of
qualified small wind turbines for incentive programs based on the
process for certification developed with support from DOE.
The Department is also currently supporting research, analysis, and
modeling to establish near-term cost of energy targets for midsize
turbine technology and utility scale technology used in distributed
applications, with the goal of being competitive with national average
retail electricity rates. Work activities related to achieving this
goal include economic analysis, next generation midsize turbine R&D,
standards development, and technology transfer support. Future
activities in support of this goal might include research to reduce the
balance of station costs, studies of distribution grid integration, and
the development and verification of site assessment tools.
Question. Will you agree to take a close look at DOE's wind power
program very soon and assess steps to increase focus and support for
distributed wind power?
Answer. The DOE Wind Program has identified several market barrier
removal, deployment, and technology optimization activities (outlined
below) as areas for investment to accelerate the deployment of wind
technologies used in distributed applications and to increase the speed
of technology transfer from low wind speed utility-scale technology to
distributed systems.
Resource Characterization.--Research and develop predictive
modeling/site assessment and resource characterization tools to
reduce project performance uncertainty. Reducing uncertainty
will improve access to lenders and help mitigate system
underperformance. Distributed wind resource characterization
work might include developing and verifying site analysis
tools, developing best practices for cost-effective distributed
wind resource characterization, and developing predictive
economic modeling tools based on these site analyses and
resource characterization tools using certified turbine models.
Grid Integration.--Research and assess distributed wind
penetration on distribution grids. Increasing interconnection
access to distribution grids operated by publicly owned
utilities will increase installed capacity of distributed wind.
Distribution grid integration work might include updating the
distributed generation toolbox, reporting on how wind
installations impact regional distribution grids, assessing the
potential to penetrate distribution grids with distributed wind
and other variable generation, and quantifying available
capacity on the distribution grid.
Market Acceleration and Deployment.--Provide tools and unbiased
information on distributed wind energy impacts, benefits, and
project development processes to help stakeholders (homeowners,
communities, utilities, and local/State governments) decide if
wind energy is right for them, and to reduce upfront time and
costs for those pursuing projects. Information provided would
vary regionally based on that region's needs and might include:
--model zoning ordinances or permitting requirements;
--guidelines for navigating the permitting process;
--lists of certified turbines and installers;
--policy comparisons tools;
--reports on turbine noise, wildlife, or grid impacts;
--interconnection guidelines and tools;
--site analysis and resource characterization tools;
--turbine siting guidelines;
--case studies; and
--predictive economic modeling tools for project assessment.
Technology Performance Optimization.--R&D to improve small and
midsize turbine performance, reliability, safety while reducing
capital costs is critical for market growth. Small wind
technology R&D activities might include a competitiveness
improvement project with funding awarded for certification
testing, noise-mitigating technology, component improvement and
sub-system optimization, system performance optimization, and
innovative manufacturing. Midsize wind technology R&D
activities might include developing standards, establishing a
certification framework, developing and testing prototypes, and
testing for certification.
Question. Often times DOE is focused on large deployments or
breakthroughs of significant scale, and less on deployment of small
scale or distributed technologies.
What are you doing to continue to focus on distributed energy and
expanding deployment at the small scale?
Answer. While the Department has recently increased its emphasis on
less mature wind technologies such as those used in offshore
applications, it should be noted that wind technology innovations and
improvements supported by the DOE Wind Program are likely to benefit a
variety of sizes and applications across the wind industry, and
distributed energy remains a priority for the Department.
The recent growth and maturation of the U.S. small wind industry
has seen a large number of new products enter the market without a
framework for verifying manufacturer claims about turbine performance,
reliability, noise, and safety. Product certification is essential for
providing consumers, utilities, policy makers, and lenders with
transparent, third-party-verified small wind turbine performance,
durability and safety information, and DOE views certification as a way
to provide manufacturers with the parameters for communicating
transparent and credible information to stakeholders. To address these
concerns, DOE supported the development of a technical standard that
can now be used voluntarily to test small wind systems to performance
and safety criteria. DOE has also supported the establishment of four
small wind turbine regional test centers and the Small Wind
Certification Council, which provides accredited third-party
verification of test results in accordance with internationally adopted
technical standards for testing. DOE plans to continue to support
activities related to achieving its small wind technology goal, which
is to increase the number of small wind turbine models certified to
performance and safety standards from a 2010 baseline of 0 to 40 by
2020. The fiscal year 2012 milestone of five models certified has been
achieved, and State renewable energy programs are establishing lists of
qualified small wind turbines for incentive programs based on the
process for certification developed with support from DOE.
The Department is also currently supporting research, analysis, and
modeling to establish near-term cost of energy targets for midsize
turbine technology and utility scale technology used in distributed
applications, with the goal of being competitive with national average
retail electricity rates. Work activities related to achieving this
goal include economic analysis, next generation midsize turbine R&D,
standards development, and technology transfer support. Future
activities in support of this goal might include research to reduce the
balance of station costs, studies of distribution grid integration, and
the development and verification of site assessment tools.
Question. Are you willing to commit to working with your sister
agencies to identify opportunities to expand opportunities for
distributed technologies?
Answer. The U.S. Department of Energy would be willing to work with
other interested agencies to identify opportunities for distributed
technologies, including Federal and State agencies.
coordination with other agencies
Question. While DOE is certainly the premier Federal agency for
energy research, development, demonstration, and deployment, many other
agencies--the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Defense, the
Environmental Protection Agency, and the Department of Interior--also
have authority and resources to support energy development and
deployment. Along those lines you've teamed up with the Department of
Agriculture to work on the development of biofuels and you have an MOU
with interior on retrofitting existing hydro assets. That's a good
first step.
How are you coordinating with these agencies to expand information
about your solicitations, projects, and commercialization
opportunities, especially in rural America where they develop and
harness this energy?
Answer. We have a number of formal and informal avenues for
coordination with other Government agencies. For example, the Advanced
Research Project Agency--Energy has partnered with the Department of
Defense to develop innovative technologies for energy storage that can
be used on ships as well as at naval installations. In addition, the
Department, through the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy, has been a co-lead with the Department of Agriculture on the
inter-agency biofuels group that sets priorities for and oversees
Federal investments biofuels development. There are many of examples of
such collaboration. In both of these cases, we are working hand-in-hand
on solicitations and commercialization opportunities, casting as broad
a net as possible to harness the best ideas in science and technology.
As we do so, companies, universities, and research institutions in
rural America, who are often closest to these challenges, will be
critical participants and we are actively working to include them in
our efforts.
Question. How are you working to assure that rural businesses and
researchers are participating and winning solicitations from DOE?
Answer. As you know, the Department of Energy, like other agencies,
does significant work in rural America by virtue of the locations of
its key facilities like National Renewable Energy Laboratory in
Colorado and the Idaho National Laboratory in Idaho. Our laboratories
become geographic centers for engineering, scientific, and economic
activity as a matter of our ongoing operations. In addition, we reach
out to local small businesses, community colleges, and other entities
to help develop technical expertise and human capital to support not
only the labs themselves, but also the new industries that the labs
create.
pump storage hydro and power marketing administration coordination
Question. The Power Marketing Administrations and Tennessee Valley
Authority (TVA) are all somewhat different animals, due to their
enabling legislation. But, presumably, they and their Senate confirmed
board members are all working together with you and the administration
to further the goals of the President--energy efficiency, renewable and
clean energy, a more reliable and smarter grid and so on.
How does all that work, because it's not obvious from out here that
it's all hanging together with any specific goals in mind?
Answer. The Power Marketing Administrations (PMAs) are separate and
distinct wholesale electric utilities within the Department of Energy.
Each PMA is headed by an administrator who is a career employee of the
Senior Executive Service. The administrator positions are not Senate
confirmed. The PMAs do not have boards of directors. Each of the PMAs
has its own organic statutes governing its Federal power marketing
mission in the regions that it serves. While the missions of the PMAs
are similar, their statutory responsibilities vary. For example, while
BPA has a statutory responsibility to promote energy efficiency in the
Pacific Northwest, the other PMAs do not have a similar statutory
responsibility. While the PMAs are operating utilities, they do
coordinate with the Department of Energy and other administration
officials on Federal energy policy as is appropriate and consistent
with their governing Federal statutes.
The Tennessee Valley Authority, a corporation owned by the U.S.
Government, provides electricity for 9 million people in parts of seven
southeastern States at prices below the national average. TVA, which
receives no taxpayer money and makes no profits, also provides flood
control, navigation, and land management for the Tennessee River system
and assists utilities and State and local governments with economic
development.
TVA's Board of Directors are appointed by the President and are
Senate confirmed. The Board guides TVA in achieving the objectives and
missions established by the TVA Act for the benefit of the people of
the Valley.
As provided by the TVA Act and the TVA Bylaws, the principal
responsibilities of the Board are to establish the broad strategies,
goals, and objectives, long-range plans and policies of TVA and to
ensure that those are achieved by the TVA staff led by the Chief
Executive Officer. Each Director takes an oath to faithfully and
impartially perform the duties of office. Directors serve part-time.
The PMAs coordinate with TVA from time to time as they do with
other electric utilities on energy policy and electric energy
regulatory matters. The Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) and TVA
also coordinate from time to time on Federal budget related matters and
other Federal administrative issues related to self-financed entities.
Like other electric utilities, the PMAs strive continuously to
operate reliable power and transmission systems. The PMAs routinely
maintain their systems and invest in capital upgrades to maintain high
reliability and efficiency. Their customer utilities understand the
value of highly reliable power system and pay the costs of those
investments either through rates or direct customer investments. These
investments also are at no cost to taxpayers. My understanding of TVA
is that their operations and maintenance approach is similar.
Question. Specifically you released a proposal last year to promote
development of Pump Storage Hydro, while at the same time one of the
PMAs was turning away companies interested in working with the Agency
to develop permitted projects in their service territory. This project
is located in a county with higher than the State average of
unemployment and a construction project of this size would bring
significant benefit to the BPA system and to the community.
Again just 2 weeks ago when you testified in front of the Senate
Energy and Natural Resources Committee you are pushing BPA to do more
pump storage hydro.
Does this mean you'll reconsider the permitted project awaiting
investment which was push aside last year by BPA in Montana?
Answer. BPA's primary statutory mission is to market and transmit
electric power to serve the load requirements of its preference
customers. BPA also is an open access transmission provider. BPA's only
authority to acquire the output of generating resources is for those
customers' load service needs. To my knowledge, the only pumped storage
project BPA has investigated to date is a rehab of the existing John
Keys III Pumping Project. BPA has not received any formal request to
partner with any private developer of pumped storage projects, and
consequently, has not turned down a pumped storage project development.
renewable energy standard
Question. Secretary Chu, there are a lot of proposals out there to
increase the market share of Renewable Energy Standard (RES). For
example, I carried and passed Montana's Renewable Portfolio Standard
(RPS) while in the State Senate. That effort brought more than $1
billion of investment to Montana to develop renewable energy. There are
economic, social, and environmental benefits to this kind of
investment, but RPS or RES isn't the only option.
Other members are promoting a Clean Energy Standard which requires
that 80 percent of domestic energy come from clean sources by 2035.
Still experts extol the benefits that tax credits and loan guarantee
programs to expanding development. A recent Congressional Budget Office
(CBO) report stated that imposing a carbon tax would be the strongest
market signal.
With all these proposals on the table, what do you believe is the
best option to help strengthen the deployment of Renewable Energy?
Answer. Many of the policy mechanisms mentioned represent viable
approaches to strengthen the deployment of renewable energy and have
been tested in various situations in the United States and around the
world. With the support of current State and Federal policies (such as
Montana's renewable portfolio standard), the President's goal of
doubling renewable electricity generation was met in January of this
year.\1\ In addition, the President has proposed a Clean Energy
Standard to meet the goal of doubling the share of clean electricity
including renewables by 2035.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Goal is relative to end of 2008. 143,425 GWh in the 12-month
period ending in January 2012 compared to 71,067 for the 12-month
period ending in December 2008. Data from Energy Information
Administration (EIA) annual energy review early release: http://
www.eia.gov/electricity/data/eia860/index.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One important factor in selecting policy mechanisms to advance the
deployment of renewable energy is to provide long-term market
certainty. Providing market certainty will also allow a strong and
viable renewable energy industry to grow in the United States, with the
potential to export into the growing global renewable energy market.
In keeping with the President's ``all of the above'' energy
strategy, a portfolio of policies may be an effective approach to
strengthen the deployment of renewable energy.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Richard J. Durbin
fermilab and high energy physics
Question. Prior to the shutdown of the historic Tevatron facility
last year, scientists at Fermi National Laboratory may have detected
the Higgs Boson particle, a long-sought-after particle that is critical
to explaining the fundamentals of our universe. The lab is now focused
on probing new scientific frontiers with the Long Baseline Neutrino
Experiment (LBNE).
Despite this landmark discovery and other promising results,
funding for Fermilab was cut $30 million (an 8-percent cut). This cut
would result in 140 lay-offs. This is in addition to the 90 layoffs
that occurred this year due to previous budget cuts. These decisions
only further encourage our best scientists and research facilities to
leave the United States for European facilities, crippling our future
in particle physics.
Given this, what is the Department of Energy (DOE) prepared to do
to ensure a robust future for U.S. leadership in high-energy physics
and discovery science research?
Answer. The Office of High Energy Physics (HEP) believes the P5
framework of three frontiers of particle physics represents a
compelling vision for U.S. particle physics. The U.S. will participate
in the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) program at CERN for the Energy
Frontier. HEP will support research on dark energy and dark matter on
the cosmic frontier and HEP plans to center a world-class Intensity
Frontier program at Fermilab. The Intensity Frontier program will
utilize the Fermilab accelerator complex to produce neutrino, muon, and
kaon beams for studies of neutrino oscillations, Charge Parity (CP)
violation, and provide rare decays that test fundamental symmetries of
nature. This program can start with the current complex at Fermi, but
the complex would need to be upgraded in the future.
LBNE has been part of the roadmap for the particle physics field
for the last 4 years.
Question. After extensive review, the National Academies of Science
and National Research Council urged the U.S. to have a domestic
underground research facility. What is the Administration's plan for
the Long Baseline Neutrino Experiment?
Answer. LBNE has been a key part of the HEP strategy since the 2008
High Energy Physics Advisory Panel report, ``US Particle Physics:
Scientific Opportunities A Strategic Plan for the Next Ten Years.''
Since 2010, when the National Science Board withdrew National Science
Foundation (NSF) support for Deep Underground Science and Engineering
Laboratory (DUSEL), HEP has been seeking a cost-effective solution to
pursuing the physics discoveries that could be produced by the LBNE.
The most recent conceptual design presented to the Office of Science in
January was deemed to take too long to build and had unsupportable peak
costs. The Office of Science has charged Fermilab to develop phased
alternatives to deliver science sooner with lower-peak costs.
Fermilab's response will be submitted to the Office of Science by July
1, 2012.
argonne and supercomputing
Question. High-performance computing is a key capability of
America's national laboratories. The Leadership Computing Facility at
Argonne National Laboratory houses one of the world's fastest
supercomputers and provides world-class computational capabilities.
This enables breakthrough scientific research in fuel efficiencies,
aerodynamics, drug discovery, nuclear energy, and climate change.
Funding for the Leadership Computing Facilities, like the one at
Argonne, are critical for continuing our path towards exascale
computers, which would be 1,000 times more powerful than today's best
computers. In the past 2 years we have seen significant investments by
China, Japan, and the European Union in their computing capabilities.
Can you describe how the DOE will invest to regain and maintain
U.S. leadership in supercomputing in the future?
Answer. To address critical missions in Science, Energy and
National Security, the Department of Energy (DOE) in its 2011 Strategic
Plan has set a goal to maintain ``leadership in computational sciences
and high-performance computing.'' The targeted outcome is to continue
to develop and deploy high-performance computing hardware and software
systems through exascale platforms. To accomplish this ambitious goal,
DOE will draw upon proven successful programmatic and technical
strategies that have established the Department as the premier leader
in innovative high-performance computing systems over the past half-
century. These strategies consist of three thrusts:
--research, development, and engineering (RD&E) to ensure timely
availability of hardware, software, and mathematical
technologies including improved cybersecurity;
--more reliable science and engineering simulations that will ensure
U.S. economic competitive leadership; and
--acquisition, deployment, and operation of the most capable
computing systems on a predictable cadence and budget.
Some of the exascale relevant research was anticipated by DOE and
has been underway for a few years. These investments include core
computer research efforts, uncertainty quantification research and the
start of three co-design centers to ensure scientific computing
challenges are informing architecture designs while critical DOE
applications also stay informed with regard to hardware developments.
These long lead-time efforts have hinted at some options and tradeoffs,
but much work remains to be done. Advanced Scientific Computing
Research (ASCR) supports several significant steps toward exascale in
fiscal year 2012, including the start of investments in critical
technologies and the installation of our first hybrid computing system
at the Oak Ridge Leadership Computing Facility and the Blue Gene Q at
Argonne National Laboratory. These computers will be critical for our
researchers working on exascale technologies. In fiscal year 2013, we
will complete upgrades to both of the Leadership Computing Facilities
to take each facility to at least 10 petaflops. Both machines will
provide new capabilities to the research community, including industry,
to deliver new science and engineering insights. Upgrading the
Leadership Computing Facilities will enable DOE to continue to lead in
a number of areas of science and engineering, including materials,
chemistry, earth science, nuclear physics, and engineering.
futuregen 2.0
Question. With coal providing 50 percent of U.S. electricity
generation and close to 80 percent of the electricity in China, it
seems to me that we can't fight climate change without cutting
greenhouse gas emissions from coal.
As you are aware, DOE selected Morgan County, Illinois, to site the
FutureGen 2.0 project. The project's goal is to develop a near-zero
emission coal-fired power plant--reducing greenhouse gas emissions and
generating tremendous economic opportunity at the same time.
How is FutureGen 2.0 progressing and how does it fit into the
larger strategy of the DOE's Office of Fossil Energy?
Answer. The FutureGen 2.0 project consists of two cooperative
agreements:
--repowering an existing electric generating unit in Meredosia,
Illinois, owned by Ameren Energy Resources (Ameren) with a
purpose-built oxy-combustion and carbon capture technologies;
and
--constructing a pipeline and injection system that would sequester
the carbon dioxide captured from the unit in a deep geologic
formation beneath Morgan County, Illinois.
The second project is managed by the FutureGen Alliance (Alliance);
the first project is currently managed by Ameren, but it has decided
not to pursue its project beyond Phase 1 (preliminary design).
Phase 1 of both cooperative agreements is almost complete. The
analyses undertaken during this phase resulted in an increased estimate
of total program cost from $1.3 to $1.65 billion. This increase is
attributable to identification of an additional $365 million in costs
for Ameren's project scope. DOE understands that Ameren's decision not
to proceed beyond Phase 1 was based in part on these cost increases.
The Alliance informed DOE that it intends to ask the Department to
transfer the Ameren cooperative agreement to the Alliance and to
authorize the Alliance to take both cooperative agreements into Phase
2. DOE's decision on these requests depends on the Alliance's ability
to demonstrate that it has the technical, managerial, financial, and
other capabilities needed to pursue all requirements of both
cooperative agreements. The Alliance's demonstration will be contained
in ``decision point applications'' that it intends to submit to DOE in
June 2012.
FutureGen 2.0 is an important part of the Office of Fossil Energy's
research and development program aimed at enabling more efficient
capture processes and ultimately bringing down the cost of carbon
capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS). The cost of CCUS and coal-
fired electricity is ultimately a function of significant market
factors, well outside the control of the Department. However, the
Department does conduct research and development on advanced clean coal
technologies that will bring costs down over time. As part of this
effort, the Department conducts large scale research and demonstration
projects, such as the FutureGen project, that allow first-of-a-kind
clean coal technologies to be utilized on a commercial scale. These
activities have been shown to reduce costs over the long run, and allow
for more efficient, cleaner, and more affordable technologies to be
used in the marketplace.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Lamar Alexander
hub questions
Question. The President's budget request includes $19.4 million for
a new Electricity Systems Hub and there are plans for 3 additional Hubs
to begin in future years. Based on budget constraints, do you still
believe it makes sense to grow the hubs to a total of 9 over the next
couple of years?
Answer. The current Hubs have helped demonstrate the value of
integrating the work of multiple researchers across various disciplines
in tackling significant grand challenge problems. The Hub approach
ensures that research efforts are coordinated at the most direct
possible level, by ensuring that the relevant researchers are directly
collaborating on a single, coherent team.
Question. Do you believe the hub concept has been successful?
Answer. The three existing Hubs have made robust progress in
creating a critical mass of multidisciplinary research in their
respective areas, enabling new approaches to challenging, high-priority
technical barriers. In accordance with language in House Report 112-331
to H.R. 2055 (the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2012), the
Department of Energy (DOE) will soon be providing a report to the
Congress detailing milestones and performance goals for the Hubs.
Question. Where will the funds come from assuming a flat-lined
budget?
Answer. The Department's mission of addressing America's energy
challenges through transformative science and technology solutions
requires careful analysis and deliberation to develop a balanced
portfolio of basic science and research, development, demonstration,
and deployment. To ensure the right funding profile, DOE uses strategic
analysis to identify and prioritize the most appropriate portfolio, as
identified in the fiscal year 2013 budget request.
Question. Do you have plans for additional Hubs beyond the 9 that
have been proposed?
Answer. In general, the Hub model is appropriate for addressing
focus areas where:
--the problem represents a significant grand challenge, where major
advances would be likely to have a material impact on energy
production or consumption and on reducing greenhouse gases; and
--a coordinated, large-scale, multidisciplinary, systems-level
approach is needed to accelerate the pace of innovation.
To determine which problems meet both these criteria and would thus be
appropriate for the focus of a Hub, DOE draws on extensive technical
and strategic discussions with industry, academia, other Federal
agencies, and the technical expertise within the National Laboratories.
Question. How did you (DOE) decide the Electricity Grid hub was the
most important hub to start next year, rather than solar, carbon
sequestration, or extreme materials?
Answer. The Congress provided funding for a Critical Materials Hub
in fiscal year 2012, and a funding opportunity announcement was
released in May 2012. The goal of the Critical Materials Hub will be to
reduce U.S. dependence on critical materials and ensure that the
deployment of domestic energy technologies is not hindered by future
materials supply shortages.
Solar and carbon capture use and storage (CCS) continue to be high
priorities at DOE, as indicated by the Sunshot Initiative and the
continued commitment to the deployment of 5-10 large scale CCS
demonstration projects by 2016.
nuclear waste questions
Question. Can you describe what the Department is doing to address
the waste problem, and how it complements the Blue Ribbon Commission's
recommendations?
Answer. If we are going to ensure that the United States remains at
the forefront of nuclear safety and security, nonproliferation, and
nuclear energy technology, we must develop an effective strategy and
workable plan for the safe and secure management and disposal of used
nuclear fuel and nuclear waste. That is why I asked General Brent
Scowcroft and Representative Lee Hamilton to draw on their decades of
public service and expertise to lead the distinguished Blue Ribbon
Commission (Commission) to conduct a comprehensive review of policies
for managing the back end of the nuclear fuel cycle.
The Commission's recommendations outline a sensible and practical
approach to solving the challenges associated with the management and
disposition of commercial and defense nuclear materials. The consensus
report they produced is a critical step toward finding a sustainable
approach to disposing used nuclear fuel and nuclear waste. The
Commission made it clear that, in its judgment, any workable and
lasting solution for the final disposition of used fuel and defense
high-level nuclear materials must secure and sustain the consent of the
communities, States, and/or tribal nation governing officials and the
public they represent.
Following the completion of the Commission's report, I asked the
Assistant Secretary of Nuclear Energy to lead a departmental review of
its recommendations and develop a strategy that builds on the
Commission's excellent work. Those efforts are well underway. A
strategy and action plan that accounts for the Commission's
recommendations will be conveyed to the Congress by the end of July of
this year.
Finally, the President's fiscal year 2013 budget calls for a $60
million program to support used nuclear fuel disposition. This program
will build on the fiscal year 2012 $60 million efforts and both are in
alignment with the near-term activities recommended by the Commission
during the interim period leading to a renewed national policy and
strategy.
Question. Are all of these activities consistent with your
authority in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act?
Answer. Yes, these activities being conducted and proposed for
nuclear fuel disposition in fiscal year 2012 and 2013 are consistent
with my authority under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act.
nuclear energy and small modular reactors questions
Question. Is $65 million of small modular reactors (SMR) licensing
support enough to continue on the 5-year schedule with two reactors, or
will the schedule slip or are you now only allowing for one reactor
design?
Answer. Yes, the Department believes that $65 million is an
adequate budget for fiscal year 2013, and does not expect the schedule
to slip for two reactor projects based on this amount. Because the
program was not authorized to start until the end of calendar year
2011, and is currently executing a complex and lengthy financial
assistance process, the Office of Nuclear Energy (NE) anticipates
having to carry over most of the fiscal year 2012 funding into fiscal
year 2013. At that point, approximately $130 million will be available
to invest in SMR certification and licensing efforts through fiscal
year 2013. NE believes that this budget can sustain the program through
fiscal year 2013, but we will need to increase the budget requests in
the outyears in order to meet the program goals of accelerating the
completion of the certification and licensing for the awarded projects.
If additional funding were to be provided in the fiscal year 2013
budget, there may be opportunities to accelerate the SMR licensing
schedules.
Question. Why isn't SMR licensing support just another subsidy, and
how you plan to leverage the financial resources from private
industries?
Answer. The partnerships with industry will be executed as
financial assistance cooperative agreements that will require our
selected awardees to contribute 50 percent of the costs involved in the
design, engineering, and licensing efforts conducted under the project
scope. The Government contribution is expected to help our industry
partners accelerate their timelines toward licensing and deployment of
these SMR reactors. This cost-shared funding arrangement ensures that
industry is fully sharing the investment risk, and the Department will
track the projects closely to ensure that our partners are executing
the work scope and meeting the milestones outlined in the cooperative
agreements. If the Department finds evidence that the partners are not
meeting their project commitments, DOE has the option to discontinue
funding under the agreement.
Question. Do you believe the United States will benefit from this
SMR partnership not only domestically but also internationally?
Answer. Yes, DOE believes that the development of a domestic SMR
industry can create an economic ripple-effect as SMR units are
certified and licensed for deployment. Large-scale, fleet level
deployment of SMRs can act as an engine for domestic economic growth.
The development of SMRs may be critical as replacements for dozens of
old coal plants that are expected to be decommissioned within the
decade. The manufacturing, on-site fabrication, and operation of these
SMRs can create thousands of mid- to long-term, high-paying jobs. All
of the domestic SMR designs can be manufactured using existing U.S.
infrastructure and capability, something that cannot be said of the
large light water reactor (LWR) designs. The U.S. currently does not
have the ability to fabricate the large reactor pressure vessel and
some steam generator forgings. Growth of a domestic SMR technology and
manufacturing capability may also create an opportunity to increase
U.S. presence in the nuclear technology export market as U.S.-designed
and built SMRs are sold overseas.
Question. Can you discuss what impact of the 50-percent cut to the
advanced reactor concepts program would be, and how that could impact
us in the international arena?
Answer. The Advanced Reactor Concepts R&D program remains an
important program for the Department. Impacts to sodium-cooled fast
reactor research and development will be minimized as much as possible
given this concept's potential role in addressing fuel cycle issues,
and in order to sustain collaborations conducted under international
programs such as the Generation IV International Forum and various
bilateral international agreements. Fuel development efforts that
support sodium-cooled fast reactor technology also continue under the
Fuel Cycle R&D budget. We consider it a priority to maintain these
advanced reactor research international relationships so that we can
leverage our efforts by sharing the research of our international
partners. Reflecting difficult resource allocation choices, R&D
activities associated with lead/lead-bismuth and fluoride high
temperature reactors will be significantly reduced. The energy
conversion R&D, which includes supercritical CO2
turbomachinery and related heat exchangers, will be consolidated under
the Small Modular Reactor Advanced Concepts R&D Program in fiscal year
2013.
office of science questions
Question. Why should we continue to fund International
Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) if we can't afford it?
Answer. We entered the ITER project to take the next step toward
development of a practical and virtually inexhaustible energy source.
We understood that no one nation had the financial, technical, and
scientific resources to build this project on its own. The only
practical solution was to negotiate and implement an international
cooperative approach for fusion, which is the ITER Project. The
conditions that convinced us to join ITER are still valid today.
The United States has worked with the other country members and
with the ITER Organization to maintain schedule and cost of the ITER
Project. DOE has faced and overcome some challenges with ITER, and we
are confident that the project has the management team in place to
carry us efficiently through construction. The key to keeping ITER
affordable is proper management that helps us achieve cost control and
keep to the schedule. DOE will continue to maintain a close watch on
the project, both at the ITER Organization and domestically, to ensure
that we get the maximum value for the taxpayer's money, while working
to achieve our goal of practical fusion energy.
Question. In a time of limited resources and the knowledge that our
budgets won't realistically grow much over the next few years, why are
you proposing such a big new project in Facility for Rare Isotope Beams
(FRIB) for something that is such a low priority?
Answer. FRIB was identified as the highest priority for new
construction in the 2007 Nuclear Science Advisory Committee Long Range
Plan and is also one of two targeted outcomes in the DOE 2011 Strategic
Plan. The DOE strategic outcome is to ``Complete construction of
nuclear physics facilities by the end of the decade at Jefferson
Laboratory and Michigan State University to test quantum
chromodynamics, the theory of nuclear forces, and produce exotic nuclei
of relevance in astrophysical processes.''
A total of $51 million has been appropriated for the design and
construction of FRIB from fiscal years 2009 through fiscal year 2012.
FRIB will provide an important new capability for nuclear physics
research in the United States. FRIB will provide intense beams of rare
isotopes, i.e., short-lived nuclei not normally found on Earth. This
will enable scientists to make discoveries about the properties of
these rare isotopes in order to better understand the physics of
nuclei, nuclear astrophysics, fundamental interactions, and
applications for the United States. FRIB will increase the number of
isotopes with known properties from about 2,000 observed over the last
century to about 5,000 and will provide world-leading research
capabilities. The fields of nuclear structure and astrophysics will be
studied at FRIB to provide the link between our understanding of the
fundamental constituents of nature and the understanding of the matter
of which we, the Earth, and stars are made. FRIB is essential for
maintaining a U.S. core competency in nuclear structure and
astrophysics, which is at the heart of the national nuclear physics
program. Expertise in these areas is also central to applied fields
such as energy, security, and medicine.
streamlining and reducing costs questions
Question. Is there a better way to centralize the way the
individual labs buy goods and services that would better leverage DOE's
buying power?
Answer. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) by memorandum
dated May 20, 2005, mandated the use of strategic sourcing on a Federal
Governmentwide basis. This directive required all Federal Government
agencies to implement the concepts of strategic sourcing; ``a
collaborative and structured process of critically analyzing an
organization's spending and using this information to make business
decisions about acquiring commodities and services more effectively and
efficiently, to the maximum extent practicable.''
In 1997, prior to issuance of the aforementioned OMB guidance, DOE
recognized a majority of its procurement dollars flowed through its
laboratory contracts and subsequently through subcontracts. To better
leverage DOE's buying power, the Department established the Integrated
Contractor Purchasing Team (ICPT), comprised of DOE management and
operating contractors collaborating to produce acquisition ordering
instruments for common products and services used across DOE. This
complex-wide, contractor-led strategic sourcing program has achieved
tens of millions of dollars in savings over the years. DOE has
continued to emphasize use of the established ICPT commodity
agreements, which contain pre-established favorable pricing, and are
available for all DOE sites to purchase commercially available
supplies. The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) also
determined it needed an enterprise-wide organization to address the
needs of its unique supply chain. Consequently, in 2006 it established
a contractor-led, strategic sourcing organization called the Supply
Chain Management Center (SCMC). The SCMC's mission is to implement the
NNSA strategic sourcing strategy of operating as an integrated nuclear
complex. The SCMC has improved efficiencies and economies across the
complex and is saving considerable amounts of money through the use of
commercial best practices, shared software solutions, and leveraging
NNSA's purchasing power.
In 2010, Deputy Secretary Poneman issued a memorandum to all Heads
of Departmental Elements, directing them to adopt a corporate approach
to purchasing that necessitates close collaboration between the DOE
programs and the contractor community. It noted the successful
implementation of NNSA's Supply Chain Management strategies and
discussed the potential benefits of expanding the initiative across the
Department. Coordinating commodity management across the complex would
help to achieve better pricing from suppliers, ensuring uniform prices
for comparable goods and services, and streamlining and reducing the
total cost of acquisition. The structured process of analyzing spending
patterns across the entire department and utilizing this information to
acquire commodities and services more efficiently could ultimately
result in even greater cost savings.
In 2012, the Office of Environmental Management (EM) determined it
would be advantageous to utilize the SCMC to integrate its supply chain
to achieve similar results. Although early in the implementation
process, success is already being realized at EM sites. EM also avoided
duplication of costs by utilizing the existing SCMC capabilities and
infrastructure rather than developing and deploying a separate
comparable program.
Question. You have had success using the Supply Chain Management
Center for NNSA, why can't this model be applied to all the national
labs?
Answer. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) memorandum dated July
29, 2009, mandated that Federal agencies improve Government acquisition
by developing more strategic acquisition approaches to leverage buying
power and achieve best value for the taxpayer. Specifically, it
directed agencies to; ``increase their participation in government-wide
strategic acquisition initiatives, including strategic sourcing
initiatives that reduce costs for all agencies by leveraging the
Government's buying power and, where appropriate, expand their use of
enterprise-wide strategic acquisition initiatives that offer
significant savings opportunities from both business process
improvements and access to lower product and service costs.''
DOE might improve upon its success by applying the SCMC model to
the remaining national labs, but it is not known to what extent it is
feasible to do so. As discussed in the response to question 28-2, EM
has determined it would be advantageous to utilize the SCMC to
integrate its supply chain in an attempt to achieve similar results.
Although early in the implementation process, success is already being
realized at EM sites. The Office of Science (SC) has made a
determination that its labs already have a sufficient Strategic
Sourcing Program in place and it would not be cost effective to
implement the SCMC model at its sites. In a study completed by the
Office of Science, it determined that; ``given the evolved state of
supply chain activities at many SC labs, combined with available
commercial resources, a parallel structure tuned to the differing SC
mission is a better alternative than wholesale participation in SCMC.''
The report concludes that through the strategic efforts of its labs,
``SC successfully generates equal or better savings on commodities, as
compared to the SCMC eStore.'' It also concludes that the ``SC labs
obtain competitive and negotiated cost savings on par with the results
of the SCMC eSourcing tools,'' although they concede ``they may benefit
from selected use of a reverse auction tool.'' Essentially, SC has
determined that by utilizing the existing Integrated Contractor
Purchasing Team (ICPT) commodity agreements and the labs' own internal
site specific sourcing capabilities, it is as effective as the SCMC at
leveraging the SC buying power and ultimately generating sufficient
cost savings.
Coordinating commodity management across the complex would help to
achieve better pricing from suppliers, ensuring uniform prices for
comparable goods and services, and streamlining and reducing the total
cost of acquisition. The current process includes cross-representation
between the ICPT and the SCMC to ensure an enterprise look at spend
data. The structured process of analyzing spending patterns across the
entire department and utilizing this information to acquire commodities
and services more efficiently could ultimately result in even greater
cost savings.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Thad Cochran
Question. The Department is targeting a significant amount for
investment into high-risk, high-reward renewable energy alternatives,
perhaps at the expense of research at the national labs and in
partnership with institutions of higher education. In the biofuels
arena, many of these technologies require significant developments and
investment in feedstock supply infrastructure. Mississippi, for
example, has a surplus of southern yellow pine that remains readily
available and proven commercial viability.
Might it be more prudent to invest in alternatives that have the
necessary components for economic viability in the near-term while
using the research sector and National Lab system to further refine and
advance technologies until they are much closer to commercialization?
Answer. The Department of Energy invests in research, development,
and deployment across a wide variety of technologies at many stages of
development. The Office of Science is the lead Federal entity
supporting fundamental scientific research for energy and the Nation's
largest supporter of basic research in the physical sciences. Advanced
Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E) focuses exclusively on high-
risk, high-payoff concepts, filling a former gap in the Department's
portfolio. For applied energy technologies, the Office of Fossil
Energy, Office of Nuclear Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, and the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy
Reliability carry out targeted, use-inspired research and development,
as well as a variety of deployment projects for energy sources that
have strong potential for economic viability in the near-term. In each
case, the blend of activities is selected through careful program
management and regularly re-evaluated for effectiveness. These programs
also work with a variety of university, National Lab, and private
company partners based on the maturity and characteristics of the
technology or system.
Biomass resources are available in every county in the United
States, making them one of the most universal opportunities. However,
as with the yellow pine in Mississippi, many specific geographic and
technical issues need to be explored for different location. The Office
of Biomass Program works on feedstock logistics issues in partnership
with local universities and companies. Some example projects are
described in this fact sheet: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/biomass/pdfs/
feedstocks_four_pager.pdf.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Susan Collins
Question. Secretary Chu, my support for New Strategic Arms
Reduction Treaty (New START) was influenced in part by the
administration's commitment to modernize the U.S. nuclear weapons
complex. During Senate consideration of the treaty in November 2010,
the President announced his commitment to increase funding for nuclear
modernization activities by $4.1 billion during the next 5 years.
However, the budget request for fiscal year 2013 for Weapons
Activities is $372 million less than was projected in the President's
Section 1251 Plan as delivered in November 2010. If we fund Nuclear
Weapons Activities at the amounts proposed in the President's budget
request for the next 5 years, the total investment to the nuclear
complex will be $4.3 billion less than the President committed to
Senators during the debate on New START. This is where we were before
New START.
As you can imagine, this change of course in the investment in the
safety, security, and reliability of our nuclear stockpile raises
doubts and concerns about the administration's commitments.
Secretary Chu, how would you respond to the concern many of us have
on this issue?
Answer. The administration, including the Department of Energy
(DOE)/National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) leadership,
remains committed to programs and capabilities outlined in the 1251
report and fiscal year 2012 Stockpile Stewardship and Management Plan.
If approved by the Congress, the President's budget for fiscal year
2013 will be the third consecutive increase in Weapons Activities,
resulting in an 18.6 percent increase for Weapons Activities since the
fiscal year 2010 budget. While this is less than projected in last
year's budget submission and the 1251 report, the request reflects a
new fiscal climate in Washington, embraced by both the Congress and the
administration.
Last year, the Congress passed the Budget Control Act (BCA), which
limits discretionary spending for the next decade, and caps national
security spending in fiscal year 2012 and 2013. In fiscal year 2012,
the Congress also reduced NNSA's request for Weapons Activities by $416
million below the President's request, or 5.4 percent.
NNSA must adjust to this new reality. But the agency and the
administration remain committed to necessary investments in nuclear
capabilities and the nuclear complex.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Lisa Murkowski
Question. As you are aware, the authorization in Public Law 106-392
to use power revenues to fund the Upper Colorado Recovery
Implementation Plan expired at the end of fiscal year 2011. Currently,
the Congress is working on legislation to address the reauthorization
of this Program. However, the administration's fiscal year 2013 budget
addresses this funding, saying ``In the absence of legislation to
extend this specific authority, Reclamation may rely on existing
authority to continue the use of Center for Revolutionary Solar
Photoconversion (CRSP) hydropower revenues or use appropriated funds to
ensure full base funding.''
Is it the intent of the administration to continue to use power
revenues without an authorization?
Answer. This question should be redirected to the Department of the
Interior for a response. The referenced administration language comes
from the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation's fiscal year 2013 budget
submission and they would be the most appropriate agency to address
questions related to that request.
Question. If so, please describe what ``existing authority'' is
being referred to in your budget request.
Answer. This question should be redirected to the Department of the
Interior for a response. The referenced administration language comes
from the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation's fiscal year 2013 budget
submission and they would be the most appropriate agency to address
questions related to that request.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.
The hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:26 p.m., Wednesday, March 14, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
the Chair.]
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013
----------
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 21, 2012
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 2:32 p.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Dianne Feinstein (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senators Feinstein and Alexander.
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
National Nuclear Security Administration
STATEMENT OF THOMAS P. D'AGOSTINO, ADMINISTRATOR
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR DIANNE FEINSTEIN
Senator Feinstein. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen,
and welcome to the Energy and Water Subcommittee's hearing on
the National Nuclear Security Administration's (NNSA) fiscal
year 2013 budget request.
NNSA has requested $11.536 billion for fiscal year 2013.
Now, that's an increase of $536 million, or 5 percent from
fiscal year 2012 levels.
If the budget request were enacted, NNSA would see an
increase of $1.7 billion, or 17 percent in just 3 years. This
increase is particularly noteworthy because the rest of the
Department of Energy (DOE) would be down $1.5 billion, or 9
percent, compared to fiscal year 2010, and NNSA is making up a
larger share of total spending. It's 42 percent of total
spending for this portfolio in 2013 compared to 36 percent in
fiscal year 2010.
Regarding nuclear weapons activities, I believe the fiscal
year 2013 budget request provides more than sufficient funding
to modernize the nuclear weapons stockpile. Some of my Senate
and House colleagues have raised concerns that the budget
request falls short and more funding is needed. I do not agree.
However, I would like to highlight management issues that
raise serious concerns about NNSA's ability to contain costs
and effectively spend taxpayer dollars at the request level,
let alone at higher levels.
First, NNSA's projects are over-budget. The most recent
examples of significant cost increases and schedule slips
include the cost of a new uranium facility at Y-12 in
Tennessee, known as the Uranium Processing Facility (UPF). This
has grown from $600 million to $6 billion. It is 10 times more
expensive than originally projected.
The B61 life extension program is expected to be $1 billion
to $2 billion more than originally projected, and 2 years
behind schedule.
The cost of a new plutonium facility at Los Alamos, which
has now been delayed, grew from $660 million to $5 billion, six
times more expensive than originally projected, and is facing a
7-year delay.
Finally, the cost of a new facility to downblend pit
plutonium into commercial nuclear fuel at Savannah River in
South Carolina grew from $1.4 billion to $5 billion, four times
more expensive than originally projected, and 14 years behind
schedule. And the list goes on.
It is clear, to me at least, that NNSA does not have good
cost-estimating practices, making it impossible to determine
the actual cost of a project, and whether the benefit outweighs
the costs. The solution for these cost increases cannot be
solely providing more and more funding.
Second, when NNSA completes a project, it reduces the scope
of its work and delivers less than promised. For example, NNSA
claimed when it completed life-extension activities for the
W87, and a major component of the B61 bomb, on time and on
budget, but only because it refurbished hundreds of weapons
less than originally planned.
Even more worrying is that as costs go up, NNSA is reducing
the capabilities of new facilities, and not properly
communicating the changes to the Congress.
A Government Accountability Office (GAO) report that will
be issued on Monday, which I requested, found that the cost of
building a new plutonium facility as Los Alamos would cost six
times more than projected. However, NNSA would have eliminated
certain critical capabilities that were part of the original
project scope to avoid even more cost increases.
For example, the facility would not have been able to
accommodate other plutonium-related missions for homeland
security and nuclear nonproliferation. The result may have been
requests for even more funding at a later date to build more
facilities, to house capabilities that should have been
included in the plutonium facility.
Third, NNSA has failed to assess alternatives before
embarking on multi-billion dollar projects. I know this is
harsh, but if you can prove what's being said is not correct, I
would like to hear it.
NNSA has just terminated or delayed two major construction
projects after spending $1.5 billion only to conclude that it
could use existing facilities to meet mission requirements.
Those funds could have been better spent on other nuclear
weapons and nonproliferation activities, and it raises
questions about the return on the taxpayers' investment.
At a time of fiscal constraint, NNSA must be more cost-
conscious and do a better job developing realistic and credible
cost estimates for major projects, or else cost overruns and
schedule delays will undermine the nuclear modernization agenda
and nonproliferation goals.
While the nuclear weapons program receives a significant
budget increase, I am concerned about potential funding
shortfalls for nonproliferation activities, which address the
highest risk to the United States, nuclear terrorism.
Just yesterday, NNSA announced that it removed all weapons
useable nuclear material from Mexico, the seventh country in
only 3 years to achieve that milestone. This is an example of
why we need to maintain momentum in removing dangerous
materials.
I'm concerned about unanticipated delays in implementing
nonproliferation activities that detect nuclear smuggling and
secure vulnerable nuclear materials. Efforts to install
detection equipment at strategic international borders and
shipping ports to prevent nuclear and radiological smuggling
have had their budgets cut by $171 million. The plan up to a
few months ago was to accelerate efforts to deploy detection
equipment at 650 sites in 30 countries and 100 international
seaports by the end of 2018. NNSA has now decided to take a
strategic pause and delay activities to deploy this equipment.
NNSA must explain this change of implementation, especially
when nuclear trafficking remains a serious concern.
According to the International Atomic Energy Agency, there
were 147 incidents of nuclear smuggling in 2011. Four incidents
involved significant quantities of highly enriched uranium, one
of the main ingredients for a nuclear weapon. One of these
incidents was related to an attempted sale of this material.
I'm equally concerned about delays in converting or
shutting down reactors around the world that use highly
enriched uranium. Up to a few months ago, the original plan was
to accelerate these conversions and shut down or convert 200
research reactors by 2022. The goal has now been delayed by 3
years to 2025.
This delay is troubling because these research reactors are
not well protected. The only way to reduce the risk of nuclear
threat at these facilities to zero is to make sure there is no
usable weapons material left there to steal. This requires
shutting down or converting these reactors as quickly as
possible so that we can remove the material permanently.
Finally, I am worried that delays in implementing these
nonproliferation programs will lead to further delays as
budgets are more restrained. While modernizing the nuclear
weapons stockpile is important, it cannot come at the expense
of nonproliferation activities.
Joining us today to explore these important national
security issues is Tom D'Agostino, the administrator of the
NNSA. Before calling on Mr. D'Agostino, I would like to
recognize my wonderful friend and colleague with whom, over
many years, it's been such a great pleasure to work, Senator
Alexander, for any remarks he would care to make.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR LAMAR ALEXANDER
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Madam Chairman, Mr.
D'Agostino. I want to thank the Chairman. It's a joy to work
with her. We actually work on getting results, and we work
together, and we explore our differences of opinion. I have a
good friend who said we had a good 35-year partnership, and he
said it was due to the fact that we had many differences of
opinion, but never a disagreement. So that's not a bad way to
work.
I want to pick up on what Senator Feinstein said about cost
overruns in big projects. And, Mr. Administrator, you and I
have talked about this before. When you've been a Governor or
maybe even a mayor, you have stories. And one of mine is that
when I was running for Governor, we were about to have a
World's Fair in Knoxville, and the Chamber of Commerce
president was deeply concerned that the interstate road
construction wouldn't get done in time for the World's Fair,
and he wanted it to be my priority, if I were elected. I said,
``Well, how would you do it if you were me?'' And he said,
``Well, I would find the very best person you could to put in
charge of it, I would agree upon a plan, and then I'd meet with
him once a month, and I'd ask him whether it was on time and on
budget.''
So after I was elected, I went back to the Chamber of
Commerce head, and I invited him, and he agreed to be the head
of the highway department. And he developed a plan, and we met
once a month, and it got done.
And that sounds awfully simple, but it's the kind of
accountability that, Mr. Administrator, you're accustomed to as
a Navy man. I mean that's why our nuclear submarines have
really never had a death in terms of the operation of the
reactors there since the 1950s. And I'm sure it's because
Admiral Rickover said the captain, the commander, has the full
responsibility for this. And everybody knows that their career
in the Navy depends upon the safe operation of the reactor and
the proper operation of the reactor.
So Senator Feinstein went through several of these huge
projects that we have, and no one doubts the complexity and
difficulty of them, and they're very expensive, but she's
right. I mean, we think about the uranium project at Y-12 in
Oak Ridge, it seemed like every time I asked about it, it went
up another $500 million in cost, literally.
And so, Madam Chairman, I'm thinking just for myself, and
maybe this is something that you and I would want to do
together, or maybe not, but the UPF under the Administration's
proposals has now been moved front and center. And there's a
proposal to make phase one of it, which will probably cost in
the neighborhood of $5 billion, the front-and-center project.
And it's supposed to be done by 2019, and we're supposed to
know by the end of the year. I think 90 percent of the design
should be done by then, and at that point, we should be able to
fix a cost.
And it would seem to me that maybe one way to deal with
this is, by the end of the year, fix the cost, if we agree with
the phase one proposal, and if it's properly funded, and agree
with the administrator on a timeline and a cost, and then I,
for one, would like to meet with him, maybe once a quarter, for
about an hour just for the purpose of asking the question,
``Are you on time, and are you under-budget?''
Senator Feinstein. That's a good idea.
Senator Alexander. And just do that all the way through.
And maybe that would be true with some of the other big
projects, and see by focusing attention on them, we can help do
that, because a United States Senator cannot, and I don't think
should, try to manage anything of that complexity. But our
responsibility in oversight is to try to protect the taxpayer
dollars, and we have so many urgent needs within just this
budget that if we can save money, we've got a place to put it
or to reduce the debt, which we have in our country today.
For example, I'm concerned, the Senator mentioned the
funding for nuclear modernization. It is true; we're $363
million above last year, a lot of money, based upon the
President's recommendation. But we're $372 million below where
we, just a couple of years ago, said we should be and where the
Department of Defense (DOD) says we should be.
So I want to explore that in my question time as well. I'll
wait for my question time to go into these issues. But my major
concerns are, number one, these big projects and making sure
that we have an agreed-upon cost, and agreed-upon timeline, and
an accountability for whose job it is to see to it that it's
done.
I want to know, if we're not going to go forward with the
facility in New Mexico right now, who's going to do the work
that needs to be done on plutonium, and how much is it going to
cost?
I want to make sure that on the uranium facility at Oak
Ridge, that as you go through a competition for management--and
that's your prerogative to do that; it's a part of keeping
everybody honest and making the taxpayer secure--but I want to
make sure that all of the effort that surrounds a competition
of such a major effort does not interfere with whatever we
agree upon should be the timeline and the cost of what may be
a--I don't want to say a number, because I hope it's lower than
this--a $5 billion or so phase one of the UPF.
So those are important issues. I thank you for your
service. And I look forward to your testimony and to have a
chance to follow up with questions.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Senator Alexander.
Mr. D'Agostino, you're on.
SUMMARY STATEMENT OF THOMAS P. D'AGOSTINO
Mr. D'Agostino. Chairman Feinstein and Ranking Member
Alexander, good afternoon and thank you for having me here
today to discuss the President's fiscal year 2013 budget
request. Your ongoing support for the men and women of the NNSA
and the work they do, and your bipartisan leadership on some of
the most challenging national security issues of our time, has
kept American people safe, helped protect our allies, and
enhanced global security.
Last month, President Obama released his budget for fiscal
year 2013. Due in part to constraints established by the Budget
Control Act, this is a time of fiscal austerity. We recognize
that. I want to assure you that the NNSA is being thoughtful,
pragmatic, and efficient on how we achieve the President's
nuclear security objectives and shape the future of nuclear
security.
We have continuously improved the way we operate, and we
are committed to doing our part in this constrained budget
environment.
In April 2009 in Prague the President shared his vision and
the united approach for our shared nuclear security goals. The
request for NNSA is $11.5 billion, which is an increase of $536
million over the fiscal year 2012 appropriation.
This request reaffirms our commitment to building a 21st
century nuclear security enterprise through innovative
approaches to some of our greatest security challenges with key
investments in our infrastructure.
We're continuing our critical work to maintain the
stockpile and ensuring that as long as nuclear weapons exist,
they remain safe, secure, and effective. And this budget
request provides $7.58 billion for our weapons activities
account to implement the President's strategy in coordination
with our partners at the DOD.
The President continues to support our life extension
programs, including funding for the B61 activities. He also
requested increased funding for out stockpile systems for the
W78 and 88 life-extension study, which I discussed with you
last year.
Our request for investment in science, technology, and
engineering that supports NNSA's mission will ensure that the
national security laboratories continue to lead the world in
advanced scientific capabilities. For over a decade, we've been
building the tools and capabilities we need to take care of the
stockpile. And in fact, not just take care of the stockpile,
but support the whole range of nuclear security work.
We're now entering into a time when NNSA will fully utilize
the analytical tools and capabilities towards the mission of
maintaining a safe, secure, and effective stockpile, and
perform the necessary life-extension work. These capabilities
provide a critical base for our nuclear nonproliferation and
counterterrorism work, allowing us to apply our investments to
the full scope of our mission.
The President's budget also reflects his commitment to
completing key dismantlements with $51.3 million requested in
2013 to continue to reduce the number of legacy of nuclear
weapons retired from stockpile.
We've previously committed to completing the dismantlement
of all warheads retired as of fiscal year 2009 by completing
this work by fiscal year 2022.
Last year, NNSA completed the dismantlement of the last B53
nuclear bomb, one of the largest ever built, ahead of schedule
and under budget. We also eliminated the last components of the
W70 warhead, which was originally in the U.S. Army arsenal.
To support our stockpile and provide us with world-class
capabilities, we need to modernize our cold war-era facilities
and maintain the Nation's expertise in uranium processing and
plutonium research.
This budget includes $2.24 billion to maintain our
infrastructure and execute our construction projects.
As you know, our deterrent is only one part of the NNSA's
mission. 2013 will see us continue to advance the President's
4-year goal to secure the most vulnerable nuclear material
around the world. And the budget request provides $2.46 billion
we need to continue critical nuclear nonproliferation efforts.
Our continued focus on innovative and ambitious
nonproliferation and nuclear security is vital. The threat is
not gone, and the consequences of nuclear terrorism and state
proliferation would be devastating.
Detonation of a nuclear device anywhere in the world would
lead to overwhelming economic, political, and psychological
consequences. We must remain committed to reducing the risk of
terrorism and state-sponsored or state-based proliferation.
Anne Harrington and I will be leaving for Seoul, South
Korea, very soon, where the President and more than 50 world
leaders will renew their commitment to nuclear security at the
2012 Nuclear Security Summit.
We know there's no silver-bullet solution, which is why
we'll continue to implement a multilayered strategy to
strengthen the security of nuclear material around the world by
removing or eliminating it where we can; consolidating and
securing the material, if elimination is not an option;
reducing the civilian uses of highly enriched uranium,
particularly for research in medical isotope production where
low-enriched uranium options exist or can be developed; and
maintaining our commitment to detecting and deterring nuclear
smuggling.
NNSA has also helped American sailors reach destinations
across the globe safely and reliably for decades through our
Naval Reactors program. The $1.1 billion in the 2013 request
will support the effort to complete the Ohio-class replacement
submarine, and to modernize key elements of our infrastructure.
Support for the President's request is key in our ability
to support the nuclear Navy. This budget request also gives us
the resources we need to maintain our one-of-a-kind emergency
response capabilities, which allow us to respond to a nuclear
or radiological event anywhere in the world and anticipate the
future of nuclear counterterrorism and counterproliferation.
I told you a lot about our plans and budgets, and I'd like
you to know that we are committed to being responsible stewards
of our taxpayer dollars. We've taken steps to ensure that we're
building a capabilities-based infrastructure. We view this
constrained budget environment as an additional incentive to
ask ourselves how can we rethink the way we're operating, how
can we further innovate and improve our business processes?
We're adjusting our plutonium strategy by deferring the
construction of the chemistry and metallurgy research
replacement facility, the nuclear portion, and focusing instead
on how we can meet our plutonium needs on an interim basis by
using the capabilities and expertise found at existing
facilities.
Deferring this project will have an estimated cost
avoidance of approximately $1.8 billion over the next 5 years,
which will help offset the costs of other priorities, such as
weapon life-extension programs and the nuclear security work
that we have to do around the world.
We're not resting on old ideas to solve tomorrow's
problems. We're shaping the future in a fiscally responsible
way. Budget uncertainty adds costs and complexity on how we
achieve our goals. You've been very supportive of our efforts
in the past, and I ask again for your help in providing the
stability we need to do our jobs effectively and efficiently.
I'm proud of the work that we do everywhere, that the men
and women of the NNSA have done around the world. And we're
defining ourselves, and we're continuing to push ourselves into
an integrated and interdependent enterprise, one that's not
based on geography, but one that's based on capabilities that
need to be maintained.
We're implementing new business processes by looking at
International Standards Organization (ISO) 9001 standards, and
looking to the future via a detailed workforce analysis to make
sure we have the right people we need in the right jobs,
particularly in the project management area, which is so
important.
And finally, we've created an acquisition and project
management organization to help institutionalize our commitment
to improving the way we do business, to integrate project
management and the acquisition experts, because those two
fields overlap with each other and have a long--and will be a
great determiner on how successful we are in pulling our
projects together.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Finally, in my role as Under Secretary of Energy for
Nuclear Security, I've made better coordination of the
Department's environmental management programs in the NNSA and
the Office of Legacy Management as one of my priorities.
We have great opportunities in this area. And I look
forward to any question in this particular area.
Thank you again for having me today, and I'm happy to
answer any questions that you may have.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Thomas P. D'Agostino
introduction
Chairman Feinstein, Ranking Member Alexander, and members of the
subcommittee: good afternoon and thank you for having me here to
discuss the President's fiscal year 2013 budget request. Your ongoing
support for the men and women of National Nuclear Security
Administration (NNSA) and the work they do, and your bipartisan
leadership on some of the most challenging national security issues of
our time, has helped keep the American people safe, helped protect our
allies, and enhanced global security.
Earlier this month, President Obama released his budget for fiscal
year 2013. As you know, due in part to the constraints established by
the Budget Control Act, this is a time of fiscal austerity. I want to
assure you that NNSA is being thoughtful, pragmatic, and efficient in
how we achieve the President's nuclear security objectives and shape
the future of nuclear security. We have continuously improved the way
we operate, and we are committed to doing our part in this constrained
budget environment.
achieving the president's nuclear security objectives, shaping the
future
In April 2009 in Prague, President Obama shared his vision for a
world without nuclear weapons, free from the threat of nuclear
terrorism, and united in our approach toward shared nuclear security
goals. The President's fiscal year 2013 request for NNSA is $11.5
billion, an increase of $536 million, or 4.9 percent, more than the
fiscal year 2012 appropriation. The request reaffirms the national
commitment to his vision, applying world-class science that addresses
our Nation's greatest nuclear security challenges and building NNSA's
21st century nuclear security enterprise through key investments in our
people and infrastructure, including the revitalization of our existing
facilities.
We are doing this in a number of key ways. We are continuing our
critical work to maintain the Nation's nuclear stockpile, and ensuring
that, as long as nuclear weapons exist, the stockpile is safe, secure,
and effective. The fiscal year 2013 budget provides $7.58 billion for
our weapons activities account, an increase of 5 percent more than
fiscal year 2012, to implement the President's strategy in coordination
with our partners at the Department of Defense (DOD).
The President continues to support our life extension programs
(LEPs) including funding for B61-12 activities in response to the
Nuclear Weapons Council's (NWC) anticipated approval and entry into
Phase 6.3 Development Engineering. He has also requested increased
funding for our stockpile systems to support the W78 and W88 life-
extension study, which I discussed with you last year.
The President's budget also reflects his commitment to completing
key dismantlements, with $51.3 million requested in fiscal year 2013 to
continue reducing the number of legacy nuclear weapons retired from the
stockpile. NNSA has previously committed to completing the
dismantlement of all warheads retired as of fiscal year 2009 by fiscal
year 2022, and we continue to be on a path to do that. In fact, in
fiscal year 2011, NNSA completed the dismantlement of the last B53
nuclear bomb, one of the largest ever built, ahead of schedule and
under budget. We also eliminated the last components of the W70 warhead
which was originally in the U.S. Army's arsenal.
Our request for investments in the science, technology, and
engineering that support NNSA's missions will ensure that our national
security laboratories continue to lead the world in advanced scientific
capabilities:
--$150.6 million is requested for our engineering campaign, which
reflects the need for validation-related testing and surety
options required for current and future refurbishments;
--$350.1 million is requested for our science campaign, expanding and
refining our experiments and capabilities, which coupled to
simulation, improves our confidence in and broadens the
national security application of our predictive capabilities;
and
--$460 million is requested for our inertial confinement fusion and
high-yield campaign, to operate NNSA's suite of world-leading
high-energy density facilities--National Ignition Facility
(NIF), Omega, and Z--to support stockpile stewardship in a safe
and secure manner.
The Advanced Simulation and Computing (ASC) Campaign's request of
$600 million is required for the continued improvement of full-system
calculations and metric suites that are essential to annual assessments
and also to future stockpile changes. Our capabilities directly impact
our stockpile by generating incredibly sophisticated models against
which we can validate our nuclear weapons codes. Not only has
supercomputing helped us solve some existing questions such as energy
balance, it also allows us to plan for issues that impact the future
health of our deterrent--aging, component lifetimes, and new models for
abnormal and hostile environment certification. Supercomputing is
critical for life extension programs and stockpile modernization--the
implementation of various concepts such as reuse and enhanced
multipoint safety are only possible with the power of ASC platforms.
For more than a decade, NNSA has been building the science,
technology, and engineering tools and capabilities needed to take care
of the stockpile. We are now entering a time when we will fully utilize
these analytical tools and capabilities towards the mission of
maintaining a safe, secure, and effective stockpile and performing the
necessary life-extension work. These capabilities also provide the
critical base for nonproliferation and counterterrorism work, allowing
us to apply our investments to the full scope of our mission.
To support our stockpile and to continue producing the world-class
capabilities we need to modernize our cold war-era facilities and
maintain the Nation's expertise in uranium processing and plutonium
research. This budget includes $2.24 billion to maintain our
infrastructure and execute our construction projects.
The President also requests support for infrastructure improvements
necessary to maintain the stockpile well into the future. Major efforts
include extending the life of enduring facilities needed for directed
stockpile work (DSW) and science, technology, and engineering (ST&E)
program requirements, construction of the Uranium Processing Facility
at Y-12, and construction of the transuranic (TRU) Waste Facility at
Los Alamos National Laboratory. Funding will also provide for the start
of construction of the Electrical Infrastructure Upgrades project at
Lawrence Livermore and Los Alamos National Laboratories, and continued
construction activities for various projects at Los Alamos and Sandia
National Laboratories, the Y-12 National Security Complex, and Pantex.
The budget request also includes the resources we need to ensure a
comprehensive physical and cyber security posture that provides strong
security to support NNSA missions--protecting our nuclear materials,
facilities, and information.
However, our nuclear deterrent is only one part of NNSA's mission.
Our nonproliferation programs perform an equally critical function. One
of our most important missions has been to support the administration's
commitment to secure the most vulnerable nuclear material across the
globe in 4 years. Our accomplishments in securing plutonium and highly
enriched uranium around the world have made it significantly more
difficult to acquire and traffic the materials required to make an
improvised nuclear device, and I am proud to say that we are on track
to meet our goals to remove or dispose of 4,353 kilograms of highly
enriched uranium and plutonium in foreign countries and equip
approximately 229 buildings containing weapons-usable material with
state-of-the-art security upgrades.
The Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation budget request provides the
$2.46 billion to continue these and other critical nonproliferation and
nuclear security efforts. Our continued focus on innovative and
ambitious nonproliferation and nuclear security efforts is vital. The
threat is not gone, and the consequences of nuclear terrorism and state
proliferation would be devastating. Detonation of a nuclear device
anywhere in the world would lead to significant loss of life and
overwhelming economic, political, and psychological consequences. We
must remain committed to reducing the risk of nuclear terrorism and
state-based proliferation.
But there is no silver bullet solution, which is why we will
continue to implement a multilayered strategy to strengthen the
security of nuclear material around the world by removing or
eliminating it when we can; consolidating and securing it if
elimination is not an option; reducing the civilian use of highly
enriched uranium particularly for research and medical isotope
productions where low-enriched uranium options exist of can be
developed; and maintaining our commitment to detecting and deterring
nuclear smuggling. Many of you are familiar with the significant
contributions NNSA's Second Line of Defense program has made to the
worldwide effort to combat nuclear trafficking. In light of the
constrained budget environment that we find ourselves in, NNSA has
initiated a strategic review of the program to evaluate what
combinations of capabilities and programs make the most effective
contribution to national security.
We will continue to research and develop tools and technologies to
detect the proliferation of nuclear materials as well as nuclear
detonations. We will provide technical support and leadership to our
interagency colleagues during the negotiation and implementation of
arms control treaties, as we did with New Strategic Arms Reduction
Treaty (New START). We will expand on our ongoing efforts to strengthen
the capabilities of our foreign partners to implement international
nonproliferation and nuclear security norms, and support the critically
important work of the International Atomic Energy Agency. We will
continue to play a supporting role in the negotiation of Peaceful
Nuclear Cooperation Agreements (123 Agreements), which are so crucial
for achieving our nuclear nonproliferation and trade objectives.
The President's fiscal year 2013 budget request also keeps focus on
our commitment to eliminate U.S. excess weapons materials and supports
the Mixed Oxide (MOX) Fuel Fabrication Facility and Waste
Solidification Building at the Savannah River Site in South Carolina.
The $569.5 million committed to the MOX and related
activities this year will lead to the permanent elimination of enough
plutonium for at least 8,500 nuclear weapons, which will be matched by
similar commitments by the Russian Federation. We have eliminated the
line item for a Pit Disassembly and Conversion Facility for the
MOX program, opting instead for a preferred alternative
approach to producing feedstock that is much less costly by utilizing
existing facilities at the Savannah River Site and Los Alamos National
Laboratory.
In addition, the fiscal year 2013 budget request gives us the
resources we need to maintain our one-of-a-kind emergency response
capabilities, which allow us to respond to a nuclear or radiological
incidents anywhere in the world. In fiscal year 2011, we were able to
assist the United States military, military families, and the Japanese
people by deploying our unique emergency response assets in the
aftermath of devastating tsunami that affected the Fukushima Daiichi
Nuclear Power Plant.
In response to the President's concern regarding the threat of
nuclear terrorism, which is also a key goal within the 2010 Nuclear
Posture Review, we have established a new organization that is now the
focal point for all counterterrorism and counter proliferation
activities within NNSA. This organization, the Office of
Counterterrorism and Counterproliferation, not only provides unique
technical contributions based on NNSA's core nuclear science and
technology expertise, but also is designed to coordinate all nuclear
counterterrorism, counterproliferation, and postdetonation nuclear
forensics related efforts without drastic restructuring.
In addition, NNSA's Naval Reactors program directly supports all
aspects of the U.S. Navy's nuclear fleet, which encompasses the Navy's
submarines and aircraft carriers, more than 40 percent of the U.S.
Navy's major combatants. Currently, the nuclear fleet is composed of 54
attack submarines, 14 ballistic missile submarines, 4 guided missile
submarines, and 11 aircraft carriers. More than 8,300 nuclear-trained
Navy personnel safely operate the propulsion plants on these ships all
over the world, and their consistent forward presence protects our
national interests. Our $1.1 billion fiscal year 2013 request will
support the refueling overhaul for the S8G land-based prototype
reactor, the design of the Ohio replacement reactor plant, and
recapitalization of our naval spent nuclear fuel infrastructure.
Each of the projects is critical to fulfillment of the Navy's
longer term needs. The S8G land-based prototype refueling overhaul
reactor plant has served naval reactors' needs for research,
development, and training since 1978, and the reactor provides a cost-
effective testing platform for new technologies and components before
they are introduced. To continue vital research capabilities, as well
as train sufficient operators to man the Fleet, the S8G land-based
prototype refueling overhaul must begin in 2018. The Ohio replacement
reactor plant design continues and the fiscal year 2013 requested
amount supports continuing this work to meet the Navy's revised
schedule and procurement of reactor plant components in 2019 (to
support a 2021 lead-ship procurement). We need to recapitalize its
naval spent fuel infrastructure in a cost-effective way that does not
impede the refueling of active ships and their return to operations.
The existing facility is more than 50 years old and was never designed
for its current primary mission of packaging naval spent nuclear fuel
for permanent dry storage.
And finally, $411 million is requested for NNSA's Office of the
Administrator account. This funds Federal personnel and provides for
resources necessary to plan, manage, and oversee the operation of NNSA
missions which strengthen U.S. security.
doing our part
We are committed to being responsible stewards of taxpayer dollars.
We have taken steps to ensure that we are building a capabilities-based
enterprise focused on needs and solutions. We view this constrained
budget environment as an additional incentive to ask ourselves how we
can re-think the way we are operating, how we can innovate, and how we
can get better.
For example, in close consultation with our national laboratories
and national security sites, we are adjusting our plutonium strategy by
deferring for at least 5 years construction of the Chemistry and
Metallurgy Research Replacement Nuclear Facility (CMRR-NF) project at
Los Alamos National Laboratory and focusing instead on how we can meet
our plutonium needs on an interim basis by using the capabilities and
expertise found at existing facilities. Utilizing existing facilities
will allow us to meet anticipated near-term requirements for plutonium
operations while focusing on other key modernization projects.
Deferring CMRR-NF will have an estimated cost avoidance from 2013 to
2017 that totals approximately $1.8 billion, which will help offset the
costs of other priorities such as Weapons Lifetime Extension programs
and other infrastructure needs.
We have also updated our strategy to stop the spread of dangerous
nuclear material as we meet the President's 4-year lockdown goal. We
have developed an innovative approach to scientist engagement tailored
for an age when knowledge spreads effortlessly through Google,
Facebook, and Twitter.
We are not resting on old ideas to solve tomorrow's problems--we're
shaping the future of nuclear security, and we're doing it in a
fiscally responsible way. However, I want to stress that as we make
adjustments and look toward the future, our plans are based on the
fiscal year 2013 budget request, which give us the resources we need to
carry out our mission. Budget uncertainty adds cost and complexity to
how we achieve our goals. You have been supportive of our efforts in
the past, I ask again for your help in providing the stability we need
to do our jobs efficiently and effectively.
continuously improving
I would like to acknowledge that I have come before you in the past
and talked at length about how NNSA has been working to change the way
we do business. I am proud of the work the men and women of our NNSA
have done to come together and operate as one. We are defining
ourselves as a fully integrated enterprise that operates efficiently,
is organized to succeed, that performs our work seamlessly, and speaks
with one voice.
We are improving everywhere, from our governance model to our
network infrastructure, from our contracting processes to leadership
and development programs. We are improving business processes by
implementing the ISO 9001 standard, looking toward the future through a
workforce analysis, and improving efficiency through consolidated
contracts.
We are continuously improving so we are able to do the work the
American people need us to do, in a time when everyone is looking to do
more with less. We are positioning ourselves for the next decade by
making big decisions focused on the future.
For example, after more than 2 years of analysis and outside
reviews, we released a request for proposal (RFP) for the combined
management of the Y-12 National Security Complex and Pantex Plant, with
an option for phase-in of Tritium Operations performed at the Savannah
River Site. Combining contracts and site offices will allow us to
improve performance, reduce the cost of work, and operate as an
integrated enterprise. We also decided to compete the contract for
management and operation of Sandia National Laboratories, a move
designed to find meaningful improvement in performance and reduce cost
for taxpayers.
We have taken other significant steps to continue improving, from
top-to-bottom. We created an Acquisition and Project Management
organization to help institutionalize our commitment to improving the
way we do business. This move will improve the quality of our work
while keeping our projects on time and on budget.
We awarded a Blanket Purchasing Agreement (BPA) for Enterprise
Construction Management Services. The BPA will standardize our approach
to project management across the enterprise and provide subject-matter
experts to provide independent analysis and advice related to the
design and construction of facilities.
And, importantly, we have institutionalized a culture of safety.
Through a unique series of Biennial Reviews, including reviews at
headquarters, we have improved nuclear safety across our Nuclear
Security Enterprise. We have provided objective, value-added
information to managers that ensure our nuclear safety oversight is
consistent and effective. Since the reviews began in 2005, we have seen
continuous improvement at every site.
We are also improving the way we work with our partners across the
Department of Energy (DOE). In my role as Under Secretary of Energy for
Nuclear Security, I have made better coordination with DOE's Office of
Environmental Management and Office of Legacy Management key
priorities.
For example, by partnering with the Office of Environmental
Management, we have been able to share investments in our current
infrastructure at the Savannah River Site. Using H-Canyon to eliminate
surplus weapons-grade plutonium is a cost-effective approach for
producing plutonium oxide for the MOX Facility that utilizes
current resources and capabilities, and saves jobs. We are also taking
care to make good use of past investments. For example, 40 grams of
curium worth $8.8 million that was no longer needed for stockpile
stewardship was transferred from the Los Alamos National Laboratory to
the Idaho and Oak Ridge National Laboratories for use in energy R&D and
for production of new isotopes.
We are also working with the Office of Legacy Management to
benchmark long-term surveillance and maintenance costs. Large closed
sites with on-going groundwater issues, such as Fernald, Rocky Flats,
Weldon Spring, Tuba City, and Mound, may have postclosure requirements
similar to some of the Savannah River facilities, so we are learning
from each other by comparing scope and cost to refine our estimates.
conclusion
Our mission is vital, and your past support has been key in helping
us accomplish it. The fiscal year 2013 budget reflects our commitment
to keeping the American people safe while continuously improving and
doing our part in a time of fiscal austerity. We are looking toward the
future and building an organization that is aligned to succeed. I look
forward to working with each of you to help us do that. Thank you.
national nuclear security administration--appropriation and program
summary tables--outyear appropriation summary tables--fiscal year 2013
budget tables
NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION--OVERVIEW--APPROPRIATION SUMMARY \1, 2\
[In thousands of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year Fiscal year Fiscal year Fiscal year Fiscal year Fiscal year
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
current enacted request request request request request
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office of the Administrator:
Program direction........................................ 398,993 410,000 411,279 418,742 426,599 434,848 444,276
Rescission of prior year balances........................ -5,700 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Office of the Administrator..................... 393,293 410,000 411,279 418,742 426,599 434,848 444,276
==========================================================================================
Weapons Activities Appropriation:
Defense Programs:
Directed stockpile work.............................. 1,905,078 1,873,694 2,088,274 ........... ........... ........... ...........
Science campaign..................................... 366,167 332,958 350,104 ........... ........... ........... ...........
Engineering campaign................................. 142,010 142,636 150,571 ........... ........... ........... ...........
Inertial confinement fusion ignition and high-yield 478,105 474,812 460,000 ........... ........... ........... ...........
campaign............................................
Advanced simulation and computing campaign........... 613,620 618,076 600,000 ........... ........... ........... ...........
Readiness campaign................................... 91,695 128,406 130,095 ........... ........... ........... ...........
Readiness in technical base and facilities........... 1,842,519 2,004,785 2,239,828 ........... ........... ........... ...........
Secure transportation asset.......................... 251,806 242,802 219,361 ........... ........... ........... ...........
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Defense Programs............................ 5,691,000 5,818,169 6,238,233 ........... ........... ........... ...........
==========================================================================================
Nuclear counterterrorism incident response............... 232,503 220,969 247,552 ........... ........... ........... ...........
Facilities and infrastructure recapitalization program... 93,574 96,120 ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
Site stewardship......................................... 104,727 78,581 90,001 ........... ........... ........... ...........
Safeguards and security:
Defense nuclear security................................. 717,722 695,679 ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
Cyber security........................................... 124,231 126,370 ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Safeguards and security...................... 841,953 822,049 ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
==========================================================================================
Defense nuclear security................................. ........... ........... 643,285 ........... ........... ........... ...........
National Nuclear Security Administration Chief ........... ........... 155,022 ........... ........... ........... ...........
Information Officer activities..........................
Science, technology, and engineering capability.......... 19,794 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
National security applications........................... ........... 10,000 18,248 ........... ........... ........... ...........
Legacy contractor pensions............................... ........... 168,232 185,000 ........... ........... ........... ...........
Use of prior year balances............................... -67,776 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
Rescission of prior year balances........................ -50,000 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, weapons activities.............................. 6,865,775 7,214,120 7,577,341 7,613,033 7,755,866 7,905,841 8,077,242
==========================================================================================
Defense nuclear nonproliferation:
Nonproliferation and verification research and 355,407 354,150 548,186 412,622 420,344 428,417 437,719
development.............................................
Nonproliferation and international security.............. 147,494 153,594 150,119 156,363 167,070 173,718 177,490
International nuclear materials protection and 578,633 569,927 311,000 282,628 288,026 293,870 300,171
cooperation.............................................
Fissile materials disposition............................ 802,198 685,386 921,305 950,000 960,000 975,000 996,170
Global threat reduction initiative....................... 444,689 498,000 466,021 485,775 494,866 504,371 515,322
Legacy contractor pensions............................... ........... 55,823 62,000 63,138 64,320 65,555 66,978
Use of prior year balances............................... -2,050 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
Rescission of prior year balances........................ -45,000 -21,000 ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Defense nuclear nonproliferation................ 2,281,371 2,295,880 2,458,631 2,350,526 2,394,626 2,440,931 2,493,850
==========================================================================================
Naval reactors:
Naval reactors........................................... 986,526 1,080,000 1,088,635 1,108,391 1,129,186 1,151,021 1,175,975
Rescission of prior year balances........................ -1,000 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Naval reactors.................................. 985,526 1,080,000 1,088,635 1,108,391 1,129,186 1,151,021 1,175,975
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, National Nuclear Security Administration........ 10,525,965 11,000,000 11,535,886 11,490,692 11,706,277 11,932,641 12,191,343
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The annual totals include an allocation to NNSA from DOD. The amounts included are $677,076 in fiscal year 2014; $712,344 in fiscal year 2015;
$766,924 in fiscal year 2016; and $781,204 in fiscal year 2017.
\2\ Fiscal year 2012 enacted reflects a rescission of $27,300 associated with savings from the contractor pay freeze. Of the $27,300, $19,877 was
rescinded from weapons activities and $7,423 was rescinded from Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation.
NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION FUTURE-YEARS NUCLEAR SECURITY PROGRAM \1\
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year Fiscal year Fiscal year Fiscal year
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
request request request request request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Nuclear Security Administration:
Office of the Administrator................ 411,279 418,742 426,599 434,848 444,276
Weapons activities......................... 7,577,341 7,613,033 7,755,866 7,905,841 8,077,242
Defense nuclear nonproliferation........... 2,458,631 2,350,526 2,394,626 2,440,931 2,493,850
Naval reactors............................. 1,088,635 1,108,391 1,129,186 1,151,021 1,175,975
----------------------------------------------------------------
Total, National Nuclear Security 11,535,886 11,490,692 11,706,277 11,932,641 12,191,343
Administration..........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The annual totals include an allocation to NNSA from DOD. The amounts included are $677,076 in fiscal year
2014; $712,344 in fiscal year 2015; $766,924 in fiscal year 2016; and $781,204 in fiscal year 2017.
OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR--OVERVIEW--APPROPRIATION SUMMARY BY PROGRAM
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year Fiscal year
2011 2012 2013
current enacted request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office of the Administrator:
National Nuclear Security
Administration program
direction:
Salaries and benefits........ 282,967 301,995 304,474
Travel....................... 16,536 15,500 15,500
Support services............. 22,445 20,500 20,500
Other related expenses....... 77,045 72,005 70,805
--------------------------------------
Subtotal, Office of the 398,993 410,000 411,279
Administrator.............
======================================
Rescission of prior year balances -5,700 ........... ...........
--------------------------------------
Total, Office of the 393,293 410,000 411,279
Administrator.............
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OUTYEAR APPROPRIATION SUMMARY BY PROGRAM
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year Fiscal year Fiscal year
2014 2015 2016 2017
request request request request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office of the Administrator:
National Nuclear Security Administration program
direction:
Salaries and benefits................................... 311,937 319,794 328,043 337,471
Travel.................................................. 15,500 15,500 15,500 15,500
Support services........................................ 20,500 20,500 20,500 20,500
Other related expenses.................................. 70,805 70,805 70,805 70,805
---------------------------------------------------
Total, Office of the Administrator.................... 418,742 426,599 434,848 444,276
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WEAPONS ACTIVITIES--OVERVIEW--APPROPRIATION SUMMARY BY PROGRAM
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year Fiscal year
2011 2012 2013
current enacted request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weapons activities:
Directed stockpile work...... 1,905,078 1,873,694 2,088,274
Science campaign............. 366,167 332,958 350,104
Engineering campaign......... 142,010 142,636 150,571
Inertial confinement fusion 478,105 474,812 460,000
ignition and high-yield
campaign....................
Advanced simulation and 613,620 618,076 600,000
computing campaign..........
Readiness campaign........... 91,695 128,406 130,095
Readiness in technical base 1,842,519 2,004,785 2,239,828
and facilities..............
Secure transportation asset.. 251,806 242,802 219,361
Nuclear counterterrorism 232,503 220,969 247,552
incident response...........
Facilities and infrastructure 93,574 96,120 ...........
recapitalization program....
Site stewardship............. 104,727 78,581 90,001
Defense nuclear security..... 717,722 695,679 643,285
Cyber security............... 124,231 126,370 ...........
National Nuclear Security ........... ........... 155,022
Administration Chief
Information Officer
activities..................
Science, technology, and 19,794 ........... ...........
engineering capability......
National security ........... 10,000 18,248
applications................
Legacy contractor pensions... ........... 168,232 185,000
--------------------------------------
Subtotal, Weapons 6,983,551 7,214,120 7,577,341
activities................
======================================
Use of prior year balances... -67,776 ........... ...........
Rescission of prior year -50,000 ........... ...........
balances....................
--------------------------------------
Total, Weapons activities.. 6,865,775 7,214,120 7,577,341
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Outyear Appropriation Summary by Program
The outyear numbers for weapons activities do not reflect
programmatic requirements. Rather, they are an extrapolation of the
fiscal year 2013 request based on rates of inflation in the Budget
Control Act of 2011. The administration will develop outyear funding
levels based on actual programmatic requirements at a later date.
DIRECTED STOCKPILE WORK--FUNDING PROFILE BY SUBPROGRAM AND ACTIVITY
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year Fiscal year
2011 2012 2013
current enacted request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Directed stockpile work:
Life-extension programs...... 248,357 479,098 543,931
Stockpile systems............ 651,333 486,123 590,409
Weapons dismantlement and 57,968 56,591 51,265
disposition.................
Stockpile services........... 947,420 851,882 902,669
--------------------------------------
Total, Directed stockpile 1,905,078 1,873,694 2,088,274
work......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Outyear Funding Profile by Subprogram and Activity
The outyear numbers for weapons activities do not reflect
programmatic requirements. Rather, they are an extrapolation of the
fiscal year 2013 request based on rates of inflation in the Budget
Control Act of 2011. The administration will develop outyear funding
levels based on actual programmatic requirements at a later date.
SCIENCE CAMPAIGN--FUNDING PROFILE BY SUBPROGRAM AND ACTIVITY
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year Fiscal year
2011 2012 2013
current enacted request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Science campaign.... 366,167 332,958 350,104
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Outyear Funding Profile by Subprogram and Activity
The outyear numbers for weapons activities do not reflect
programmatic requirements. Rather, they are an extrapolation of the
fiscal year 2013 request based on rates of inflation in the Budget
Control Act of 2011. The administration will develop outyear funding
levels based on actual programmatic requirements at a later date.
ENGINEERING CAMPAIGN--FUNDING PROFILE BY SUBPROGRAM AND ACTIVITY
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year Fiscal year
2011 2012 2013
current enacted request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Engineering campaign 142,010 142,636 150,571
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Outyear Funding Profile by Subprogram and Activity
The outyear numbers for weapons activities do not reflect
programmatic requirements. Rather, they are an extrapolation of the
fiscal year 2013 request based on rates of inflation in the Budget
Control Act of 2011. The administration will develop outyear funding
levels based on actual programmatic requirements at a later date.
INERTIAL CONFINEMENT FUSION IGNITION AND HIGH-YIELD CAMPAIGN--FUNDING
PROFILE BY SUBPROGRAM AND ACTIVITY
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year Fiscal year
2011 2012 2013
current enacted request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Inertial confinement 478,105 474,812 460,000
fusion and high-yield
campaign..................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Outyear Funding Profile by Subprogram and Activity
The outyear numbers for weapons activities do not reflect
programmatic requirements. Rather, they are an extrapolation of the
fiscal year 2013 request based on rates of inflation in the Budget
Control Act of 2011. The administration will develop outyear funding
levels based on actual programmatic requirements at a later date.
ADVANCED SIMULATION AND COMPUTING CAMPAIGN--FUNDING PROFILE BY
SUBPROGRAM AND ACTIVITY
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year Fiscal year
2011 2012 2013
current enacted request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Advanced simulation 613,620 618,076 600,000
and computing campaign....
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Outyear Funding Profile by Subprogram and Activity
The outyear numbers for weapons activities do not reflect
programmatic requirements. Rather, they are an extrapolation of the
fiscal year 2013 request based on rates of inflation in the Budget
Control Act of 2011. The administration will develop outyear funding
levels based on actual programmatic requirements at a later date.
READINESS CAMPAIGN--FUNDING PROFILE BY SUBPROGRAM AND ACTIVITY
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year Fiscal year
2011 2012 2013
current enacted request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Readiness campaign.. 91,695 128,406 130,095
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Outyear Funding Profile by Subprogram and Activity
The outyear numbers for weapons activities do not reflect
programmatic requirements. Rather, they are an extrapolation of the
fiscal year 2013 request based on rates of inflation in the Budget
Control Act of 2011. The administration will develop outyear funding
levels based on actual programmatic requirements at a later date.
READINESS IN TECHNICAL BASE AND FACILITIES--FUNDING PROFILE BY
SUBPROGRAM AND ACTIVITY
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year Fiscal year
2011 2012 2013
current enacted request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Readiness in technical base and
facilities:
Operations of facilities..... 1,255,307 1,281,847 1,419,403
Program readiness............ 69,736 73,962 ...........
Material recycle and recovery 77,493 77,780 ...........
Containers................... 27,820 28,892 ...........
Storage...................... 23,945 31,196 ...........
Nuclear operations capability ........... ........... 203,346
support.....................
Science, technology, and ........... ........... 166,945
engineering support.........
--------------------------------------
Subtotal, Operations and 1,454,301 1,493,677 1,789,694
maintenance...............
======================================
Construction..................... 388,218 511,108 450,134
--------------------------------------
Total, Readiness in 1,842,519 2,004,785 2,239,828
technical base and
facilities................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Outyear Funding Schedule by Subprogram and Activity
The outyear numbers for weapons activities do not reflect
programmatic requirements. Rather, they are an extrapolation of the
fiscal year 2013 request based on rates of inflation in the Budget
Control Act of 2011. The administration will develop outyear funding
levels based on actual programmatic requirements at a later date.
SECURE TRANSPORTATION ASSET--FUNDING PROFILE BY SUBPROGRAM AND ACTIVITY
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year Fiscal year
2011 2012 2013
current enacted request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Secure Transportation Asset
[STA]:
Operations and equipment..... 156,877 144,800 114,965
Program direction............ 94,929 98,002 104,396
--------------------------------------
Total, Secure 251,806 242,802 219,361
Transportation Asset......
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SECURE TRANSPORTATION ASSET--OPERATIONS AND EQUIPMENT--FUNDING PROFILE
BY SUBPROGRAM AND ACTIVITY
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year Fiscal year
2011 2012 2013
current enacted request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operations and equipment:
Mission capacity............. 83,718 84,376 56,458
Security safety capability... 34,670 19,986 22,457
Infrastructure and C5 systems 28,867 29,449 24,199
Program management........... 9,622 10,989 11,851
--------------------------------------
Total, Operations and 156,877 144,800 114,965
equipment.................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SECURE TRANSPORTATION ASSET--PROGRAM DIRECTION--FUNDING PROFILE BY
SUBPROGRAM AND ACTIVITY
[Dollars in thousands]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year Fiscal year
2011 2012 2013
current enacted request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Program Direction:
Salaries and benefits........ $79,644 $82,613 $84,878
Travel....................... $8,334 $7,758 $7,216
Other Related expenses....... $6,951 $7,631 $12,302
--------------------------------------
Total, Program direction... $94,929 $98,002 $104,396
--------------------------------------
Total, Full-time 637 622 639
equivalents...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Outyear Funding Profile by Subprogram and Activity
The outyear numbers for weapons activities do not reflect
programmatic requirements. Rather, they are an extrapolation of the
fiscal year 2013 request based on rates of inflation in the Budget
Control Act of 2011. The administration will develop outyear funding
levels based on actual programmatic requirements at a later date.
NUCLEAR COUNTERTERRORISM INCIDENT RESPONSE--FUNDING PROFILE BY
SUBPROGRAM AND ACTIVITY
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year Fiscal year
2011 2012 2013
current enacted request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nuclear counterterrorism incident
response (Homeland Security):
\1\
Emergency response (Homeland 135,429 136,185 150,043
Security) \1\...............
National technical nuclear 11,446 11,589 11,694
forensics (Homeland
Security) \1\...............
Emergency management 7,494 7,153 6,629
(Homeland Security) \1\.....
Operations support (Homeland 8,488 8,691 8,799
Security) \1\...............
International emergency 6,986 7,129 7,139
management and cooperation..
Nuclear counterterrorism 62,660 50,222 63,248
(Homeland Security) \1\.....
--------------------------------------
Total, Nuclear 232,503 220,969 247,552
counterterrorism incident
response..................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Homeland Security designation.
Outyear Target Funding Profile by Subprogram and Activity
The outyear numbers for weapons activities do not reflect
programmatic requirements. Rather, they are an extrapolation of the
fiscal year 2013 request based on rates of inflation in the Budget
Control Act of 2011. The administration will develop outyear funding
levels based on actual programmatic requirements at a later date.
FACILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE RECAPITALIZATION PROGRAM--FUNDING PROFILE
BY SUBPROGRAM AND ACTIVITY
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year Fiscal year
2011 2012 2013
current enacted request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Facilities and infrastructure
recapitalization program:
Operations and maintenance
[O&M]:
Recapitalization............. 77,160 81,720 ...........
Infrastructure planning...... 6,494 9,400 ...........
Facility disposition......... 9,920 5,000 ...........
--------------------------------------
Total, Operations and 93,574 96,120 ...........
maintenance--facilities
and infrastructure
recapitalization program..
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Outyear Funding Profile by Subprogram and Activity
The outyear numbers for weapons activities do not reflect
programmatic requirements. Rather, they are an extrapolation of the
fiscal year 2013 request based on rates of inflation in the Budget
Control Act of 2011. The administration will develop outyear funding
levels based on actual programmatic requirements at a later date.
SITE STEWARDSHIP--FUNDING PROFILE BY SUBPROGRAM AND ACTIVITY
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year Fiscal year
2011 2012 2013
current enacted request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Site Stewardship:
Operations and maintenance:
Environmental projects and 41,970 45,191 46,978
operations..................
Energy modernization and 6,618 ........... 10,262
investment program..........
Nuclear materials integration 41,169 33,390 18,963
Corporate project management. ........... ........... 13,798
--------------------------------------
Total, Operations and 89,757 78,581 90,001
maintenance...............
======================================
Construction................. 14,970 ........... ...........
--------------------------------------
Total, Site stewardship.... 104,727 78,581 90,001
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Outyear Funding Profile by Subprogram and Activity
The outyear numbers for weapons activities do not reflect
programmatic requirements. Rather, they are an extrapolation of the
fiscal year 2013 request based on rates of inflation in the Budget
Control Act of 2011. The administration will develop outyear funding
levels based on actual programmatic requirements at a later date.
DEFENSE NUCLEAR SECURITY--FUNDING PROFILE BY SUBPROGRAM AND ACTIVITY
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year Fiscal year
2011 2012 2013
current enacted request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Defense nuclear security:
Operations and maintenance
(Homeland Security):
Protective forces............ 414,166 418,758 341,676
Physical security systems.... 73,794 82,783 98,267
Information security......... 25,943 30,117 34,237
Personnel security........... 30,913 37,285 37,781
Materials control and 35,602 34,592 34,484
accountability..............
Program management........... 78,183 75,595 96,840
Technology deployment, 7,225 4,797 ...........
physical security...........
--------------------------------------
Total, Operations and 665,826 683,927 643,285
maintenance (Homeland
Security).................
======================================
Construction (Homeland 51,896 11,752 ...........
Security).....................
--------------------------------------
Total, Defense nuclear 717,722 695,679 643,285
security..................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Outyear Funding Profile by Subprogram and Activity
The outyear numbers for weapons activities do not reflect
programmatic requirements. Rather, they are an extrapolation of the
fiscal year 2013 request based on rates of inflation in the Budget
Control Act of 2011. The administration will develop outyear funding
levels based on actual programmatic requirements at a later date.
CYBER SECURITY--FUNDING PROFILE BY SUBPROGRAM AND ACTIVITY
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year Fiscal year
2011 2012 2013
current enacted request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cyber security (Homeland
Security):
Infrastructure program....... 97,735 107,374 ...........
Enterprise secure computing.. 21,500 14,000 ...........
Technology application 4,996 4,996 ...........
development.................
--------------------------------------
Total, Cyber security...... 124,231 126,370 ...........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Outyear Funding Profile by Subprogram and Activity
The outyear numbers for weapons activities do not reflect
programmatic requirements. Rather, they are an extrapolation of the
fiscal year 2013 request based on rates of inflation in the Budget
Control Act of 2011. The administration will develop outyear funding
levels based on actual programmatic requirements at a later date.
NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER
ACTIVITIES--FUNDING PROFILE BY SUBPROGRAM AND ACTIVITY
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year Fiscal year
2011 2012 2013
current enacted request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Nuclear Security
Administration Chief Information
Officer activities:
Cyber security (Homeland
Security):
Infrastructure program....... ........... ........... 111,022
Technology application ........... ........... ...........
development \1\.............
Enterprise secure computing ........... ........... 14,000
(Homeland Security)...........
Federal unclassified ........... ........... 30,000
information technology........
--------------------------------------
Total, National Nuclear ........... ........... 155,022
Security Administration
Chief Information Officer
activities................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In fiscal year 2011 and fiscal year 2012 Technology Application
Development is reflected in the Cyber Security program. In fiscal year
2013 funds supporting Technology Application Development were
realigned to infrastructure for higher priority requirements.
Technology Application initiatives are to be supported in the
outyears.
Outyear Funding Profile by Subprogram and Activity
The outyear numbers for weapons activities do not reflect
programmatic requirements. Rather, they are an extrapolation of the
fiscal year 2013 request based on rates of inflation in the Budget
Control Act of 2011. The administration will develop outyear funding
levels based on actual programmatic requirements at a later date.
NATIONAL SECURITY APPLICATIONS--FUNDING PROFILE BY SUBPROGRAM AND
ACTIVITY
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year Fiscal year
2011 2012 2013
current enacted request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, National security ........... 10,000 18,248
applications..............
======================================
Total, Science, Technology, 19,794 ........... ...........
and Engineering Capability
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Outyear Funding Profile by Subprogram and Activity
The outyear numbers for weapons activities do not reflect
programmatic requirements. Rather, they are an extrapolation of the
fiscal year 2013 request based on rates of inflation in the Budget
Control Act of 2011. The administration will develop outyear funding
levels based on actual programmatic requirements at a later date.
DEFENSE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION--OVERVIEW--APPROPRIATION SUMMARY BY
PROGRAM
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year Fiscal year
2011 2012 2013
current enacted \1\ request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Defense nuclear nonproliferation:
Nonproliferation and 355,407 354,150 548,186
verification research and
development.................
Small Business Innovation [5,579] [6,245] [11,727]
Research/Small Business
Technology Transfer [Non-
Add]........................
Nonproliferation and 147,494 153,594 150,119
international security......
International nuclear 578,633 569,927 311,000
materials protection and
cooperation \2\.............
Fissile materials disposition 802,198 685,386 921,305
Global threat reduction 444,689 498,000 466,021
initiative \2\..............
Legacy contractor pensions... ........... 55,823 62,000
--------------------------------------
Subtotal, Defense nuclear 2,328,421 2,316,880 2,458,631
nonproliferation..........
======================================
Use of prior year balances... -2,050 ........... ...........
Rescission of prior year -45,000 -21,000 ...........
balances....................
--------------------------------------
Total, Defense nuclear 2,281,371 2,295,880 2,458,631
nonproliferation..........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Fiscal year 2012 enacted reflects rescission of $7.4 million
associated with savings from the contractor pay freeze.
\2\ Fiscal year 2011 total includes international contributions for
INMP&C of $300,000 from South Korea; $117,000 from the United Kingdom
of Great Britain; $512,076 from Norway; $540,602 from New Zealand; and
$5,169,026 from Canada. International contributions for GTRI include
$8,207,791 from Canada, and $499,970 from the Netherlands.
OUTYEAR APPROPRIATION SUMMARY BY PROGRAM
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year Fiscal year Fiscal year
2014 2015 2016 2017
request request request request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Defense nuclear nonproliferation:
Nonproliferation and verification research and 412,622 420,344 428,417 437,719
development............................................
Nonproliferation and international security............. 156,363 167,070 173,718 177,490
International nuclear materials protection and 282,628 288,026 293,870 300,171
cooperation \1\........................................
Fissile materials disposition............................... 950,000 960,000 975,000 996,170
Global threat reduction initiative \1\...................... 485,775 494,866 504,371 515,322
Legacy contractor pensions.................................. 63,138 64,320 65,555 66,978
---------------------------------------------------
Total, Defense nuclear nonproliferation............... 2,350,526 2,394,626 2,440,931 2,493,850
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NONPROLIFERATION AND VERIFICATION RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT--FUNDING
PROFILE BY SUBPROGRAM AND ACTIVITY
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year Fiscal year
2011 2012 2013
current enacted request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nonproliferation and verification
research and development:
Proliferation detection [PD]. 229,427 222,150 240,536
Homeland security-related [50,000] [50,000] [50,000]
proliferation detection [Non-
Add]........................
Nuclear detonation detection 125,980 132,000 157,650
[NDD].......................
Domestic uranium enrichment ........... ........... 150,000
research, development, and
demonstration...............
Small Business Innovation ........... [6,245] [11,727]
Research/Small Business
Technology Transfer \1\ [Non-
Add]........................
--------------------------------------
Total, Nonproliferation and 355,407 354,150 548,186
verification research and
development...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Fiscal year 2011 current appropriation reflects the $5,579,000
transferred out of the DNN appropriation for SBIR/STTR.
OUTYEAR FUNDING PROFILE BY SUBPROGRAM AND ACTIVITY
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year Fiscal year Fiscal year
2014 2015 2016 2017
request request request request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nonproliferation and verification research and development:
Proliferation detection [PD]............................ 248,312 252,955 257,790 263,369
Homeland security-related proliferation detection [Non- [50,000] [50,000] [50,000] [50,000]
Add]...................................................
Nuclear detonation detection [NDD]...................... 164,310 167,389 170,627 174,350
Domestic uranium enrichment RD&D........................ ........... ........... ........... ...........
SBIR/STTR [Non-Add]..................................... [8,446] [8,941] [9,598] [10,461]
---------------------------------------------------
Total, Nonproliferation and verification R&D.......... 412,622 420,344 428,417 437,719
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NONPROLIFERATION AND INTERNATIONAL SECURITY--FUNDING PROFILE BY
SUBPROGRAM AND ACTIVITY \1\
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year Fiscal year
2011 2012 2013
current enacted request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nonproliferation and
international security:
Dismantlement and 49,207 ........... ...........
transparency................
Global security engagement 47,289 ........... ...........
and cooperation.............
International regimes and 39,824 ........... ...........
agreements..................
Treaties and agreements...... 11,174 ........... ...........
Nuclear safeguards and ........... 54,897 54,723
security....................
Nuclear controls............. ........... 47,444 45,420
Nuclear verification......... ........... 39,969 40,566
Nonproliferation policy...... ........... 11,284 9,410
--------------------------------------
Total, Nonproliferation and 147,494 153,594 150,119
international security....
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Nonproliferation and International Security Program implemented
a budget structure change starting in fiscal year 2012. The structure
change created a more efficient and clearer program organization with
activities aligned along functional lines that reflect U.S.
nonproliferation priorities and initiatives. The new structure depicts
more clearly the alignment of people, technology, and resources to
meet and implement nuclear nonproliferation objectives.
OUTYEAR FUNDING PROFILE BY SUBPROGRAM AND ACTIVITY
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year Fiscal year Fiscal year
2014 2015 2016 2017
request request request request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nonproliferation and international security:
Dismantlement and transparency.......................... ........... ........... ........... ...........
Global security engagement and cooperation.............. ........... ........... ........... ...........
International regimes and agreements.................... ........... ........... ........... ...........
Treaties and agreements................................. ........... ........... ........... ...........
Nuclear safeguards and security......................... 56,999 60,902 63,326 64,701
Nuclear controls........................................ 47,309 50,549 52,560 53,701
Nuclear verification.................................... 42,253 45,147 46,943 47,962
Nonproliferation policy................................. 9,802 10,472 10,889 11,126
---------------------------------------------------
Total, Nonproliferation and international security.... 156,363 167,070 173,718 177,490
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERNATIONAL NUCLEAR MATERIALS PROTECTION AND COOPERATION--FUNDING
PROFILE BY SUBPROGRAM AND ACTIVITY
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year Fiscal year
2011 2012 2013
current enacted request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
International nuclear materials
protection and cooperation:
Navy complex................. 34,332 33,664 39,860
Strategic rocket forces/12th 51,359 59,105 8,300
main directorate............
Weapons material protection 93,318 80,735 46,975
\1\.........................
Civilian nuclear sites....... 53,027 59,117 60,092
Material consolidation and 13,867 14,306 17,000
conversion..................
National infrastructure and 60,928 60,928 46,199
sustainability program \2\..
Second line of defense....... 265,163 262,072 92,574
International contributions 6,639 ........... ...........
\3\.........................
--------------------------------------
Total, International 578,633 569,927 311,000
nuclear materials
protection and cooperation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Weapons Material Protection was formerly known as Rosatom Weapons
Complex.
\2\ National Infrastructure and Sustainability was formerly known as
National Programs and Sustainability.
\3\ Fiscal year 2011 total includes international contributions of
$300,000 from South Korea, $117,000 from the United Kingdom of Great
Britain, $512,076 from Norway, $540,602 from New Zealand, and
$5,169,026 from Canada.
OUTYEAR FUNDING PROFILE BY SUBPROGRAM AND ACTIVITY
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year Fiscal year Fiscal year
2014 2015 2016 2017
request request request request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International nuclear materials protection and cooperation:
Navy complex............................................ 39,742 39,767 39,843 39,823
Strategic rocket forces/12th main directorate........... 14,300 14,300 14,300 14,300
Weapons material protection \1\......................... 54,857 54,882 54,958 54,938
Civilian nuclear sites.................................. 59,972 59,997 60,074 60,053
Material consolidation and conversion................... 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000
National infrastructure and sustainability program \2\.. 46,081 46,106 46,182 46,162
Second line of defense.................................. 47,676 52,974 58,513 64,895
---------------------------------------------------
Total, International nuclear materials protection and 282,628 288,026 293,870 300,171
cooperation..........................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Weapons Material Protection was formerly known as Rosatom Weapons Complex.
\2\ National Infrastructure and Sustainability was formerly known as National Programs and Sustainability.
FISSILE MATERIALS DISPOSITION--FUNDING PROFILE BY SUBPROGRAM AND
ACTIVITY
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year Fiscal year
2011 2012 2013
current enacted request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fissile Materials Disposition:
U.S. surplus fissile
materials disposition:
Operations and
maintenance [O&M]:
U.S. plutonium 200,400 205,632 498,979
disposition.........
U.S. uranium 25,985 26,000 29,736
disposition.........
--------------------------------------
Subtotal, Operations and 226,385 231,632 528,715
maintenance...............
Construction......... 575,788 452,754 388,802
--------------------------------------
Total, U.S. surplus fissile 802,173 684,386 917,517
materials disposition.....
======================================
Russian surplus fissile 25 1,000 3,788
materials disposition:
Russian materials
disposition.................
--------------------------------------
Total, Fissile materials 802,198 685,386 921,305
disposition...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OUTYEAR FUNDING PROFILE BY SUBPROGRAM AND ACTIVITY
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year Fiscal year Fiscal year
2014 2015 2016 2017
request request request request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fissile materials disposition:
U.S. surplus fissile materials disposition:
Operations and maintenance [O&M]:
U.S. plutonium disposition...................... 793,506 908,906 930,967 957,881
U.S. uranium disposition........................ 30,058 33,546 33,453 30,514
---------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Operations and maintenance.......... 823,564 942,452 964,420 988,395
Construction.................................... 118,661 9,773 2,805 ...........
---------------------------------------------------
Total, U.S. surplus fissile materials 942,225 952,225 967,225 988,395
disposition..................................
===================================================
Russian surplus fissile materials disposition: Russian 7,775 7,775 7,775 7,775
materials disposition..................................
---------------------------------------------------
Total, Fissile materials disposition.................. 950,000 960,000 975,000 996,170
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GLOBAL THREAT REDUCTION INITIATIVE--FUNDING PROFILE BY SUBPROGRAM AND
ACTIVITY
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year Fiscal year
2011 2012 2013
current enacted request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Global threat reduction
initiative:
Highly enriched uranium [HEU] 100,968 148,269 161,000
reactor conversion............
Nuclear and radiological
material removal:
Russian-origin nuclear 159,031 147,000 102,000
material removal............
U.S.-origin nuclear material 4,420 9,000 5,000
removal.....................
Gap nuclear material removal. 9,289 45,731 61,000
Emerging threats nuclear 8,768 5,000 5,000
material removal............
International radiological 20,660 20,000 8,000
material removal............
Domestic radiological 19,128 20,000 19,000
material removal (Homeland
Security) \1\...............
--------------------------------------
Subtotal, Nuclear and 221,296 246,731 200,000
radiological material
removal...................
======================================
Nuclear and radiological
material protection:
BN-350 nuclear material 1,840 2,000 ...........
protection..................
International material 46,573 50,000 50,000
protection..................
Domestic material protection 65,304 51,000 55,021
(Homeland Security) \1\.....
--------------------------------------
Subtotal, Nuclear and 113,717 103,000 105,021
radiological material
protection................
======================================
International contributions 8,708 ........... ...........
\2\.........................
--------------------------------------
Total, Global threat 444,689 498,000 466,021
reduction initiative......
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Homeland Security designation.
\2\ International contributions for GTRI include $8,207,791 from Canada,
and $499,970 from the Netherlands.
OUTYEAR FUNDING PROFILE BY SUBPROGRAM AND ACTIVITY
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year Fiscal year Fiscal year
2014 2015 2016 2017
request request request request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Global threat reduction initiative:
Highly enriched uranium [HEU] reactor conversion.......... 177,000 183,000 185,000 195,000
Nuclear and radiological material removal:
Russian-origin nuclear material removal................. 100,000 100,000 100,000 95,000
U.S.-origin nuclear material removal.................... 5,000 5,000 6,000 8,000
Gap nuclear material removal............................ 45,000 30,000 20,000 15,000
Emerging threats nuclear material removal............... 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000
International radiological material removal............. 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000
Domestic radiological material removal (Homeland 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000
Security) \1\..........................................
---------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Nuclear and radiological material removal... 195,000 180,000 171,000 163,000
===================================================
Nuclear and radiological material protection:
BN-350 nuclear material protection...................... ........... ........... ........... ...........
International material protection....................... 52,000 60,000 68,000 73,000
Domestic material protection (Homeland Security) \1\.... 61,775 71,866 80,371 84,322
---------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Nuclear and radiological material protec- 113,775 131,866 148,371 157,322
tion.................................................
===================================================
Total, Global threat reduction initiative............. 485,775 494,866 504,371 515,322
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NAVAL REACTORS--OVERVIEW--APPROPRIATION SUMMARY BY PROGRAM
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year Fiscal year
2011 2012 2013
current enacted \1\ request \2\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Naval reactors:
Naval reactors operations and 914,071 ........... ...........
maintenance [O&M]...........
Naval reactors operations and ........... 358,300 366,961
infrastructure..............
Naval reactors development... ........... 421,000 418,072
S8G protype refueling........ ........... 99,500 121,100
Ohio replacement reactor ........... 121,300 89,700
systems development.........
--------------------------------------
Total, Naval reactors 914,071 1,000,100 995,833
operations and maintenance
======================================
Program direction............ 39,920 40,000 43,212
Construction................. 32,535 39,900 49,590
--------------------------------------
Subtotal, Naval reactors... 986,526 1,080,000 1,088,635
======================================
Rescission of prior year -1,000 ........... ...........
balances....................
--------------------------------------
Total, Naval reactors...... 985,526 1,080,000 1,088,635
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Conference Report of H.R. 2055 Military Construction and
Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2012
establishing new funding controls for Naval Reactors: Naval Reactors
Operations and Infrastructure, Naval Reactors Development, S8G
Prototype Refueling, and Ohio Replacement Reactor Systems Development.
\2\ Fiscal year 2013, fiscal year 2014, and fiscal year 2015 include an
allocation to Naval Reactors from the Department of Defense's (DOD)
Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation (RDT&E) account
entitled ``NNSA PROGRAM SUPPORT''. The amounts included for naval
reactors from this DOD account are fiscal year 2013 $5.8 million;
fiscal year 2014, $2 million; and fiscal year 2015, $0.9 million.
OUTYEAR APPROPRIATION SUMMARY BY PROGRAM
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year Fiscal year Fiscal year
2014 2015 2016 2017
projection \1\ projection \1\ projection projection
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Naval reactors:
Naval reactors operations and infrastructure...... 384,365 377,814 383,719 396,283
Naval reactors development........................ 434,306 426,245 432,449 446,609
S8G prototype refueling \2\....................... 123,327 125,522 127,760 130,054
Ohio replacement reactor systems development \2\.. 91,350 92,975 94,634 96,333
Program direction................................. 49,670 52,400 54,159 56,096
Construction...................................... 25,373 54,230 58,300 50,600
---------------------------------------------------------
Total, Naval reactors........................... 1,108,391 1,129,186 1,151,021 1,175,975
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Fiscal year 2013, fiscal year 2014, and fiscal year 2015 include an allocation to Naval Reactors from the
Department of Defense's (DOD) Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation (RDT&E) account entitled ``NNSA
PROGRAM SUPPORT''. The amounts included for naval reactors from this DOD account are fiscal year 2013 $5.8
million; fiscal year 2014, $2 million; and fiscal year 2015, $0.9 million.
\2\ Due to the Budget Control Act of 2011 the outyear funding for S8G Prototype Refueling and Ohio Replacement
Reactor Systems Development is under review and will be updated at a later date.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Mr. D'Agostino.
Senator, if it's agreeable with you, I'd like to proceed in
5-minute increments, and we'll just go back and forth. I have a
large number of questions.
Senator Alexander. You can just go through for a while if
you want to, if you don't want me to interrupt that. That's
fine with me. I'll listen.
Senator Feinstein. Well, let's see. I want you to have
plenty of opportunities.
NATIONAL IGNITION FACILITY
On March 19, a letter was sent to Member Frelinghuysen and
Member Visclosky signed by a substantial number of House
Members on the National Ignition Facility (NIF). There have
been claims made that the NIF is short $140 million, and
proposed budget cuts, which I understand are $20 million, will
result in the shutdown of the facility, and the layoff of 400
scientists and technicians.
Are these claims true?
Mr. D'Agostino. Madam Chairman, the NIF, the Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory's (LLNL) budget, the overall
laboratory budget, did go down. The budget did not go down by
$140 million. The decrease at LLNL is on the order of $81
million.
The majority of that decrease is due to the completion of a
procurement of a computer called the Sequoia computer, it's a
supercomputer, as well as some reductions in our security
budget, because we are in the process of reaching our
commitment that we made a number of years ago to reduce the
quantities of category one and two security for plutonium in
the Livermore Valley. We're 96 percent of the way on that, and
that's why we have a little bit of a decrease in security.
The reductions in the specific line, the budget line for
the NIF, or Inertial Confinement Fusion Program, is about $20
million. The challenges, what we're working through right now
with the laboratory, is factoring in how the laboratory and the
DOE can blend what's known as an overhead rate. And this is a
problem that we've known for 2 years, and we're working
together to make sure that the overhead rates, the rates that
the laboratory charges its internal programs, is even and
consistent and meets accounting standards. And there's some
challenges that we're working on with the laboratory to do
that.
So I don't believe that we are talking--I'm committed that
the NIF project is very important. It's important to stockpile
stewardship. We are not reducing the budget by $140 million in
the NIF project, and we are committed to working with the
laboratory to ensure that we can get through this adjustment of
their overhead rate in a way that allows the project to move
forward to address its mission.
Senator Feinstein. Okay, let's go into that for a minute. A
decrease of $81 million because of the completion of the
Sequoia program and a reduction in security. The fusion
element, which I want to ask some questions about, you said is
$20 million. Is that a $20 million cut?
Mr. D'Agostino. Yes, it's a $20 million reduction in the
NIF line. The project is essentially complete. The construction
project is complete. And an element of the construction project
is installing what's known as cryogenic and diagnostic tools to
keep the target itself cold, the cryogenic piece, and to be
able to have the tools to measure the output, the experiments.
This is the whole reason for NIF, of course, is to get this
very important data. And so you need to have the diagnostics
there.
The reduction is due to the fact that the procurement of
those tools is done, and they're installed, and now we're just
into the operation of that. And this is documented in the NIF
plan itself.
So that $20 million is not because we wanted to just take
money out of the laboratory, because we're trying to balance
the budget. It's because that work, that specific work, is done
on the project.
Senator Feinstein. Okay. Now, NIF is supposed to achieve
ignition by September. My question is, will it? There are some
that believe it will not.
Mr. D'Agostino. Achieving ignition is going to be very
challenging. I'll be very upfront with this. Ignition is very
important to stockpile stewardship, but achieving ignition by
the end of this year will be very challenging. We've learned a
lot, particularly in the last year, on how good our codes are,
our simulation codes, in actually predicting the experimental
data.
And we've realized, and this is actually a very good news
in a way, that there are some gaps. And so we're going to focus
our effort to try to understand why did our codes predict one
thing and the experiments gave us some different data. It's
very important that we solve that particular piece of the
problem.
We will be doing credible shots on the NIF, credible
meaning--our codes predicted that we should achieve ignition.
Whether we do or not will have to stand the test of time. We'll
know soon enough whether we can do it or not.
Senator Feinstein. And if you can't achieve ignition, that
becomes a very big deal in terms of testing of weapons.
Mr. D'Agostino. Should I comment on that?
Senator Feinstein. That's a question. Yes.
Mr. D'Agostino. Okay. Achieving ignition is absolutely very
important for stockpile stewardship. It's a critical element
for us to be able to have confidence in our codes, in our
validation codes, and it's important for us to be able to get
that kind of experimental data in the very high temperature and
pressure areas that only ignition can give us.
Does it mean that we fail in being able to take care of our
stockpile the day after, the week after, the year after we fail
to achieve ignition? Absolutely not.
Senator Feinstein. Well, how much longer can the stockpile
be considered safe without ignition?
Mr. D'Agostino. I would put it in terms of many years. I
would like to provide you a detailed answer for the record, if
I could.
Senator Feinstein. If you would, and we will follow up.
Mr. D'Agostino. Thank you.
Senator Feinstein. Is it possible that NIF will not achieve
ignition?
Mr. D'Agostino. It's always----
Senator Feinstein. Is it only a question of time? Because
you're just now pushing the September date until the end of the
year.
Mr. D'Agostino. Right.
Senator Feinstein. So here we go.
Mr. D'Agostino. Well, you know, I would say achieving
ignition is a very important factor for it. It's always
possible that we can achieve it, I think. But the key is, for
us, is to make every concerted effort to reach ignition by
making sure we have the right power and energy level on the
target inside the hohlraum in order to squeeze that particular
target, and getting the diagnostic tools, these measuring
devices, so that when we actually do it, we actually know we
actually did it. It wouldn't be right for us to try to do this
too early and then not be able to actually measure the fact
that we achieved it.
Senator Feinstein. Well, if the original estimate was
September, and it's now March, that's a substantial period of
time. But what I hear you saying is, and correct me if I'm
wrong, please, that the likelihood of so doing is remote, even
by the end of the year.
Mr. D'Agostino. I would not call it remote.
Senator Feinstein. Then what is it, on a scale of 1 to 10?
Mr. D'Agostino. You know, it's hard for me to put a
specific number to it. I would say there is a likelihood that
we will achieve ignition. I would say it's very difficult for
us to predict. There are new phenomenon in squeezing the
capsule itself that we hadn't predicted would come out of the
experiments that we've already done.
And so we're approaching this in a stepwise fashion,
because we don't want to rush all the way to full speed ahead
without approaching it in a stepwise fashion.
So my sense is that we have a likelihood of achieving
ignition, I would respectfully ask that I not put a number on
it, because, actually, I don't want to pretend I know the
actual number, is what I'm saying. We have the report--I'm
sorry?
Senator Feinstein. In the Senate, there was a considerable
debate about whether to go ahead with this facility or not.
Senator Domenici was really not a big fan of this facility.
Everything we heard was, you know, this thing would achieve
ignition and they would go on and do all this stuff, and fusion
was a possibility.
Now, all that appears to have been changed. So what I'm
saying is, the climate for funding, for finishing this
facility, and this facility is major. I mean, it is a very
impressive facility, just in terms of hardware alone.
I would just hate to see all the money put in not able to
achieve the goal. What you have said today doesn't give me a
lot of belief that it's just a question of time. What you've
said is some new problem has arisen, and you need a solution to
it.
Mr. D'Agostino. I want to be clear that I am not saying
that it's remote. I'm saying that there is a likelihood that we
will achieve ignition this year. That is the goal that we have
set out of the laboratory to do. We have pressed very hard.
Senator Feinstein. You are saying there is a likelihood we
will achieve ignition by the end of the year?
Mr. D'Agostino. Yes. Yes, absolutely. And I want to be
clear on that.
I also want to let you know, Madam Chairman, that we have
submitted recently--Dr. Cook had sent a report to the Congress,
a quarterly report, documenting the technical challenges, the
successes, and the technical challenges.
A success, for example, a very significant milestone that
LLNL achieved, is reaching the 1.8 megajoule target, which is
all 196 beams, 1.8 megajoules into the very tiny target
chamber.
And that's a very significant milestone, just the timing of
196 beams to arrive at the precise moment in time, and the
pulses needed to squeeze that. The laboratory has made
progress.
We've also done hundreds of experiments and shots on the
facility itself, getting a tremendous amount of data that has
already--the Nation is already taking advantage of it. Some of
this data, because of the radiation that comes out of it, lets
us test electronics, if you will, that the DOD needs to make
sure can survive in different types of radiation environments.
So we are getting a significant amount of work out of the
NIF as it exists today.
This ignition goal of this year, which I said we have a
likelihood of achieving, will be, frankly, something that
mankind has never done before. Man has never been able to
harness and achieve this capability in a controlled laboratory
fashion.
So there are some things that are hard to projectize in a
way of just saying that it's a matter of money and time. This
is a hard one to projectize, because it's never been done
before.
Senator Feinstein. Okay. Well, the letter that the House
Members have written to the chairman and ranking member of the
Appropriations subcommittee essentially says the reduction will
result in the termination of approximately 100 highly trained
staff, and will jeopardize LLNL's ability to support the
stewardship of the Nation's nuclear weapons.
Can you comment on how many layoffs are necessitated by
these cuts?
Mr. D'Agostino. I think, if done correctly, there will not
be any layoffs as a result of a fairly small change in the NIF
budget, and a fairly small change in the laboratory's overall
budget. It's a matter of management and getting the right type
of blend of the overhead rate that was charged to the project.
If I may, I could add a little bit to that, depending on
how much time you'd like on this.
Senator Feinstein. Please, why don't you? This is a big
issue and obviously is going to be in the House, too.
Mr. D'Agostino. Certainly.
When the NIF project was in its construction phase, the
United States Government committed a significant amount of
money, as you've indicated, every year to the laboratory to
construct and build and assemble this NIF.
In order to do that, we, United States Government, decided
that the laboratory would be allowed to charge a lower overhead
rate to the project, because, in essence, why would they charge
the normal overhead rate, because this is a one-time
construction project, and when construction is done, it goes
back down to normal.
This change is called a self-constructed asset pool. It's a
set-aside on overhead, and it's a significantly reduced
overheard because we in the United States Government want the
dollars to flow into the construction project, not into the
overhead of the laboratory.
Once the project was completed, and it was completed a few
years ago, and the national ignition campaign is completed,
which will be done in September this year, we had an
understanding a few years back that we would work together to
have a lower--to get the laboratory off of this special
overhead rate.
And this is the area, this is where you hear this number
$140 million, it comes through. This is the area where we are
going to work together with the laboratory to change their
overhead rates across the laboratory, allow the movement of
people into the NIF project appropriately, because the reality
is the bottom line is the laboratory's overall budget is not
going down all that much.
And so the logic of saying we have to layoff these very
important scientists--Parney Albright, who is the laboratory
director, and I and Don Cook, we don't want that, and so we're
working together. In fact, we had a very long conference call,
video conference call, last week Thursday on this, to address
this very specific issue, because we recognize it was getting a
lot of attention. And we can come back to that, Madam Chairman.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much. I've taken a lot of
time on this.
Senator, why don't you go ahead?
Senator Alexander. Okay. It's very interesting.
OAK RIDGE URANIUM PROJECT
I'd like to talk about the two big projects, the uranium
project at Oak Ridge and the New Mexico project on plutonium.
And I'll start off with the uranium project at Oak Ridge.
As I understand the Administration's proposal, you plan now
to accelerate construction somewhat, and to do a phase one by
the year 2019. Is that right? Or roughly?
Mr. D'Agostino. That's right. That's the proposal. Dr. Cook
has asked for a 30-day study, which will be completed at the
end of this month, in another week or so. And the leading
approach on delivering on this project is the phased approach
you just described.
Senator Alexander. When will we know what our cost
objective is for phase one?
Mr. D'Agostino. Our plan right now is to complete critical
decision--I shouldn't use this terminology, I apologize. Our
plan is, after we reach 90 percent design, which is going to be
about this fall timeframe, because there's still a fair amount
of work to reach that objective, then the department will
undergo a very detailed review, it takes about 4 months or so,
of the proposal put forward by our contractor down in Tennessee
on this.
Then this will be independent reviews by outside experts to
make sure that, because as you said earlier, Sir, once we make
a commitment on how much something is going to cost, we want to
make sure we can honor that commitment and honor that
commitment for this 8-year period.
So my expectation is, by the end of this year, or early
into next year, Sir.
Senator Alexander. You have a number now, if I'm correct,
of about $6.5 billion for the entire project before you lop off
phase one. Is that about right?
Mr. D'Agostino. The cost range right now is--that's the
upper end of the Government's cost range. At this stage in the
game, because we don't have the design completed, we talk about
ranges, a low-end and a high-end of the range. And that $6.5
billion is there.
Senator Alexander. So you might have design 90 percent
complete by the fall, then it will take you another 3 or 4
months to satisfy yourself that you got the right figure. And I
assume the right schedule for project completion; is that
right?
Mr. D'Agostino. That's absolutely right. The cost, the
schedule, and the scope. What we're actually going to
accomplish will be a key part of that as well.
Senator Alexander. So that might be early next year that
you could say to Senator Feinstein and me and what the schedule
is and what the cost objective is?
Mr. D'Agostino. Yes, but we would be happy to update you in
the interim before then to give you an idea of how things look
as we approach that time. Of course, with the President's
official budget submittal in January of next year, my
expectation is to make sure that that's formally documented in
that particular timeframe.
Senator Alexander. Well, that means you'll have to know in
October and November.
Mr. D'Agostino. Well, ideally, we'll have a pretty good
sense in October and November, because we will have----
Senator Alexander. So you'll be able to tell us about the
same time you tell the Office of Management and Budget, which
will probably be October, November, what you think it's going
to be. And then you're going to confirm it within the next 2,
3, or 4 months.
Mr. D'Agostino. Yes, Sir. We want to do a validation
process. It's not simply a matter of just taking what we get
and just throwing it in there. We want to get external experts.
And this is a key point that that was discussed earlier on
project management, of establishing a very solid baseline of
project management principles, which one of them is the 90
percent design that we've talked about; having the right people
in the job to get the job done.
You brought this point up and, in fact, John Eschenberg in
the audience here, who's a certified project manager at the
highest levels, he's got a great reputation, he does fantastic
work. We have him assigned particularly this project, establish
the baseline, get it independently checked. And that's what we
want. We want the independent validation.
And then once we do that, kind of line up the funding, the
project scope itself, and the right people, and then hold them
accountable. And that'll be the key piece at the very end of
this.
Senator Alexander. Well, there's a competition going on for
management of the Y12 project. And it's possible, it seems to
me, that that competition could divert energy that ought to be
directed toward keeping the project under cost and on budget.
What's your plan to make sure that doesn't happen?
Mr. D'Agostino. The plan to make sure that doesn't happen
is the way we've structured the competition, by asking the
people that propose, that would like to ultimately run our
facility, two proposals, one is in which where we can sever out
or cut out the UPF project from the project, if we needed to.
So this will give the Government a number of options on how we
can move forward.
We also have a wonderful team that is there; Babcock &
Wilcox and Bechtel that are working together. They both
committed that this is--from their standpoint, their commitment
is to make sure that taxpayers get the best value and that they
have committed, no matter how the competition goes, to make
sure that there if there is a transition, that the transition
happens appropriately.
Senator Alexander. The contractor was arguing that the
longer we delayed UPF, the more money we wasted because of the
inefficiency of the cost of security and operations. And anyone
who visits there, as I have, could easily believe that. The
numbers that I used to hear when we were talking about the
whole project I believe were in the neighborhood of a couple of
$100 million a year in extra costs to taxpayers for every year
we delayed it.
Now, if we're going to speed it up, we should be saving
money, shouldn't we? If we get it done a year earlier,
shouldn't we be saving as much as if we delayed it a year
later?
Mr. D'Agostino. We should expect to save money on two
fronts. One is the fact that it's one less year of operating
kind of in this less efficient way. And two is projects
typically become more efficient if you compress the amount of
time to actually do the project.
In addition, the phasing that you had talked about earlier,
Senator Alexander, will address a portion--it's not the
complete collapse of the security footprint, because we are
phasing it, because we want the most important part of the
project, the 9212 capabilities piece, done early instead of--
we're going to move that up a few years, like 2\1/2\-years,
3\1/2\-years timeframe.
So we will save from an operational efficiency standpoint.
We'll save some money from the security standpoint. We hope to
do that in the near future by driving this H road right down
the site and splitting it into two pieces.
And we should be able to save some resources, particularly
once the facility gets operational. Those savings typically,
though, particularly on the latter, the security savings and
the operational savings, won't happen until that phase is
completed.
Senator Alexander. Well, my last question on the UPF, and
then in my next opportunity I want to talk about the plutonium
facility and how you're going to deal with that.
And this is the Chairman's prerogative to how she would
like to do this, but I'd like to ask your advice about the
example I used of when I was trying to get that highway built
on time.
You've got a number of people who are accountable to you,
but it seems to me that, using good Navy procedure, that there
ought to be a single person accountable to Senator Feinstein
and to me for an on-time, on-budget project and that ought to
be you.
And that would mean, it seems to me, that it would be wise
for us to have some session with you in 2 or 3 months just on
this one project. And we may want to do it on others but just
on this one. And say, find out how you're doing in preparing
for it. And then about the time of the budget, it sounds like
October or something, we need another one.
And then once you come to us, and it sounds like it'll
finally be at the end of the year, early next year, and say,
``Okay, this is an X-cost project. This is our plan between now
and 2019'', or whatever the number is, that we ought to meet on
a regular, systematic basis, not to waste time, not too much,
maybe a quarter, every quarter is enough, but for the sole
purpose of a report about whether you're on time and whether
you're on budget.
And I don't think it's up to us then to get inside and
figure out why you are and why you aren't. I mean, we could do
that if we want, but we're not the managers of the project; in
effect, you are.
And that would be the discipline that I would think would
be most likely for us to do our jobs in making sure we're
saving taxpayers' money.
What's your thought and your recommendation about how that
process could be most useful?
Mr. D'Agostino. I like that idea. I like the idea that you
as ranking and Madam Chairman are interested in wanting to
deliver this project. It helps me actually do that as well,
knowing that it's time on your calendars.
And I'm happy to do that. I would look forward to doing it.
I think once we get this baseline, particularly, we should
establish the kind of information that is important for both of
you to hear and see and gain confidence in. And in fact, I
would also even suggest at some point, time permitting, that at
the right moment, we schedule a short visit down to the site
itself. I think it would be very illuminating. And I don't
think it has to happen every year, but I think maybe when we
establish that point in the sand where we say, ``Okay, this is
it,'' both your presence there would reinforce to our team, our
colleagues, that this is serious business, that the Government
is making a commitment, that we need a commitment, not just a
contractual commitment, but a commitment to get this job done.
Senator Alexander. Thanks, Madam Chairman.
It is serious business. I mean, we're talking about
billions of dollars here, and we just don't have billions of
dollars. We've got a debt that has to be reduced, and we've got
other urgent needs just within our own budget.
Senator Feinstein. Right. Thank you very much. It's a good
idea, Senator. And I'd be very pleased to participate.
NATIONAL LABORATORY COSTS
Let me ask you, as long as we're on the subject of lab
costs, it's my understanding that indirect costs at the
national labs average 45 percent. I assume that this is
overhead and administration.
This seems to me to be inordinately high. Why would an
average of indirect costs be 45 percent?
Mr. D'Agostino. There are a couple of reasons. One is, the
cost accounting standards, each laboratory approaches cost
accounting, we ask them to manage and operate, so we will not
dictate on the Federal side that you have to, you know, do
things everywhere across the laboratories in the exact same
way.
However, each laboratory will then decide how it wants to
attribute its costs for just the basic operation of the
facility, whether it's turning on the lights, keeping the
buildings painted, putting a roof on the facility, taking care
of the grounds, the chief financial officer organization, the
human capital office organization, these are high costs. We
think they're very too high.
And one way we are approaching to address this particular
problem, because we realize it's a real problem, because
ultimately the taxpayers are paying this particular cost, is
we're looking at consolidation of contracts to see if like-
minded what we would call business functions, like human
capital, procurement, general counsel, and the like, can be
done in a more efficient way.
And by integrating contracts and by asking our contractors
to buy their equipment from a central procurement source, we
can save money.
Senator Feinstein. Well, I've asked GAO to take a look at
this.
Mr. D'Agostino. Okay.
Senator Feinstein. So I'd like to ask that you work closely
with them and that we get figures that the Senator and I can
share and see what is really at the heart of this, because it's
an inordinately high figure.
PLUTONIUM PIT PRODUCTION
Let's talk a little bit about pit production. In 2007, the
JASONs found that the plutonium in pits can last up to 100
years without affecting nuclear weapons' performance. Recent
assessments, I'm led to believe, may indicate that pit
lifetimes may even approached 200 years.
Has NNSA conducted pit-aging studies in the last 5 years?
Mr. D'Agostino. Madam Chairman, we're continuing----
Senator Feinstein. Yes or no?
Mr. D'Agostino. Yes.
Senator Feinstein. Okay.
Mr. D'Agostino. And I'm not familiar with the 200-year
estimate that you've provided. But the original 100 years
calculation that we did, and that JASON did validate it, as you
suggest.
Senator Feinstein. Could we please see the results of your
pit-aging studies?
Mr. D'Agostino. Yes, Ma'am.
Senator Feinstein. In the last 5 years?
Mr. D'Agostino. Yes. It's continuous. Yes, of course.
Senator Feinstein. Okay. I'd like to see it.
NNSA says that the current capacity of 10 to 20 pits per
year is not enough. However, is there an identifiable need in
the next 10 years to manufacture new pits? Given shrinking
stockpiles, do we really need the capacity to produce 50 to 80
new pits per year?
Mr. D'Agostino. We believe our current capacity, which is
roughly at about the 10 to 20 pit per year capacity, is enough
to take care of the stockpile needs over the next decade. We'll
work closely with the Defense Department.
Senator Feinstein. Good. Okay, that's good to hear.
Mr. D'Agostino. There will always be a question--the term
you used, the 50 to 80 pits per year term, is an element of
what we call a responsive infrastructure, which once there is
confidence that we have a nuclear security infrastructure in
place that can take care of the Nation's need, the number of
reserve warheads that we would need to maintain could actually
go down even further.
Senator Feinstein. Okay, but for my purposes, what you're
telling us is that for the next 20 years, the 10 to 20 percent
figure is enough, 10 to 20 pits is enough.
Mr. D'Agostino. No, Ma'am. I would say in the next 10
years, we're confident that we take care of the--is enough, and
that, in all likelihood, that can be stretched to 15 years,
because we have a pretty good sense of the kind of work that we
need to do.
Senator Feinstein. Okay. That's what I want to know. We'll
write it down and hold you to it.
Mr. D'Agostino. Right. What I'd like to just add, if I
could, because, unfortunately, some of these, you'd like to
make these black and white. Some of them aren't so black and
white.
We're in the process of conducting a study called the W78
and W88 life-extension study, you recall. And an element of
that study will be to examine what is needed from a plutonium
need for the country. That study is not done, so I don't want
to make a presumption or force our laboratories into saying you
can only come up with solutions that do the following.
The laboratories need to be free to examine all options
then bring options before the Government to decide which is the
right approach. So we'll have an opportunity on this.
Senator Feinstein. Okay, good.
LIFE EXTENSION PROGRAMS
The W76 makes up the largest share of our nuclear deterrent
on the survivable leg of the triad--nuclear submarines. Yet,
the fiscal year 2013 budget request cuts the W76 life extension
program by $81 million, and it delays completion by 3 years. My
understanding is that this funding was shifted to support the
B61 life extension program. Why did you make that decision?
Mr. D'Agostino. We recognize that it's important to take
care of the W76 and the B61. Particularly, the B61 is entering
into a phase of work where the workload will increase if we are
going to meet our milestone data 2019.
When we looked at the impacts of the fiscal year 2012
appropriation and the Budget Control Act from last summer, we
recognize that we need to balance across all our programs.
Senator Feinstein. But what effect will this have on the
W76 in the Navy?
Mr. D'Agostino. Well, the Navy's warhead, we're going to do
the production requirements to meet the Navy's operational
needs, which will take care of the Navy's needs by, I believe,
it's the 2018 timeframe.
And what we will have done is then shifted so that the
warheads that need to be on the submarines for sure are going
to be taken care of. We're going to meet the production
requirements with that.
Senator Feinstein. So the Navy's needs are met.
Mr. D'Agostino. The Navy's operational needs are met, but
we need to also finish the refurbishment on the systems that
are not actually going to be deployed out on--and we're going
to do that. That's going to take a few more years.
But the key is to make sure the Navy's operational needs
are met.
Senator Feinstein. And the Navy is accepting of this
transfer?
Mr. D'Agostino. The Nuclear Weapons Council, which has
elements of the Defense Department, the senior officials from
the Defense Department who are responsible for this area, have
agreed that this is an approach. I will add that that doesn't
mean that everybody in the Navy thinks this is the right thing
to do.
But the reality is when we've examined all of the options,
when we took a look at our desire to make sure that the Navy's
operational needs are met, that the proposal that we put
forward is one that makes sense.
I will also add, though, that we're working very closely
with the Defense Department this summer because--in fact, not
right now, but we're working right now through the summer to
make sure that we fully understand and agree on the fiscal year
2014 to fiscal year 2022 timeframe, make sure that that plan is
all laid out.
Senator Feinstein. And this will not increase the cost of
the W76?
Mr. D'Agostino. Well, there will be, most likely probably a
slight cost increase, because we've had to stretch the
production out over a few more years, because we're completing
the warheads a little bit later than we had wanted to. So we
have to maintain a little bit of that infrastructure in place.
But I don't think it's that significant. We can give you
our best analysis on that, probably in a question for the
record, to give you a sense of that.
Senator Feinstein. Yes, would you please do that?
Mr. D'Agostino. Yes, Ma'am.
LOS ALAMOS NATIONAL LABORATORY PLUTONIUM FACILITY
Senator Feinstein. I want to speak about the termination or
delay of two projects after spending a $1.5 billion on them.
And you can, of course, guess what they are. One is Savannah
River, and the other is the new plutonium facility at Los
Alamos that's now been delayed by at least 5 years.
Why did you delay the construction? These are multi-billion
dollar facilities. So you spend money and then stop. I don't
understand it.
Mr. D'Agostino. Well, there's a couple of things. We
learned a lot in the last year, and some things have changed.
And I'll describe the changes from last year to this year that
led us to conclude, led me to conclude, because it's my
decision in submitting this to the Secretary and ultimately
then to the White House.
The things that changed, and I apologize in advance for
maybe getting down the level of detail. We built part of the
Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement Facility already.
It's called the radiation building. It's the radiological
building that is done. It's built, and it's in place.
Senator Feinstein. Are you talking about Savannah River?
Mr. D'Agostino. Oh, no, I'll just start off with the--I can
start with Savannah River.
Senator Feinstein. Well, whichever.
Mr. D'Agostino. We're starting off with the Los Alamos, New
Mexico, plutonium facility.
Senator Feinstein. Okay.
Mr. D'Agostino. That particular facility, the radiation
building, which already exists, which you appropriated
resources for and we built, was originally only going to handle
extremely small quantities of plutonium. And it will still
handle small quantities of plutonium.
But the analysis that was done, the safety analysis that
was done for that particular facility was done at a time--did
not use what we would call modern, up-to-date internationally
accepted dose conversion factors.
Now, this term dose conversion factor, this is somewhat of
a technical term, but translated it means how would you convert
material in the building to an actual dose that a human being
might receive if they were exposed to this material.
In modern dose conversion factors, in the past year, we've
shifted our approach to doing the safety analysis to use the
most up-to-date, modern, internationally accepted dose
conversation factors. That one simple change alone allowed us
to shift the amount of plutonium we can have in this radiation
building, which already exists, from small gram quantities,
like 4 to 6 grams, up to higher gram quantities, like 34 to 39
grams of plutonium.
It doesn't sound like a lot of plutonium, and it's not a
lot of plutonium. But that one change alone will allow us to do
the analysis in the radiation building that we didn't think we
could do there.
And in essence, it's a very significant increase in the
amount of work we can do in this radiation building. That takes
a tremendous amount of pressure off the desire to have the
nuclear facility built and up and operating quickly, which was
a big item.
The second change from last----
Senator Feinstein. I'm not understanding.
Mr. D'Agostino. Okay.
Senator Feinstein. So you're saying that based on this new
acceptable dose conversion factor----
Mr. D'Agostino. Right.
Senator Feinstein [continuing]. That you can now process
more plutonium. Therefore, the new facility is not necessary.
Is that what you're saying?
Mr. D'Agostino. The new facility, the need for the new
facility to take care of those items by the year--early 2020s,
the pressure is off to get that done. We can actually use the
facility that we have built already.
Before this, we didn't have this modern dose conversion
factor piece in there. At some point in the future, and this is
why we've deferred it; we haven't canceled Chemistry and
Metallurgy Research (CMR). The Nation will need a facility that
can consolidate all of these functions.
Senator Feinstein. Okay. We've got $1.5 billion worth of
facilities here, right? These two facilities? Over the last 10
years, $800 million has been spent on design of the new
facility.
My understanding is that now you find you don't need it,
and that the other facility is going to be used. Is that right?
Mr. D'Agostino. We are going to use--we believe we can
delay, defer the decision on building the actual facility,
because we have flexibility as a result of this analysis, as
you've correctly described.
Senator Feinstein. Okay. And you're $800 million into it.
Mr. D'Agostino. We are----
Senator Feinstein. Over 10 years, over the past 10 years.
Mr. D'Agostino. Over the past 10-year period, we spent a
significant amount of money in doing the analysis, because we
didn't have the modern dose conversion factors.
In fact, we had earlier on, 10 years ago, the production
rates were higher, because the size of the stockpile was
different and was more. There was a time many years ago that
there was a discussion of a thing called the modern pit
facility, which was going to make plutonium pits. That is off
the table.
And in fact, because of----
Senator Feinstein. Yes, the plutonium pits----
Mr. D'Agostino. Because we've been illuminated by longer
pit aging, because we've now been illuminated by the fact that
we have a very significant and different financial environment,
because we know that we have a lot of material out of the
plutonium vault in the existing plutonium facility that the
laboratory has cleaned up, the pressure to start today on two
large, very expensive facilities, that pressure has been
reduced.
And so we've decided to focus our attention on the most
critical, that thing that limits us most operationally, which
is the uranium capability.
That's on the Savannah River side. I think your second part
of your question dealt with--asked the question on the Savannah
River side.
Also, from the standpoint, we benefited in some respects,
and the Secretary made a decision last year to integrate--not
integrate but to have both the environmental management
organization and the NNSA report to one position, this Under
Secretary for Nuclear Security.
Working with the Environmental Management (EM)
organization, the NNSA looked at fully utilizing the H Canyon
facility in order to provide some plutonium feedstock, as well
as fully utilizing the Los Alamos facility for the feedstock
itself.
This is probably the other $700 million that you described
on the Pit Disassembly and Conversion Facility (PDCF).
Senator Feinstein. $700 million over 13 years.
Mr. D'Agostino. Right. So what we wanted to do is take
advantage of the fact that we've gotten--the NNSA received 4
metric tons of material of feed from the EM organization. We're
going to use the H Canyon to make a certain amount of material.
And we're going to take advantage of the Los Alamos capability.
That takes the pressure off having this large PDCF. They
don't make sense----
Senator Feinstein. I just want you to understand that if
it's been $700 million over 13 years to design a facility that
you terminate, and then $800 million over 10 years. That's $1.5
billion essentially wasted.
I mean, that's the way I see it.
Mr. D'Agostino. Yes, Ma'am. I make the decisions----
Senator Feinstein. Based on what you----
Mr. D'Agostino [continuing]. Based on what I know.
UNITED STATES ENRICHMENT CORPORATION
Senator Feinstein. I understand that. We haven't even
gotten to USEC yet. You want to do that on top of this?
Let's do USEC for a minute.
Given the uncertainty about the future of operations, my
understanding is that there's a one-time cost of $150 million
in fiscal year 2013, and that is it. Is that correct?
Mr. D'Agostino. Yes, Ma'am. I've talked to Secretary Chu
about this, most recently even yesterday. We have a request for
the transfer authority in fiscal year 2012 coupled with the
fiscal year 2013 request that is in the nonproliferation budget
for $150 million to do the demonstration project.
Senator Feinstein. Have things improved?
Mr. D'Agostino. With the ability----
Senator Feinstein. Has management improved?
Mr. D'Agostino. The management, in this environment, we
would only agree to move forward in this area is if a
consortium of companies came together with USEC in order to----
Senator Feinstein. We're aware of that, because we had a
big discussion, and I know the Senator is well aware, and I am,
too.
But the question is, has it made a difference?
Mr. D'Agostino. Well, because we don't have the consortium
in place, and we haven't started the----
Senator Feinstein. It isn't in place?
Mr. D'Agostino. Well, not to my knowledge. Until we have
the----
Senator Feinstein. Can you refresh my memory? Because we
went over this----
Senator Alexander. Well, it seems to me, Madam Chairman,
isn't the idea that the research and development (R&D) project
is ready to be demonstrated for 2 years. And we're going to run
it for 2 years and see if it can operate at a level of
efficiency the DOE regards as adequate, both in terms of its
successes in operation and its ability to acquire materials?
Senator Feinstein. We're funding it for 1 year.
Senator Alexander. The transfer authority did 1 year and
then we fund it for another. And that's the two $150 million
that we were all caught up in with the late requests that we
got last year.
But somebody has got to be in charge of the facility today.
Mr. D'Agostino. Well, absolutely. USEC is in charge of the
facility today.
Senator Alexander. And who's going to be in charge of the
2-year test? Is that what's not put together yet?
Mr. D'Agostino. Well, we have to, with great respect, we're
waiting for the transfer authority. I mean, obviously, this is
complicated. The Congress and the Administration have to do
this together.
Senator Alexander. Yes.
Mr. D'Agostino. We don't have the transfer authority in
place unless something happened recently that I'm not aware of.
And so, therefore, moving forward on the exact mechanism is
going to take a little bit of time.
Senator Alexander. So you're saying first we have to
provide the money and then you have to put together the team to
figure out whether the project works?
Mr. D'Agostino. Well, there are things happening in
parallel. We won't do this first and then second and then
third, because we don't have the time for that kind of an
approach.
Senator Feinstein. We didn't fund it with all those
discussions?
Senator Alexander. No, we didn't. And they're asking----
Senator Feinstein. We made an offer to the House. The House
turned it down.
Mr. D'Agostino. That's correct.
Senator Feinstein. So we didn't fund it.
Senator Alexander. Right.
Mr. D'Agostino. Right.
Senator Alexander. They've asked for transfer authority to
go with some other money to take care of what would have been
year 1, and they put in the 2013 budget another $150 million
for year 2.
And at the end of that, we're supposed to know if it works
or it doesn't. And if it does, then it's up to the Department
to recommend where we go from there.
Mr. D'Agostino. That's right. But I would also propose for
something like this, we would want, not just at the end but
throughout the process, we, you know, on a periodic basis,
frankly, whether it's quarterly or maybe even more frequently
than that, we communicate officially back to the committee in
this particular area, once we get started.
The planning work has started.
Senator Feinstein. Well, have you stockpiled low-enriched
uranium for tritium?
Mr. D'Agostino. We are set. We have commitments for a
number of years into the future, 5 years into the future. We're
fine for tritium production for the next 5 years in the future.
We can do obligation exchanges to take care--what's known
as flag swapping, taking material and making sure that it's
domestically produced material that we can use it for national
security purposes, that will take care for about another 5 more
years.
But it's not just the tritium production piece that's
important, an element of this. But from a tritium production
standpoint over the next number of--a decade or so, as I've
described, there are ways through this, but----
Senator Feinstein. Without USEC, is that what you're
saying?
Mr. D'Agostino. I don't want to call it a particular
company. I'm talking without an indigenous U.S. capability,
which of course USEC right now is the only indigenous U.S.
capability. It doesn't mean another company can't step in to do
this.
Senator Feinstein. So what is your prognosis? As you know,
this keeps going back and forth and back and forth. Candidly, I
don't know whether this facility can produce or not. And yet,
you've requested $150 million.
Mr. D'Agostino. I mean, the American Centrifuge Plant (ACP)
project is one that the Department and the USEC organization
have been working on. There's been some successes, and some
areas where improvements are needed.
The key is, the concern that we have, of course, is making
sure, since it is the only technology----
Senator Feinstein. What are the successes?
Mr. D'Agostino. What are the successes?
Senator Feinstein. Yes.
Mr. D'Agostino. I would say the success is the fact that
we've operated and trained a number of centrifuges for periods
of time. I don't have the exact lengths of time off the top of
my head, but we can get that for you, for periods of time and
successfully spun the centrifuges. And there have been some
very significant challenges.
Senator Feinstein. Well, the Iranians are doing that, too.
NUCLEAR SMUGGLING
I mean, in any event, let me go to an easier topic, nuclear
smuggling.
NNSA plans to cut $171 million from efforts to install
detection equipment at strategic international borders and
shipping ports.
What's the reason for the cut and the reason for the
``strategic pause''?
Mr. D'Agostino. Well, there's multiple reasons, one of
which I mentioned of having to do with challenges. When we look
at the overall scope of work that has to happen in the
nonproliferation arena, the most important part of the
nonproliferation scope, the absolutely most important part, is
securing the material at its location or removing the material
from its location.
And, of course, we just can't do this ourselves. We have to
get agreement by our partner countries in order to make this
particular thing happen. And so the emphasis is placed on the
Global Threat Reduction Initiative program, because we're
absolutely deeply committed to achieving the President's charge
to us.
With your support, we've been very successful to finish the
first slice of dealing with the most vulnerable material.
The second line of defense program helps significantly in
the transfer, illicit transferring of material around the
world. And we've done a significant amount, and we will have,
with this budget, more than 500 sites around the world complete
a significant amount of this work.
The pause allows us to, in essence, evaluate whether or not
just combinations of capabilities and programs from across the
agency can be done in a different way.
We've been doing second line of defense in this manner now
for, I would say, close to a decade in this approach. And it's
normal when you're doing something in a consistent way for a
long period of time and had successes in installation, and,
frankly, we had some successes in finding material to evaluate.
Do we keep doing things the same way out well out into the
future or not?
We're going to focus on increasing our mobile detection
efforts, because we recognize that when we established fixed-
site radiation detectors, the obvious question is, is, well,
you've just told the smugglers that this is a place where
you've got radiation detectors, they're just not going to go
there. They're going to go somewhere else or they're going to
go around.
So an element of the pause is to put in place mobile
detection capability to ensure that the whole border areas are
covered.
And so it's a confluence of budget and the like----
Senator Feinstein. You talked about buildings. You had a
goal of securing 8,500 buildings by 2025, and that slipped by
10 years to 2035. Is that for the same reason or that you just
can't do it?
Mr. D'Agostino. Well, it's somewhat of the same reason, but
it's also the fact that to make sure that the resource, the
limited resources, we have are applied on the highest risk
activities, which is not just securing some of the building.
The numbers you mentioned, Ma'am, are dealing with
radiological materials in many cases, which are different than
nuclear materials. The nuclear material is fissionable
materials that can turn into a mushroom cloud. The radiological
materials are hazardous, but in a radiological dirty device. So
they can cause some contamination spread, which would be
expensive to clean up, but it's different than the mushroom
cloud problem.
So given a limited, finite set of dollars, the
preponderance of our resources should be focused on dealing
with the improvised nuclear device or nuclear materials, not
just radiological materials.
Senator Feinstein. Well, Mr. D'Agostino, you certainly have
a difficult portfolio.
Mr. D'Agostino. Yes, Ma'am, I'd agree.
Senator Feinstein. I don't know why any nation would want
to go nuclear.
Senator.
Senator Alexander. Yes, Ma'am. I've got three questions, if
I may.
NUCLEAR WEAPONS MODERNIZATION
One is the United States DOD and the President have said in
their so-called 1251 figure that we need $372 billion more for
nuclear weapons modernization than your budget recommends, even
though your budget recommends $363 billion more than we spent
in the current year--than we're spending in the current year.
What can you say to the DOD and to the group of defense
experts who said we need $372 billion more? Were they wrong?
Have they changed their mind? Or do you have some other way to
meet what they say is important for the Nation's defense?
And I'm assuming most of the questions about it would come
from your decision to delay the additional facilities for
plutonium in New Mexico, because that's where about $300 of the
$373 billion comes from. In other words, how are you going to
do the work in plutonium that they say needs to be done to
adequately secure the Nation's defense?
Mr. D'Agostino. Okay, if I could start off with saying the
DOD and the Nuclear Weapons Council support the President's
budget, support this program.
All of our organizations are larger organizations, so there
may be folks that aren't happy with the fact that we have
stepped off of----
Senator Alexander. So they've adjusted their view, they
have amended the 1251 number, those people you just mentioned?
The DOD, the----
Mr. D'Agostino. I don't know about the whole Department. I
know about the Under Secretaries and the four-star officers on
the Nuclear Weapons Council. Those are----
Senator Alexander. Well, who provided us with the 1251
number? That was part of a review?
Mr. D'Agostino. That was both the DOE and the DOD that
provided that.
Senator Alexander. Now have the Departments amended that
number?
Mr. D'Agostino. We will be. And this is the study we're
doing with the DOD to make sure that our out-year budgets, the
fiscal year 2014 through 2022, 2023 budgets, because we do owe
the Congress a plan.
Senator Alexander. So the answer is yes, you're going to
amend the 1251 budget, 1251 number. Then how are you going to
do what needs to be done with plutonium with at the lower
estimate level and with the deferral of the facility?
Mr. D'Agostino. Sure. One element of how we're going to do
this is by doing more work inside the radiological building
that's already built.
Senator Alexander. Which you described.
Mr. D'Agostino. Which I described earlier. And that is an
element of the resources that Madam Chairman was asking
earlier, you know, was this a waste.
Senator Alexander. So you do more work in an existing
building. Are you going to produce, are you going to refurbish
fewer pits or manufacture fewer pits?
Mr. D'Agostino. We're going to take care and we're going to
do the surveillance as we always do on the plutonium pits that
we have. We have a PF facility called PF4 that exists, and
we're going to take advantage of that.
That was always the case. What we've done in the last year,
the piece I hadn't described adequately, was--the big thing
that changed in the last year as well, aside from this decision
to be able to do more work in the existing radiologic facility,
is we've reduced the amount of material that Los Alamos was
keeping in its plutonium vault.
In essence, the laboratory did a fantastic job in cleaning
out, if you will--I use that term ``cleaning out''; it's not a
technical term--but making sure that they only have material in
the vault that they need in order to do their job. And the
material that they don't need is appropriately dispositioned,
whether it goes to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP)
facility also in New Mexico or is put in a different area that
the vault space is--the pressure on having a large vault, which
CMR was going to give us, the nuclear facility was going to
give us, the pressure on having a large vault right away has
been taken--the notch has been taken down.
But because we can use the device assembly facility for
staging in Nevada, and because we plan on using the Superblock
Facility at Lawrence Livermore for very small amounts of
experimental work in the Superblock facility.
So it's what I described earlier, which is this idea of
operating in an integrated and interdependent----
Senator Alexander. Well, just to boil it down, are you
going to be processing fewer pits than you otherwise would
have, otherwise were planning?
Mr. D'Agostino. No, we will process the same amount of
pits, which processing means doing surveillance on them, taking
them apart, looking at them, making sure that they're okay.
Senator Alexander. What about manufacturing?
Mr. D'Agostino. Manufacturing pits, we have the capability
to manufacture about 10 pits per year now. With a few small
upgrades, we can move that number up to 20 pits per year.
I believe that depending on the outcome of the W78 study,
and if we maintain kind of this 10- to 20-pit per year capacity
and working with the Defense Department on the overall size of
the stockpile that that will take care of the need, the
operational need to stockpile.
Senator Alexander. So manufacturing 10 or 20 and then
otherwise processing an additional number of pits.
Mr. D'Agostino. Processing for surveillance, to do the
surveillance work.
UNITED STATES ENRICHMENT CORPORATION
Senator Alexander. Right. Let me shift quickly to my other
two.
Just to summarize the chairman's questions about USEC, I
mean, basically, this centrifuge project is completed to the
point where we need to know whether it works or not. Isn't that
the argument?
And the request is for a $150 million in the current year
and next year to do an R&D deployment and assess whether it's
ready to go. Isn't that basically right?
Mr. D'Agostino. It's basically right, but it includes the,
essentially, I'll call it the purchase--this R&D program to buy
and train a set, a small production grouping of these
centrifuges, and make sure that they work together.
Senator Alexander. Yes, enough of them to make a judgment
about whether it's been successful or not, this project.
Mr. D'Agostino. And then to ensure that the taxpayer is
protected in this area, that that intellectual property comes
back to the department because----
Senator Alexander. Yes, we understand that.
But the point is to find out, at the end of 2 years, you
should be able to say, unfortunately, this project on which we
have spent billions of dollars doesn't work well enough to go
forward with it, or, fortunately, it does and this is what we
propose to do with it at this point.
Is that----
Mr. D'Agostino. Right.
Senator Alexander. Is that basically right?
Mr. D'Agostino. That's about right, Sir.
Senator Alexander. And then, now, if I've got this right,
you don't have the budget for cleanup, environmental cleanup,
but you've got the management responsibility. Is that right?
Mr. D'Agostino. Well, the Environmental Management
organization works for me. I'm keeping the Environmental
Management and the NNSA budgets separate. There's two separate
accounts, because it's very important--we have a significant
amount of environmental management work.
So, yes, the Environmental Management budget is part of my
portfolio.
RADIOLOGICAL CLEANUP
Senator Alexander. It comes to you.
Well, that's very important and another part, Madam
Chairman, of making good use of the taxpayer dollars. Shrewd
decisions and careful priorities in cleanup could make a huge
difference not just in the safety of Americans, but in how
wisely we spend the money, for example, in the case of the Y-12
facility.
I know that you're making some decisions to get certain
buildings out of the security compound to reduce security costs
and to permit us to clean them up more rapidly. You're
finishing up, I know at least in the Oakridge area, a huge
amount of radiological cleanup. And we've talked about the
importance of beginning to move ahead with a plan to deal with
the mercury problem in the Oakridge area, which is a very large
problem.
So I would like to receive assurances from you that you
will continue to focus on finishing the radiological cleanup
and be flexible in terms of spending the dollars to move as
rapidly ahead so we can, A, develop a plan, and, B, get started
on the long-term mercury cleanup.
Mr. D'Agostino. Senator, I'd be glad to do that. The U-233
project I think is the radiological project that you talked
about.
Senator Alexander. Yes.
Mr. D'Agostino. And that's a real demonstration of how two
organizations can and, frankly, should work together. It was as
the result of pushing--or Bill Brinkman and I--Bill Brinkman
runs the Office of Science--and I have the other piece of
working together and saying we have to finish this job.
Fortunately, I have a colleague like Bill in this area, and we
were able to do it with his help.
Senator Alexander. Madam Chairman, I have no other
questions.
AMERICAN CENTRIFUGE PLANT
Senator Feinstein. Okay. I'm afraid I do.
Let's go back to last June at USEC. What blew up?
Mr. D'Agostino. Last June at USEC. I don't know, Madam
Chairman. I will have to check. I wasn't given responsibility
at that particular point.
Senator Feinstein. Well, didn't the centrifuges blow up?
Mr. D'Agostino. I don't know if I would use the term ``blow
up''. We had, I think, as I understand it, there were some
issues with the centrifuges spinning in a way that was not
conducive to their operation at all.
Senator Feinstein. Sorry.
Welcome to the United States Government.
Mr. D'Agostino. Senator, if when you have somebody that has
my job called the Nuclear Security Administration, I don't
usually use the words ``blow up'' too often. So I'm aware that
sometimes I can be--that term could get--if I use the term
``blow up''----
Senator Feinstein. Let me put it in another way.
Mr. D'Agostino. Okay.
Senator Feinstein. Were they all incapacitated?
Mr. D'Agostino. Were they all incapacitated?
Senator Feinstein. The centrifuges.
Mr. D'Agostino. We'll have to take that for the record. I
don't know.
Senator Feinstein. Because it seems to me, before we fund
something, we ought to know where things are.
Mr. D'Agostino. Absolutely. I'd glad to come up, once I get
the data, with my colleagues from the nuclear energy
organization to explain where things are with the ACP,
absolutely.
Senator Feinstein. Okay. I would appreciate that very much,
because, you know, we went through this. All the vibrations
that I get from the commentary is we're right where we were.
And yet, has the plant been operating?
Mr. D'Agostino. Well, the plant has--I mean, pieces of the
plant had been operating. I couldn't tell you which pieces are.
USEC continues to do work on the ACP project to tackle the
problem.
Senator Feinstein. Well, I'd like to know what's working
and what isn't working.
Mr. D'Agostino. Sure. Absolutely.
Senator Feinstein. Before we fund it. I'm really serious.
Mr. D'Agostino. Absolutely. I think that's a fair question.
Senator Alexander. Madam Chairman, if I could add, I mean,
isn't the question, is the project ready to receive funding for
a 2-year demonstration about whether it works or not. I mean,
isn't that what we're talking about? That was the whole project
purpose of the 2-year project, was to see whether all this
research and effort over the last several years----
Senator Feinstein. Candidly, I thought it began. Now what
I'm finding out is that it may not have. I don't know whether
the plant went totally down, whether the centrifuges went
totally down last June, but there certainly was a big
interruption.
I mean, if it can't operate, why fund it? If it doesn't
operate well, why fund it when, as I understand it, there are
other methods of handling the problem?
Senator Alexander. Well, it could be, Madam Chairman,
that--I mean, that's certainly a logical--we got a late request
for 2 years of $150 million that surprised us, correct?
Senator Feinstein. Correct.
Senator Alexander. And we weren't--it came late in the
process, and we tried to help but could not. Because we
couldn't fund it, I suppose that produced--you couldn't move
ahead, would be my guess. And I guess the question I'd like to
know the answer to, too, is if are you ready for us to fund it?
And if so, can you show us why?
Mr. D'Agostino. And the answer would be, we believe that
moving forward that we will be ready to show you why we can
move forward with this deactivation and decommissioning (D&D)
project. I don't have the data here to tell you exactly how
many centrifuges are spinning, do we have all of the problems
solved.
But the key for us is, USEC has been working on this
project for a number of years, as we've discussed, that it is
the best technology available, we believe the best approach to
move forward on maintaining an indigenous U.S. capability.
That's absolutely critical for not just the tritium reason,
recognizing that's not a problem that we have to make tritium,
make low-enriched uranium for tritium today. But it takes time
in order to take us from a D&D project, a 2-year effort, to
ultimately turning into a capability that the Nation can rely
upon to take care of its needs out into the future.
And that's why we believe it's important to move forward
with this D&D project, but if at some point in working with the
Congress, it isn't something that the Congress is willing to
do, we will have to explore other paths and take back the
technology and use a different approach.
Senator Feinstein. How many people are working there now
and how is it funded?
Mr. D'Agostino. I'll have to take that one for the record.
I don't know the number of people that are working there now
and the details of funding.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
Senator Feinstein. All right. At this point, this is a
serious concern. We had to grapple with it, and we tried to
solve what was an immediate problem. We made the offer to the
House; nothing happened.
I don't know how they're functioning. I don't know how
they're paying for functioning. I don't know whether they are
functioning and producing.
Mr. D'Agostino. As I understand it----
Senator Feinstein. I don't know how many people they
employ. I heard it was a couple of thousand people. So it's
kind of like a shadow, and I think we need to flesh it out.
Mr. D'Agostino. Okay.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted by Chairman Dianne Feinstein
national ignition facility
Question. Mr. D'Agostino, the National Ignition Facility (NIF) is
supposed to achieve ignition in September 2012. Some experts believe
that NIF will not achieve ignition by September.
What are the prospects for ignition at NIF?
Answer. The timeframe for achieving ignition is impossible to
predict with our current scientific understanding. Demonstrating fusion
ignition has always been recognized to be a grand scientific challenge.
The National Ignition Campaign (NIC), a multilaboratory, multiyear
effort devoted to this pursuit, although producing many significant
advances, has yet to accomplish three key milestones on the pathway to
ignition. The milestone to create significant self-heating (``lighting
the match'') and the ignition milestone itself were recently delayed by
3 months each, and the milestone to exceed 5 million joules of fusion
yield has been dropped from the campaign. The campaign is scheduled to
end at the close of fiscal year 2012. It is imperative that the
Stockpile Stewardship Program understands the physics underlying
National Nuclear Security Administration's (NNSA) inability to achieve
indirect-drive ignition thus far, and in doing so, assess the important
fundamental issues relevant to ignition. Through the current campaign,
the NIC team has gained insights into the challenges of developing the
scientific, technological, and engineering basis for indirect-drive
ignition and has regularly communicated the technical progress to the
broader scientific communities through a number of reviews and refereed
papers. An in-depth scientific understanding of the ignition target
performance and its deviations from computer model predictions is
critically important and will inform our subsequent decisions relative
to the stockpile and further ignition attempts. Gaining that
understanding while continuing to conduct important stockpile
stewardship experiments that do not rely on an igniting capsule will be
the priority for the next few years.
Question. Has NNSA developed a plan B to maximize the use of this
$3.5 billion facility?
Answer. The experimental and simulation work required to resolve
the issues remaining after fiscal year 2012 will be based on
information derived from an evaluation of experimental results from the
NIC. A process is well underway to stand up a Federal advisory
committee to provide independent advice to NNSA regarding Stockpile
Stewardship including the future conduct of the Inertial Confinement
Fusion (ICF) program and ignition activities. Once established, NNSA
will charge the Federal advisory committee or a subcommittee thereof
with evaluating the progress on the NIF and providing advice on the
evaluation, selection, and pursuit of alternative approaches to
ignition. In the intervening time, the NNSA is continuing with plans to
conduct the next NIC review in May using a combination of Federal staff
members and outside scientists who served on the panel under former
Under Secretary Koonin. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL)
has also planned and invited national and international participants
for a workshop on ignition science in May to be co-chaired by Dr.
William Goldstein and Dr. Robert Rosner. NNSA will observe and will use
the output of this workshop as one input for the report to the Congress
due in November 2012 on impediments to ignition and the path forward.
NNSA is soliciting ideas for alternative approaches to ignition, and
for one of these, polar direct drive, has Q2 and Q4 fiscal year 2012
milestones to develop a proposed scientific plan.
Question. How much longer can NIF support stockpile stewardship
work without ignition?
Answer. NNSA has invested in a balanced stewardship program that
includes:
--underground nuclear test re-analysis;
--Advanced Simulation and Computing (ASC); and
--hydrodynamic, nuclear, and non-ignition high-energy-density physics
experimental capabilities that when combined provide necessary
tools to assess and certify the stockpile in the near term.
In the longer term, it is imperative that the Stockpile Stewardship
Program understands the physics underlying the challenges encountered
during the campaign to achieve indirect-drive ignition, and in doing
so, assesses the fundamental issues relevant to ignition and whether
they might impact our understanding of simulating high energy density
plasmas. Ignition provides a critical capability needed to explore
physical regimes of matter previously only achievable in a nuclear
weapon. This capability will inform decisions that will be required for
the future stockpile in the latter half of this decade. Achieving
ignition on NIF would potentially open a larger range of design choices
for increased safety and security, but more constrained design options
do not negate stewardship. Emphasizing this point, in its April 2010
report to the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, Committee
on Appropriations, U.S. Senate entitled ``Nuclear Weapons--Actions
Needed to Address Scientific and Technical Challenges and Management
Weaknesses at the National Ignition Facility,'' the GAO concluded
``failure to achieve ignition in fiscal year 2012 would not immediately
impact NNSA's Stockpile Stewardship Program, but further delays could
limit NNSA's options for maintaining the stockpile''.
Question. Is it possible that NIF will never achieve ignition?
Answer. The timeframe for achieving ignition is impossible to
predict with our current scientific understanding, and therefore, yes
it is possible that in its current design, ignition may never be
achieved. ICF Program participants, who have the principal purpose of
providing experimental capabilities to validate NNSA's nuclear weapons
codes in unprecedented regimes, are engaged in reconciling NIC
experimental data with predictions; they also have begun planning for
alternate approaches to ignition and preparing for enhanced utilization
of ICF facilities for a wide array of SSP-relevant experimental
activities. The Office of Defense Science through its Science Campaigns
is developing programmatic plans for fiscal year 2013 and beyond under
both ignition and non-ignition scenarios. Ignition, or understanding
the obstacles to it, will remain a significant goal for NNSA. It
supports multiple aims within the Predictive Capability Framework of
the Stockpile Stewardship and Management Plan.
construction projects
Question. Mr. D'Agostino, NNSA has just terminated or delayed 2
major construction projects--a plutonium facility at Los Alamos and a
pit disassembly and conversion facility at Savannah River--after
spending $1.5 billion only to conclude that it could use existing
facilities to meet mission requirements. (NA-20 needs to provide PDCF
info).
If these existing facilities were available, why did NNSA pursue
the construction of these multibillion dollar facilities?
Answer. The use of existing facilities to meet mission requirements
is a choice precipitated by the realities of the current fiscal
environment. NNSA is fully committed to being responsible stewards of
taxpayer dollars and doing our part in a time of fiscal austerity.
The decisions related to the deferral of the Chemistry and
Metallurgy Research Replacement Nuclear Facility (CMRR-NF) are designed
to ensure that NNSA is building a capabilities-based enterprise focused
on needs and solutions while achieving President Obama's nuclear
security objectives with the funding that is available. The decision to
defer the construction of the CMRR-NF for at least 5 years was not an
easy one, but it was assessed that, given budget constraints, other
programs were a higher priority. Moreover, every effort has been made
to mitigate the risks inherent in this decision, to include the use of
existing infrastructure to provide for some of the capabilities
originally planned for the CMRR-NF. Deferring a major construction
project and opting to use current infrastructure carries an inherent
programmatic risk that NNSA accepts in a time of constrained budgets.
Use of existing infrastructure to provide analytical chemistry,
materials characterization, and storage capabilities is not a final,
nor preferred, solution but requires additional efforts to optimize
equipment sets in both the newly constructed Radiological Laboratory/
Utility/Office Building (RLUOB) and Plutonium Facility-4 (PF-4). While
NNSA accepts the programmatic risk associated with deferral of the
CMRR-NF, it will continue to mitigate the current operational risks
associated with the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research facility by
continuing orderly phase out of program activities targeted for
completion in 2019.
Question. What is the return on the taxpayer investment after
spending $1.5 billion on these projects?
Answer. Through fiscal year 2011 the CMRR project received
approximately $640 million and in fiscal year 2012 another $200 million
with the stipulation that no construction for the NF begin in fiscal
year 2012. Of the funds appropriated through fiscal year 2012,
approximately $363 million provided for the first two phases of the
CMRR project, the construction of the Radiological Laboratory/Utility/
Office Building and RLUOB Equipment Installation (REI). Through March
2012 approximately $362 million was spent on design of the third phase
of the CMRR project, the CMRR-NF. A portion of the remaining fiscal
year 2012 project funds provides for the close out of CMRR-NF design
activities. Responsible close out of CMRR-NF design activities in
fiscal year 2012 provides:
--Enhanced insight into the seismology at Los Alamos and its impacts
to design of nuclear facilities.
--A design product that incorporates lessons learned during CMRR-NF
design and the design, construction, and equipment installation
of the RLUOB.
--Analysis of the programmatic and support equipment needed for
enduring capabilities in analytical chemistry and materials
characterization.
--Improved understanding of the safety equipment requirements of a
Hazard Category 2 Nuclear Facility for any future Hazard
Category 2 facilities.
Question. What has NNSA done to avoid these issues in the future?
Answer. NNSA plans and programs for new construction projects
through its Planning, Programming, Budgeting and Execution (PPBE)
activities, and relies on program-specific prioritization efforts like
the Construction Working Group in Defense Programs. Large scale, unique
nuclear projects like the plutonium facility at Los Alamos and the pit
disassembly and conversion facility at Savannah River have inherent
risks to scope, schedule, and cost. In the future, NNSA will continue
to sharpen its risk analysis in order to inform sound resource
decisions that support national program priorities. While NNSA works
with the Congress, the Department of Defense, the Office of Management
and Budget, and other stakeholders to align priorities with anticipated
out-year funding profiles, unforeseen events may require NNSA to make
difficult budget decisions.
Question. Domestic uranium enrichment technology is needed to
produce tritium for nuclear weapons.
Given the uncertainty about the future of operations of domestic
facilities and technologies, has NNSA stockpiled low-enriched uranium
for tritium production?
Answer. The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) has the United States
Enrichment Corporation (USEC) under contract to provide unobligated
low-enriched uranium (LEU) to support tritium production through fiscal
year 2015. TVA has confidence that these requirements can be met from
USEC inventories, if the Paducah enrichment capability goes away. NNSA
has identified approximately 140 metric tons uranium (MTU) of
unobligated LEU that can be used for obligation exchanges to support
tritium production through fiscal year 2020. This unobligated LEU is
maintained by the MOX program as backup to provide potential
MOX customers with assurance of delivery. In addition, DOE
has approximately 5,000 MTU of unobligated uranium hexafluoride feed
material (normal uranium) which could be enriched to LEU. The initial
investment for such an approach would include enrichment costs of
approximately $45 million per reload for each TVA 18-month fuel cycle,
plus the costs of carrying that fuel in inventory until it is needed
beginning in fiscal year 2021. NNSA has no other stockpiles of
unobligated LEU that could support tritium production.
Question. Does NNSA have a contingency plan for tritium production
if Paducah is shut down and the new gas centrifuge technology is not
viable?
Answer. Plans for providing unobligated LEU for tritium production
between now and fiscal year 2020 are described in the response to the
previous question. Beyond fiscal year 2020, there are a number of
options under evaluation. However, the contingency plan is to down
blend highly enriched uranium (HEU) from future weapons dismantlements.
High assay HEU is also needed to meet naval reactor program
requirements and is essentially irreplaceable until a domestic HEU
capability is built. There may also be intermediate assay HEU that
could be accelerated for dismantlement to meet the fuel requirement for
producing tritium in the timeline necessary.
Question. Have you determined whether there are cheaper
alternatives to the American Centrifuge Project for low enriched
uranium supplies?
Answer. Other than down blending HEU or stockpiling LEU from a
special enrichment campaign at Paducah, we know of no alternative to
ACP for providing unobligated enrichment services in the future, absent
a new United States Government enrichment facility.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Patty Murray
major shift in second line of defense program
Question. I understand the NNSA is undertaking a strategic review
of the program. Which agencies are participating in the review? What is
the schedule for the review?
Answer. The Second Line of Defense (SLD) program is in the process
of a strategic review. The program has held multiple meetings with
important stakeholders and partners with which it collaborates on a
regular basis. SLD coordinates its prioritization and deployment
activities through the State Department and its Embassies; carries out
multiple joint initiatives involving partner countries, including
regional exercises with Department of Defense (DOD) and Department of
Homeland Security (DHS); and is responsible for a large component of
the foreign transit and foreign departure element of the Interagency
Global Nuclear Detection Architecture. SLD also participates in the
National Security Council (NSC)-led and Department of State (DOS)
coordinated effort to establish Counter Nuclear Counter-Smuggling
Teams. SLD similarly collaborates with international partners such as
the European Commission's Joint Research Centre (JRC) and the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) on related efforts, and is
taking into account their capabilities as part of its review of how to
most effectively deploy SLD programs, including mobile detection, to
meet the threat of nuclear trafficking.
The schedule for the review is closely linked to the fiscal year
2014 budget development cycle to provide an overall strategic plan for
consideration in light of the current fiscal environment. Throughout
this deliberative process, SLD is engaging interagency partners with
which it has traditionally collaborated. This includes the Departments
of Defense, State, and Homeland Security, as well as interagency
coordinating groups such as the Interagency Working Group at the
Department of State and the Counter Nuclear Smuggling Initiatives led
by the National Security Council.
Question. What concerns me is what happens in the meantime?
Answer. It's not clear to me how you maintain existing
capabilities, retain existing expert personnel, sustain currently
deployed detection systems, and meet our international commitments to
priority ``source'' nations by cutting funding for this program by 65
percent while you undertake a strategic review.
Question. What can you do with the $93 million you've requested for
the SLD program? Are you going to deploy any new detection systems in
priority ``source'' countries?
Answer. In fiscal year 2013, the SLD program will focus on a
strategic review intended to identify and prioritize those elements of
SLD that should continue. While this strategic review is underway, SLD
will focus on the highest priority deployments. This will still allow
for a number of new starts at locations in the highest priority Core
countries, including some fixed radiation portal monitor deployments,
the next segment of the national communications system in Russia, and
the provision of mobile detection equipment to countries such as
Belarus, Czech Republic, Jordan, Moldova, Poland, Russia, and Ukraine.
The remaining funding will be used to ensure adequate sustainability
support is available to assist those partner countries in process of
assuming the maintenance, training, and management responsibilities
associated with the radiation detection systems.
Question. How will you meet our existing international commitments
to these and other nations?
Answer. The SLD program will not be able to meet all prior
commitments for new installations in fiscal year 2013 as a result of
the reduced budget and the associated strategic pause. SLD is currently
conducting outreach to international partner countries to inform them
of the implications of the strategic pause. A major element of the
outreach is to express SLD's continued support for the project and our
commitment to sustainability activities. We are also actively
encouraging partners whose SLD work scope in fiscal year 2013 is
reduced or terminated to continue operating previously deployed
systems. As the strategic review is refined, we will reach out to
partner countries to inform them of the results of the review.
Question. How will you be able to maintain the hundreds of millions
of dollars in detection systems that have already been deployed around
the world?
Answer. SLD is committed to a robust sustainability program with
partner countries and will strive to maintain that standard under the
new funding profile. SLD has a multi-faceted 3-year support and long-
term engagement strategy that we believe is a solid formula for
building partner country capabilities to sustain SLD systems and for
ensuring the long-term operation of such systems.
SLD seeks to provide at least 3 years of maintenance and training
support to each partner country following the acceptance of a new
Megaport or Core site. We also seek continued technical engagement
thereafter to ensure that the value of SLD's investment is properly
sustained. SLD conducts quarterly assessments of local maintenance
provider performance to ensure that local maintenance providers are
properly maintaining SLD systems. In addition, SLD conducts quarterly
assessments of the partner countries' capabilities to sustain the
systems in the areas of operations and management, training, and
maintenance. SLD will fund the highest-priority sustainability
activities, and will continue to engage with partner countries and will
identify opportunities for improvement through continued analysis of
daily operational reports from deployed monitors, worldwide reporting
to the SLD technical support Help Desk, and regular review of local
maintenance provider reporting, refresher training, and assurance
visits. This information, in combination with our consistent engagement
with partner countries, will ensure the sustainability of installed SLD
systems and will offer the opportunity to address any gaps. As a result
of the prioritization of sustainability activities, other activities
such as exercises, refresher training, and regulations development
might not receive full funding.
Question. And how do you intend to implement the recommendations
coming from the strategic review?
Answer. You've got capabilities and teams of experts at labs like
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and elsewhere who have been
working hard to deploy and maintain systems to keep nuclear material
from ever reaching our shores.
Question. After reducing the budget by 65 percent, are you sure
those people and those assets are still going to be available once your
strategic review is complete?
Answer. The current and future success of the SLD Program is
largely dependent on the contributions of the technical experts at the
National Laboratories, including those at the Pacific Northwest
National Laboratory (PNNL). Accordingly, SLD intends to maintain a core
capability of these technical experts. However, it is well understood
that the reduction in funding and resulting reduction in workscope will
necessitate a decrease in the present number of technical staff
supporting this program effort. It is possible that this loss will
impact the program's ability to resume a high level of workscope
implementation immediately should the results of the review call for
that. The strategic planning process and outyear budget development
will take this into account. In the meantime, SLD is working with its
national laboratory colleagues to retain key expertise throughout the
strategic pause.
environmental management--technology development and deployment
Question. Under Secretary D'Agostino, as you may know, the Pacific
Northwest National Laboratory has historically provided scientific and
technical support to the Hanford Site in areas such as tank waste
processing and soil and groundwater monitoring. Over the past few
years, the funding for Technology Development and Demonstration and
within each site that supports these tasks has been on a downward
trend.
If adequate funding is not provided to maintain the institutional
scientific and technical knowledge, subsequent staff reductions will
result in these capabilities being lost forever--even as we enter a
period in which addressing technical challenges underlying cleanup is
key to ensuring successful outcomes.
What is the Department of Energy's (DOE) Environmental Management
(EM) office doing to address this issue and to ensure that EM has the
technical and scientific capabilities it will need to address cleanup
challenges moving forward?
Answer. In the 2012 budget, EM requested $32 million for the
Technology Development and Deployment program. The Congress provided
$10 million. The 2013 budget requests $20 million for the program. EM's
focus is to maintain a strategic applied research and technology
development program that supports the effective, efficient, safe, and
compliant completion of cleanup at the DOE sites. To accomplish this,
EM identifies its highest priority technical challenges involving,
among other things, soil and groundwater remediation, tank waste
processing, nuclear materials disposition, and facility deactivation
and decommissioning. Then the EM program interacts with the national
laboratories and various universities to address those challenges. We
look forward to working with the laboratories to address EM's technical
challenges.
national nuclear security administration workforce planning
Question. Have you done a comprehensive assessment of the
appropriate staffing levels and skills needed to oversee the nuclear
security enterprise?
Answer. The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) is
currently conducting a Federal Workforce Analysis to enhance NNSA's
human capital model by identifying future staffing levels and
organizational core competencies, and implementing a competency model,
and integrating legacy human capital information with project
information. This will assist NNSA in organizing and staffing
optimally, including the proper skill mix, to meet future mission
requirements.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Lamar Alexander
pit production
Question. The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) has
decided it will defer for at least 5 years construction of the
Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement Facility (CMRR).
NNSA's Stockpile Stewardship and Management Plan issued in April
2011 stated ``. . . the U.S. must maintain a basic set of production,
scientific and engineering capabilities. This minimum capability-based
physical infrastructure will have to be responsive to changing world
demands and have the inherent capacity to produce up to 80 of the most
work-intensive weapons per year while sustaining the remaining
stockpile''.
Has the requirement for a capacity of producing up to 80 pits per
year changed?
Answer. There were a number of factors the Department of Defense
and NNSA considered that informed the decision to seek a pit production
capability of up to 80 newly manufactured pits per year. First, at an
unclassified level, the best estimate for minimum pit lifetimes in the
U.S. stockpile is 85-100 years, and most pits are nearing half that
age. There are many uncertainties with regard to the pit lifetime
estimates and performance of aged pits (the details of which are
classified) which all support the prudent maintenance of a capability
to manufacture pits to ensure against technological surprise.
Furthermore, adding modern safety and surety capabilities to the
majority of the enduring stockpile will require capabilities to
remanufacture and rework pits and pit components. These factors have
not changed, and therefore, a pit production rate of up to 80 pits per
year is currently assessed to be a prudent, long-term capability to
achieve. However, NNSA is reviewing combinations of reuse of existing
pits in addition to the remanufacture of existing pit designs to
support planned life extension programs and determine the most
efficient use of resources and production capabilities and capacities.
Question. NNSA says it can develop the capability to produce 20-30
pits per year without CMRR. How much will this cost over the next 5
years? Please delineate which facilities will do the work in the
absence of CMRR, and the associated costs.
Answer. The CMRR project involved three phases:
--the construction of the Radiological Laboratory/Utility/Office
Building for small sample analytical chemistry,
--the RLUOB Equipment Installation, and
--the CMRR-NF for larger sample analytical chemistry, material
characterization, and vault space.
Construction of the radiological facility is complete and the
nuclear facility construction is deferred. As a result, in the interim,
options are being evaluated to increase the analytical chemistry work
in the radiological facility; additional material characterization to
include sample preparation in PF-4; performing some material
characterization at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory; and
reducing the amount of unused material in the existing PF-4 vault.
These actions are targeted at supporting a production rate of 30 pits
per year. The feasibility of these actions are currently being
evaluated, including cost estimates.
Question. NNSA plans to reuse or refurbish existing plutonium pits,
which would lessen the need for manufacturing. Are you confident this
will be feasible?
Answer. Plans to reuse or refurbish existing plutonium pits would
reduce the short-term need for manufacturing, but do not address the
long-term need. The best estimate for minimum pit lifetimes in the U.S.
stockpile is 85-100 years, and most pits are nearing half that age.
There are also many uncertainties with regard to the pit lifetime
estimates and performance of aged pits (the details of which are
classified) which all support the prudent maintenance of a capability
to manufacture pits to ensure against technological surprise.
Furthermore, adding modern safety and surety capabilities to the
majority of the enduring stockpile will require capabilities to
remanufacture and rework pits and pit components.
NNSA has a strong record of reusing and refurbishing pits as part
of major nuclear explosive package operations and life extension
programs (LEP) over the last two decades. Examples include the W87
Alteration (Alt) 342, the B61 Alt 357, and most recently the ongoing
W76 LEP. In addition, the baseline for the B61 LEP, scheduled for a
first production unit in fiscal year 2019, is relying on a pit reuse
strategy. NNSA is also pursuing the ability to certify the use of
insensitive high explosives with pits designed for conventional high
explosives, which would increase the re-usable pit inventory. Science,
Technology, and Engineering tools and capabilities investments are
being made to enable this certification.
Our interim capability of 20-30 pits per year will support our
expectation during this interim time period to rely on reuse and
refurbishment of existing pits. We are confident that this is feasible.
Therefore, an expanded capability to produce 80 pits per year is
associated with the remanufacture of existing stockpile designs or the
replacement option, which produces new pits based on previously tested
designs. With the CMRR deferment choice made following the adoption of
the Budget Control Act of 2011, an inability to expand to 80 pits
annually over the short term does represent an acceptable risk.
Question. Which planned life extension programs are expected to
require new pit production?
Answer. NNSA has existing life extension programs for the W76 and
the B61. The W76-1 and B61-12 do not require new pit production. The
W78 and W88 are undergoing a conceptual study for life extension
options. Options for both reuse of existing pits and remanufacture of
existing pit designs are being evaluated. No decisions have been made.
life extension programs
Question. The life extension program (LEP) for the W76 nuclear
warhead is well underway. This summer, the B61 LEP is expected to begin
and may delay completion of the W76 LEP.
Please describe, in broad terms, the relative importance of the B61
and W76 to our strategic deterrent.
Answer. The B61 and W76 support separate but very important
elements of the U.S. nuclear deterrent Triad. B61 bomb variants are
actively deployed in the United States and abroad. The B61 strategic
variants are an integral part of the air delivered deterrent supporting
the bomber leg of the Triad. The non-strategic variants, along with the
U.S. and North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) dual capable
aircraft, are the cornerstone of the U.S. commitment to extended
deterrence. The W76 warheads are deployed on the submarine launched
ballistic missiles as part of the sea-based strategic nuclear
deterrent, which is the most survivable leg of the Triad. Additionally,
with the reductions in warheads and launchers under the New Strategic
Arms Reduction Treaty (New START), the W76 will comprise a majority of
the Nation's nuclear strategic force. Both the B61 and W76 provide the
U.S. with unique capabilities. The two LEPs will enable the U.S. to
continue to rely on these capabilities. The NNSA is working closely
with the Department of Defense to balance resources on both programs to
ensure requirements are met.
Question. Currently, what is the projected unit cost for a
refurbished B61 and how does this compare to the unit cost of the W76?
Answer. The B61 LEP is finalizing and validating costs as part of
the Nuclear Weapons Council Phase 6.3 authorization. These costs are
not available today but will be reported to the Congress in July 2012
as part of the report on the Phase 6.2A design definition and cost
study required by Public Law 112-74. Upon submittal of the report, a
comparison to the W76 LEP unit cost can be provided.
Question. What percentage of the B61 LEP costs will our NATO allies
pay?
Answer. All design, qualification, and production costs associated
with the B61 LEP nuclear bomb components, with the exception of the
USAF procured tail kit assembly, are funded by NNSA in accordance with
Atomic Energy Act and applicable joint USAF and NNSA memorandum of
agreements. The USAF and NATO allies are responsible for aircraft
integration costs. Additional questions on NATO responsibilities
associated with the U.S. extended deterrent should be referred to the
Office of Secretary of Defense.
Question. A stated goal for LEPs is to increase the safety,
security, and use control (surety) of U.S. nuclear weapons. Please
describe in broad terms the surety improvements in the W76 and B61
LEPs.
Answer. The W76 and B61 LEPs have and will, respectively,
incorporate design features to increase the safety, security, and use
control of the nuclear explosive package. A major goal for the W76 LEP
was to improve the surety and safety of the Ultimate User Package
delivered by NNSA to the Department of Defense. This goal was
accomplished by incorporating a modern safety and surety architecture
known as Enhanced Nuclear Detonation Safety (ENDS) into the W76 LEP
hardware including new electrical stronglinks, thermal weaklinks and
improved exclusion region barriers which greatly enhance safety in
abnormal electrical and thermal environments. The existing B61 bomb
variants already have some of the most advanced safety, security, and
use control features in the stockpile including a modern ENDS and an
insensitive high explosives design. However, these features are old and
are reaching the end of their service life. The B61 life extension
program will replace these capabilities and incorporate improvements
including enhancements to the stronglinks and exclusion region barriers
in the safety theme without significant impact to cost or schedule.
fissile materials disposition
Question. The budget includes $569 million for continued
construction and initial testing and evaluation of the Mixed Oxide Fuel
(MOX) Fabrication Facility. NNSA estimates the
MOX facility will cost nearly $500 million a year to
operate, compared to earlier estimates of $185-356 million. Why is the
estimated annual cost to operate so much higher than earlier estimates?
Answer. As the project advances, we are now in a better position to
identify and project which elements need to be reflected in a
comprehensive estimate of operating costs for the MOX
facility. Therefore, the current total life cycle costs include capital
equipment procurements, a larger facility staff, and increased Nuclear
Regulatory Commission costs, which were not included in any of the
previous estimates. In addition, the previous total life cycle cost
estimate did not include government furnished services such as
electricity, waste disposal services, and SRS emergency services, which
are now included in the estimate.
Furthermore, the current estimate is expressed in 2011 dollars,
while the previous estimate was expressed in 2005 dollars. These
estimates will continue to be preliminary until the negotiations for
the contract, option for operating the MOX facility, have
been completed. In the meantime, we will continue to update and refine
these estimates.
Question. NNSA has cancelled plans for a new Pit Disassembly &
Conversion Facility (PDCF) that would have produced the plutonium
feedstock for the MOX facility, and will instead produce the
feedstock from existing facilities. Are you confident you have the
facilities you need to generate plutonium feedstock for MOX
Fuel Fabrication Facility (MFFF) without the PDCF facility? Please
explain which facilities will be used, the extent to which
refurbishment will be required, and the costs.
Answer. NNSA examined a number of alternatives for the pit
disassembly and conversion capability. The examination considered
resources across the Savannah River Site (SRS), including K-Reactor, H-
Canyon, the MFFF, as well as possible additional work at the Los Alamos
National Laboratory (LANL). In January 2012, the Department issued an
Amended Notice of Intent that identified a preferred alternative, which
will consider a combination of facilities at TA-55 at LANL, H-Canyon/HB
Line, and MFFF at SRS.
The Department is confident that the preferred alternative for the
pit disassembly and conversion capability would meet the long term,
steady-state plutonium disposition feedstock requirements by utilizing
LANL to provide the majority of plutonium metal, H-Canyon to process
certain categories of plutonium pits, and the MOX facility
to convert the plutonium metal to oxide. A more detailed plan is being
prepared by the Department, and will be made available to the committee
upon completion.
In addition, the Department has already identified nearly 10 MT of
early feedstock for the MOX facility, including:
--2 MT from ARIES at LANL;
--3.7 MT to be processed at H-Canyon at SRS; and
--4.1 MT of plutonium currently stored at SRS.
Question. Concerns have been raised about whether you will have
customers for the MOX fuel that will eventually be produced
by the Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility. How many firm
MOX fuel customers have been identified? Is NNSA confident
there will be sufficient customers for MOX fuel?
Answer. The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) is currently exploring
technical and regulatory requirements associated with irradiation of
MOX fuel in five reactors, pursuant to an interagency
agreement that was signed in 2010. The current schedule with TVA is to
execute a fuel supply agreement for MOX fuel in early 2013,
after NNSA completes a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, in
which TVA is a cooperating agency.
In addition, NNSA is consulting with various fuel vendors regarding
the possibility of them marketing MOX fuel to their utility
customers. NNSA also continues to develop strategies to attract other
utility customers.
Question. The contractor building the MOX facility has
difficulty retaining nuclear workers. What measures, if any, has NNSA
and its contractors put in place to retain the skilled workforce needed
for constructing and operating the MOX fuel facility?
Answer. The Department is working with MOX Services to
mitigate high employee turnover and is currently developing a retention
plan to ensure that its investment in the trained staff is fully
capitalized. In addition to the retention plan, MOX Services
provides employees with quality-of-life benefits, such as ensuring a
safe workplace with 8.5 million work hours without a lost time
accident, and career development incentives, such as an MBA program
with on-site classes through the University of South Carolina.
major shift in second line of defense program
Question. What does this ``strategic pause'' mean, how will NNSA
assess the path forward for this program, what changes are being
considered, and have the specific goals of the program changed?
Answer. After an administration review of DNN priorities, funding
was shifted in fiscal year 2013 to focus the Second Line of Defense
(SLD) on a strategic review intended to identify and prioritize those
elements of SLD that should continue. While this strategic review is
underway, SLD will focus on the highest priority deployments. This will
still allow for a number of new starts at locations in the highest
priority Core countries, including some fixed radiation portal monitor
deployments, the next segment of the national communications system in
Russia, and the provision of mobile detection equipment to countries
such as Belarus, Czech Republic, Jordan, Moldova, Poland, Russia, and
Ukraine. In fiscal year 2013, the SLD Core Program plans to complete
installation of radiation detection equipment at an additional 35 high-
priority foreign sites. The program has no Megaports implementation
work planned in fiscal year 2013.
The strategic review of the program will achieve four primary
objectives. First, the review is intended to assess the effectiveness
of the program's deployments relative to their cost and other
interdiction methods. Second, it is intended to produce program and
country specific strategies that capitalize on SLD lessons learned and
available detection technologies and applications. Third, the review
will also update our performance metrics that are closely linked to
performance data collected by maintenance providers, help desk
requests, and other sources of information to continually improve our
understanding of system performance. Finally, the review will also
consider the impacts of a new Eurasian Customs Union, currently
composed of Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, and soon Kyrgyzstan. The
Customs Union resulted in a loss of customs presence on the affected
borders, such as the border between Russia and Kazakhstan, which means
there are reduced opportunities to scan people and cargo in those
countries. This review is part of a broader assessment strategy.
nuclear export controls
Question. U.S. suppliers of nuclear commodities and services have
voiced frustration that the U.S. nuclear export control system imposes
major competitive disadvantages on U.S. suppliers competing with State-
owned international rivals. DOE has jurisdiction over nuclear
technology exports under 10 CFR 810, which legal experts have found is
more restrictive, complex and time-consuming than that of foreign
nuclear supplier nations. Delays in the licensing of exports can amount
to a significant commercial disadvantage for suppliers that have slower
regulators. NNSA often takes more than 1 year to process specific
authorizations for commercial nuclear transfers under 10 CFR 810.
How will NNSA improve the efficiency of the 10 CFR 810 process so
that U.S. exporters are on a level playing field with their foreign
competitors whose governments process similar export licenses in a few
months, rather than more than a year?
Answer. We know that we need to improve the efficiency of the 10
CFR part 810 process and we are addressing this in a couple of key
ways. First, we are in the process of updating the current 10 CFR 810
regulations to address industry's concerns. Second, we intend to
examine our internal review and approval process to ensure maximum
efficiency. In carrying out the review process, we have to balance U.S.
nonproliferation principles and obligations with commercial interests.
nuclear export controls
Question. The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) has
recently proposed a significant revision to 10 CFR 810. Rather than
ending restricted treatment of countries that have concluded a nuclear
trade agreement with the United States, the proposed rule would double
the number of countries requiring a specific authorization. Rather than
focus the regulation on sensitive technologies, consistent with the
Administration's Export Control Reform Initiative, the proposed rule
would extend its reach to new technologies that pose little or no
proliferation risk. The proposed changes would dramatically increase
the number of Part 810 applications and the delays in processing them.
However, the Administration's budget request shows no evidence that
resources have been requested to process the significant number of new
authorizations that will be required or to make the process of issuing
authorizations more efficient.
How will NNSA ensure that any changes to the 10 CFR 810 regulation
do not result in additional delays that negatively impact U.S.
industry?
Answer. We have received helpful comments and suggestions from
industry and other stakeholders on the revision of the 10 CFR 810
regulation through the public comment period and Federal register
process. We are aware of concerns articulated by some industry groups
that the revised regulation would increase the number of countries for
which U.S. nuclear industry would need specific authorization from the
Secretary of Energy to engage. We are also aware of concerns
articulated by these same groups that the proposed rule expands the
scope of technologies that would require specific authorizations for
non-sensitive technologies. We are reviewing all comments received, and
we plan to re-release the revised regulation for public comment through
the Federal register process. This will allow U.S. industry to voice
any specific concerns it may have. In addition to updating the 810
regulation, we are exploring ways to automate certain aspects of the
process to allow applicants to more easily track the progress of their
requests.
Question. Has NNSA considered the additional resources required to
administer the proposed 10 CFR 810 revision? If so, how long should a
U.S. exporter expect to wait for a specific authorization under the
proposed rule?
Answer. As with all updates to regulations, there will be an
adjustment period during which the Department will need to work more
closely with U.S. industry to help clarify the implementation and
application of the revised rule. Once we are through that period, we
believe that the U.S. exports will see more efficient service from the
Department. We do not at this time anticipate that additional staff
will be needed to support the revised process.
administrative costs
Question. NNSA's budget includes $411.3 million for its Federal
workforce. In 2005, NNSA had 1,634 total Federal employees overseeing
the NNSA. Today the number is 1,928--an increase of 15 percent.
Last year, NNSA decided to consolidate the contracts at Y-12 and
Pantex. What other efforts are you considering to consolidate
operations and achieve administrative efficiencies?
Answer. NNSA continues to evaluate options for increased
efficiencies throughout the complex, both in its contracting strategies
and oversight. NNSA has three management and operating (M&O) contracts
expiring over the next 5 years, Sandia National Laboratories, the
Kansas City Plant, and the Nevada National Security Site. As the
expiration dates draw near, NNSA will evaluate whether there are
opportunities for efficiencies within an existing site or through
consolidation, and develop an acquisition strategy that is in the best
interest of the government for each individual procurement.
Additionally, NNSA is conducting two studies that evaluate staffing
requirements throughout the Enterprise, the ``NNSA Baseline Staffing
Requirements,'' which informs the NNSA's Federal Workforce Study to be
completed by December 2012.
workforce planning
Question. What have you done to review your administrative and
overhead costs to ensure you are adequately overseeing work while not
spending excessive amounts on unnecessary layers of administration?
Answer. NNSA ensures the Office of the Administrator (OA) account
provides the appropriate level of Federal personnel and resources
necessary to plan, manage, and oversee the operation of NNSA by
participating in the planning, programming, budgeting, and evaluation
(PPBE) processes.
During the planning, programming, and budgeting processes, the
budget is formulated by working with the headquarters NNSA programs and
field sites to develop a funding request that will accomplish the NNSA
mission under fiscally constrained budgets. They are required to
justify any requirement that is over the established baselines. In
addition, over the past several years, our budget has reflected the
efficiencies required in support of the President's Executive Order
``Promoting Efficient Spending''. This has forced us to reduce our
travel and support service budgets by more than 25 percent and 20
percent, respectively, from our fiscal year 2010 funding levels. Also,
in the fiscal year 2013 President's request, we proposed the internal
transfer of Federal Unclassified Information Technology from the Office
of the Administrator to Weapons Activities, NNSA CIO Activities, to
achieve efficiencies by consolidating all information management
activities under one program.
During the evaluation process, we ensure that the OA budget is
executed effectively and efficiently. We have developed tracking
systems, provide monthly execution reviews, review uncosted and
unobligated balances on a quarterly basis, and in fiscal year 2012, did
an extensive clean up of support service contracts and old uncosted
balances.
In addition, in keeping with OMB and DOE expectations that
administrative costs be minimized, one of the NNSA performance measures
is to maintain the Office of the Administrator Federal administrative
costs as a percentage of total Weapons Activities and Defense Nuclear
Nonproliferation program costs at less than 6 percent.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Feinstein. Okay. Well, thank you very much. I
appreciate it.
Mr. D'Agostino. Thank you.
Senator Feinstein. The hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:09 p.m., Wednesday, March 21, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
the Chair.]
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013
----------
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 28, 2012
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 2:30 p.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Dianne Feinstein (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senators Feinstein, Landrieu, Lautenberg, Harkin,
Alexander, Collins, Murkowski, and Graham.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
Corps of Engineers--Civil
STATEMENT OF JO-ELLEN DARCY, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE
ARMY (CIVIL WORKS)
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR DIANNE FEINSTEIN
Senator Feinstein. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen,
and welcome to the Energy and Water Subcommittee's oversight
hearing on the fiscal year 2013 budget request for the United
States Army Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation.
Let me say from the outset, and I've never actually said
this before in 20 years, I am a big fan of both of your
agencies. The work that your agencies do touches nearly every
person in the Nation. It's really where the pedal meets the
metal. Forty-one States are served by 926 Corps harbors and
25,000 miles of waterways.
These harbors and waterways move more than 2.3 billion tons
of cargo annually. Damages prevented by Corps flood control
projects over the last decade exceed 25 billion annually.
That's prevention. Every $1 invested in flood control since
1928 has prevented more than $7 in damages when adjusted for
inflation.
I'd have to say that 7-to-1 is a good return on any
investment. The Corps is the number one Federal provider of
outdoor recreational opportunities, and the number one producer
of hydroelectric power. And they're extensively involved in
environmental and ecosystem restoration.
The Bureau of Reclamation provides water and power to the
17 Western States. They deliver water to 31 million people for
municipal, rural, and industrial uses. Reclamation delivers
water to 20 percent of the West's farmers, providing irrigation
to 10 million acres of some of the most productive agricultural
land in the world.
Reclamation also addresses water resources and challenges
posed by drought, climate change, depleted aquifers,
environmental needs, energy demands, and population increases
in the West.
We depend on both of your agencies to build this water
infrastructure as well as facilitating much needed
environmental restoration. Not only does the work you perform
provide jobs now, the infrastructure that's constructed,
continues to benefit the economy for decades which in turn
creates more jobs and boosts our standard of living.
While we all realize that for the next decade, we're going
to be operating under austere budget caps in the Budget Control
Act, we should not underfund agencies that provide tangible
benefits and create jobs. This is really where America lives,
where America works, and where America either thrives or does
not.
The President's fiscal year 2013 budget for the Corps of
Engineers is $4.7 billion, which is $271 million or 5.4 percent
below the 2012 enacted amount. The Bureau of Reclamation's
budget is proposed at $1.03 billion, which is $14 million or
1.3 percent below the 2012 enacted amount.
Candidly, I don't believe these budget requests provide the
necessary resources to adequately fund ongoing work, and I've
never said that before. For example, the Corps construction
budget is proposed at $1.47 billion, which is $223 million or
13.2 percent below the 2012 enacted amount.
Dam safety and environmental restoration and compliance
activities account for $850 million or 58 percent of the
request. Inland and deep draft navigation accounts for $336
million or 23 percent of the request, and only $226 million or
15 percent is directly toward traditional flood control
projects.
Of the 95 construction projects proposed in the budget
request, only 46 are displayed with benefit-to-cost ratios.
That means that more than one-half of the projects proposed for
funding utilize a much more intangible set of budget criteria.
And I'm going to ask about that.
A skeptic might even say that these budget decisions were
arbitrary or politically based. However, my point is, that
while I believe we can agree that nearly all of the items in
the budget request have merit, one certainly has to question
how the decisions were made for the many ongoing projects that
were not included.
Based on my review, I believe your budget request needs
some adjusting. It appears to me that while your overall budget
for fiscal year 2013 boosts funding for navigation, which is a
good idea, the budget proposes less funding for flood control
in 2013 than you proposed in 2012.
I'm concerned about this decrease particularly in light of
two record-setting floods in the Missouri and Mississippi
Rivers in 2011. I very much hope that it's not the start of a
trend.
In the general investigation account, 80 studies are listed
in the budget for a total of $52 million. However, five studies
are adequately funded for about $24 million of that total,
leaving the other 75 studies competing for the remaining $28
million. This, candidly, doesn't seem balanced to me.
I have other issues with the Corps budget that I'll ask
about at the appropriate time. Now, turning quickly to the
Bureau of Reclamation's budget.
The scheduled completion of the Animas-La Plata Project and
the Red Bluff fish screen and Pumping Plant Project this year
seemed to have freed up some funding within your budget. As a
result, your budget request seems to be more balanced than in
prior years.
Hopefully, the planned completion of the Mni Wiconi Rural
Water Project in 2013 will have a similar impact on the 2014
budget. So I'm pleased to see an increase in discretionary
funding for the San Joaquin River Restoration in your budget
for 2013.
This discretionary funding along with the mandatory funding
under the settlement agreement will assure that water impacts
are reduced or avoided while maintaining the San Joaquin River
ecosystem.
Rural water projects are proposed at higher levels than in
your budget request but are still not funded at the levels
necessary, we think, to continue progress on these projects. So
I look forward to exploring that with you as well.
Senator Alexander, I'm very fortunate, if anybody in this
room doesn't know it, I say it all the time, I'm really very
fortunate to work with a great ranking member. He is sincere.
He is straightforward. He is bright. He is everything. So I
have really lucked out.
So let me recognize our distinguished ranking member,
Senator Alexander.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR LAMAR ALEXANDER
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Madam Chairman. The feeling
is absolutely mutual, and I'd like to write that down if I may.
That's very kind of you to say that.
Senator Feinstein. Okay.
Senator Alexander. We do have a very good working
relationship, and I thank the staff for their working together
as well and the courtesy that the chairman shows us as we work
on these issues.
That was a very good statement of reaction, I think, to the
proposals that we have. I'd like to make just two or three
points, and then I'll look forward to your testimony.
One, I want to congratulate the Corps of Engineers for the
work you did during the floods and natural disasters of 2011.
The only way to congratulate you is to compare what happened in
2011 with what happened in the big flood in 1927, which we call
the Great Flood.
Books have been written about it. That year, I think 16
million acres were inundated, 500 people died, 600,000
displaced, 41,000 buildings destroyed, rail lines cut,
communities wiped out. That was the story of 1927.
But contrast that with 2011, after a lot of investment and
work by the Corps of Engineers, no lives lost, 4 million people
protected. It was all done so well that many people and the
rest of the country didn't even know there was a big problem.
The Corps estimates that our investments in the Mississippi
River and Tributaries Project of about $14 billion over the
last 80 years probably saved about $500 billion. Figures like
that are always speculative, but the idea is probably right.
That a small investment has had a big return.
And the Congress provided $1.7 billion in disaster recovery
funding last year to restore the damages from flooding to Corps
facilities. One way to tell the level of interest in an
agency's work is by the attendance of Senators at hearings
involving them.
And I can remember a hearing last year of the Environment
and Public Works Committee at which I believe 17 Senators of
both parties showed up to either talk about, criticize, praise,
or have some opinion about the effect of the big floods in
their States.
Now, the second thing I'd like to talk about is the Harbor
Maintenance Trust Fund and the Inland Waterways Trust Fund.
I've now watched this for a few years. We have two trust funds
and neither one of them works well.
The first, the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, collects
money successfully, but it turns out we can't use the money on
things communities need to expand ports and double exports as
the President has suggested.
The second fund, the Inland Waterways Trust Fund, doesn't
collect enough money. And so projects like the Chickamauga Lock
and others are on indefinite hold, really, are not getting the
attention they need.
I would like to strongly suggest, and the chairman and I
have been working on this with other members of the
subcommittees, that we step back and take a look at these two
trust funds, Harbor Maintenance, Inland Waterway, and think
about our country and the competitive position that we want it
to be in in the future, and think of what we need to do.
Don't think about the money involved, or how to collect the
money. Think first about, what do we need to do? What's our
vision for the future? And then, see if we can match money and
procedures to the vision we have.
My experience is that most ideas in Washington, DC fail for
lack of the idea. And I would strongly urge you to work with us
over the next few months to see if we can take both these trust
funds, and not just muddle along the way we had been muddling.
But to say, okay, what do we need to do for, you know, the
greatest country in the world, the one that produces 25 percent
of all the wealth in the world, with the Panama Canal being
deepened, our ports need to be deepened. We need locks and dams
that are safe in the inland waterways.
And I believe that if we have the right vision, we would be
able to do something about that. I remember a few years ago, we
had something called America Creating Opportunities to
Meaningfully Promote Excellence in Technology, Education, and
Science (America COMPETES) Act. We asked a distinguished group,
the National Academies did, to tell us what would be the 10
things the Congress could do to keep us competitive in the
world marketplace.
This distinguished group, headed by Norm Augustine, gave us
20 things. We eventually got 35 Republican and Democratic co-
sponsors. We passed that law. It's been funded. It's been
reauthorized and it succeeded because we had an idea and we
stopped muddling.
Now, it didn't do everything. But we need to do the same
kind of thing with our ports and our locks and our dams. So I
ask you to work with us to do that.
I'm particularly troubled about the $1 billion cost
increase in Olmsted Locks and Dam. Makes me almost think I'm in
the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) hearing
where things just keep going up and up and up and up and up
with no rational reason for it.
I mean, what is happening is that single project is soaking
up all the money available for everything else in the country,
and that's poor planning, and something's wrong when we have
that kind of increase.
I'm particularly sensitive to that because of the effect
it's having on the Chickamauga Lock on the Tennessee River near
Chattanooga. If that lock fails, it closes down one-third of
the navigation on the Tennessee River. It would force chemical
plants, Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) reactors, Oak Ridge
National Lab to put more freight and hazardous materials on our
roads.
It would put 150,000 heavy trucks in Interstate 75, and it
would flood downtown Chattanooga. Now, we don't want any of
that. And we also don't want the slowdown that we're seeing
right now with the Chickamauga Lock.
I know that there had been some work done with industry to
try to come up with a way to put more money into the trust
fund. But what I'm asking for is working with Industry and the
subcommittee and with anybody who has any idea, let's have a
vision for where we need to go with both the needs that are
supposed to be addressed by these trust funds and come up with
a mechanism that works.
I certainly pledge my effort to do that and working with
the chairman and Senator Collins and other members of the
subcommittee, I would like to give that a try over the next few
months.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much. Senator Collins, do
you have a comment you would like to make at this time?
STATEMENT OF SENATOR SUSAN COLLINS
Senator Collins. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
First of all, let me just agree with the praise that the
chairman and the ranking member heaped on one another. They do
work extraordinarily well together and they're truly a model
for how the Senate should work.
I know that my west coast colleagues will address the
Bureau of Reclamation's budget requests so my comments and
questions today are going to focus on the Army Corps of
Engineers.
I just want to make two points. The first is that I'm very
concerned about the discrepancy in the way the Army Corps
regulates developments that affect wetlands versus how it is
done in the State of Maine and other parts of the country.
The second issue that I want to raise is my concern that we
not forget as we look at the major navigational waters, the
need for maintenance, dredging projects at smaller harbors and
waterways, those are very important in a State like mine, for
our fishermen, for example.
And I know that last year, the Chair and the Ranking Member
worked with us to include $30 million for operations and
maintenance projects at small, remote, or subsistence
navigation harbors and waterways. And I think that is extremely
important as well.
So, thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you.
From the Department of the Army, we will hear from Jo-Ellen
Darcy, the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, and
Major General Bo Temple, Acting Chief of Engineers for the
Corps.
From the Department of the Interior, we will hear from Anne
Castle, Assistant Secretary for Water and Science, and Mike
Connor, Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation.
Secretary Darcy, we will begin with you.
SUMMARY STATEMENT OF JO-ELLEN DARCY
Ms. Darcy. Thank you, Senator Feinstein, and distinguished
members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to
present the President's fiscal year 2013 budget for the Civil
Works program of the Army Corps of Engineers.
I am Jo-Ellen Darcy, the Assistant Secretary of the Army
for Civil Work, and I'll now summarize my statement and ask
that my complete statement be included in the record.
The President's 2013 budget provides $4.7 billion for the
Civil Works program. This is $100 million above the President's
2012 budget request for Civil Works.
The budget reflects the Administration's priorities through
targeted investments in the Nation's water resources
infrastructure, including dams and levees to address flood
risks, and navigation projects in support of both domestic and
global trade, especially at coastal ports that support the
greatest national economic activity. The budget also includes
restoration of major ecosystems affected by past water
resources development in support of the Administration's
initiatives such as America's Great Outdoors and the Clean
Water Framework.
The budget also supports programs that contribute to the
protection of the Nation's waters and wetlands, the generation
of low-cost, renewable hydropower, the restoration of certain
sites contaminated as a result of the Nation's early atomic
weapons development program, emergency preparedness and
training to respond to natural disasters, and recreation,
environmental stewardship and water supply storage at existing
projects owned or operated by the Corps.
The budget funds a number of activities to completion,
including 5 flood risk management projects, 3 navigation
projects, 1 hydropower mitigation project, and 18 studies.
The Civil Works budget includes funding for three high-
performing construction new starts, six study new starts, and a
new activity in the Operation and Maintenance account to reduce
the vulnerability of our Civil Works projects to extreme
natural events.
The budget includes funding to evaluate the potential for,
and encourage the use of, nonstructural alternatives during
postdisaster recovery decisionmaking while leveraging the
expertise of intergovernmental teams known as Silver Jackets to
support States and communities in the development and
implementation of actions to reduce flood risks.
The budget includes the highest amount ever budgeted for
use of receipts from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund to
maintain coastal channels and harbors. Inland waterway capital
investments in the construction account are funded at the
maximum amount that is affordable within the project trust fund
revenues under existing law.
Last September, President Obama transmitted to the Congress
a proposal to modernize financing of capital investments on the
inland waterways through establishing a new vessel user fee to
supplement the existing fuel tax.
The Administration will continue to work with the Congress
and stakeholders to enact a mechanism to increase revenues to
this trust fund. The 2013 budget provides $532 million for dam
and levee safety activities including $491 million for dam
safety activities in both the flood risk management and
navigation programs.
We have $41 million to continue the comprehensive levee
safety initiative. The Army continues to work to modernize the
Civil Works Planning program. Proposed changes are aimed at
dramatically shortening the time and the costs of completion
for pre-authorization studies while retaining the quality of
the analyses.
The budget again includes $3 million for the Veterans
Curation Project which provides vocational rehabilitation and
innovative training for wounded and disabled veterans while
achieving historical preservation responsibilities for
archeological collections administered by the Corps.
This program will contribute to the goals of the
President's recently announced Veterans Job Corps.
PREPARED STATEMENT
In summary, the 2013 budget for the Army Civil Works
program is a fiscally prudent, appropriate level of investment
that will generate jobs, contribute to a stronger economy, and
continue progress on important water resources investments that
will yield long-term returns for the Nation and its citizens.
I'd like to thank the members of the subcommittee and I
look forward to working with you in support of this President's
budget. Thank you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jo-Ellen Darcy
Madam Chairman and distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank
you for the opportunity to present the President's budget for the Civil
Works program of the United States Army Corps of Engineers (COE) for
fiscal year 2013.
overview
The fiscal year 2013 budget for the Civil Works program reflects
the Administration's priorities through targeted investments in the
Nation's water resources infrastructure, including dams and levees,
navigation investments in support of both domestic and global trade,
restoration of ecosystems affected by past water resources development,
and support of administration initiatives such as America's Great
Outdoors and the Clean Water Framework. These investments will generate
American jobs, contribute to a stronger economy, improve reliability
and efficiency of waterborne transportation, reduce flood risks to
businesses and homes, and provide low-cost renewable hydropower. In
addition, investment in the restoration of significant aquatic
ecosystems and the remediation of sites associated with the Manhattan
Project of the 1940s will not only provide important benefits but also
support jobs.
The primary objectives of the budget are as follows:
--Focus funding on water resources investments that will yield high-
economic and environmental returns or address a significant
risk to public safety.
--Support commercial navigation through maintenance and related
activities at the most heavily used commercial harbors and
waterways in the Nation.
--Modernize financing of capital investments on inland waterways by
establishing a new user fee.
--Restore large ecosystems such as the California Bay-Delta,
Chesapeake Bay, the Everglades, Great Lakes, and Gulf Coast.
--Invest in improvements to the Corps regulatory program that will
provide greater efficiency, providing benefits to businesses
and more protection to regulated wetlands and small streams.
--Provide significant funding for dam and levee safety, including
interim risk reduction measures designed to immediately
mitigate risk at the highest risk dams, and continue funding to
advance the Corps' national levee safety initiative to help
improve the safety of Federal levees and to provide available
levee data on levee safety issues to non-Federal entities.
--Support the modernization of Federal water resources infrastructure
processes to address 21st century water resources needs through
improvements to policies and procedures that govern Federal
water resources development and strategies for both managing
the Nation's aging infrastructure and restoring aquatic
ecosystem functions affected by past investments.
--Increase the organizational efficiency and improve the management,
oversight, and performance of ongoing programs.
The budget funds the planning, design, construction, operation and
maintenance of projects, and focuses on the three main Civil Works
mission areas:
--commercial navigation;
--flood and storm damage reduction; and
--aquatic ecosystem restoration.
The budget also supports programs that contribute to the protection
of the Nation's waters and wetlands; the generation of low-cost
renewable hydropower; the restoration of certain sites contaminated as
a result of the Nation's early atomic weapons development program;
emergency preparedness and training to respond to natural disasters;
and recreation, environmental stewardship, and water supply storage at
existing projects owned or operated by the Corps.
fiscal year 2013 discretionary funding level
The budget for fiscal year 2013 for the Civil Works program
provides a fiscally prudent, appropriate level of investment in the
Nation's water resources infrastructure and in the restoration of its
aquatic ecosystems.
In keeping with President Obama's commitment to put the country on
a sustainable fiscal path, while continuing to invest in those efforts
that are a priority for the Nation, the budget includes $4.731 billion
in discretionary appropriations for the Army Civil Works program. This
represents a reduction of $271 million, or about 5 percent, from the
fiscal year 2012 enacted level, but is a $100 million above the
President's fiscal year 2012 budget. The fiscal year 2013 funding level
reflects a considered, practical, effective, and sound use of the
Nation's financial resources.
Within the $4.731 billion recommended appropriations, $1.47 billion
is for projects in the Construction account, and $2.398 billion is for
activities funded in the Operation and Maintenance (O&M) account. The
budget also includes:
--$102 million for Investigations;
--$234 million for Mississippi River and Tributaries;
--$30 million for Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies;
--$205 million for the Regulatory Program;
--$104 million for the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action
Program;
--$182 million for the Expenses account; and
--$5 million for the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army
for Civil Works.
Attachment 1 shows this funding by account and program area.
ATTACHMENT 1.--FISCAL YEAR 2013 BUDGET--BUSINESS LINE/ACCOUNT CROSS-WALK
[In millions of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Funding Categories
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MR&T
Business Lines ------------------------------------ OASA
I C O&M TOTAL FUSRAP FCCE REG E (CW) TOTAL
I C O&M MRT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flood and Coastal Storm Damage 46 652 536 <1 83 89 172 ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 1,406
Reduction.........................
Coastal........................ 5 17 11 ....... ....... 4 4 ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 37
Inland......................... 41 635 525 ....... 83 85 168 ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 1,369
Hydropower......................... ....... 2 178 ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 180
Navigation......................... 25 352 1,326 ....... 14 30 44 ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 1,747
Coastal........................ 17 151 797 ....... ....... 2 2 ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 967
Inland......................... 8 201 529 ....... 14 28 42 ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 780
Environment:
Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration.. 31 464 14 <1 2 ....... 2 ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 512
Stewardship.................... ....... ....... 92 ....... ....... 4 4 ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 96
FUSRAP......................... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 104 ....... ....... ....... ....... 104
Regulatory......................... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 205 ....... ....... 205
Recreation......................... ....... ....... 241 ....... ....... 11 11 ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 252
Emergency Management (incl. NEPP).. ....... ....... 6 ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 30 ....... ....... ....... 36
Water Supply....................... ....... ....... 5 ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 6
Expenses........................... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 182 ....... 182
OASA(CW)........................... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 5 5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL........................ 102 1,471 2,398 1 99 134 234 104 30 205 182 5 4,731
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I=Investigations; C=Construction; O&M=Operation and Maintenance; MR&T=Flood Control, Mississippi River and Tributaries; FUSRAP Formerly Utilized Sites
Remedial Action Program; FCCE=Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies; REG=Regulatory Program; NEPP=National Emergency Preparedness Program; E=Expenses;
OASA(CW)=Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works.
The fiscal year 2013 budget continues the Army's commitment to a
performance-based approach to budgeting to provide the best overall
return from available funds from a national perspective in achieving
economic, environmental, and public safety objectives. Competing
investment opportunities for studies, design, construction, and
operation and maintenance were evaluated using multiple metrics, and
objective performance criteria guided the allocation of funds.
The fiscal year 2013 budget supports investments in commercial
navigation, flood risk management, aquatic ecosystem restoration, and
other programs. The distribution of funding among these programs is
similar to the distribution in the fiscal year 2012 budget, except for
an 11-percent increase in investments in support of waterborne
transportation. Of the total in the fiscal year 2013 budget, 30 percent
is allocated to flood risk management activities; 37 percent is
allocated to commercial navigation; and 33 percent to environmental,
hydropower, and other activities. Five flood risk management projects,
three navigation projects, one hydropower project, and 18 studies are
funded to completion in this budget.
new investments in fiscal year 2013
The Civil Works budget includes funding for three high-performing
construction new starts and six new study starts, and a new activity to
focus on reducing the vulnerability of Civil Works projects to extreme
natural events.
In the Construction account, parallel to the recommendation for
fiscal year 2012, the budget includes $7.5 million for the Hamilton
City project in California, which will provide environmental
restoration and flood damage reduction benefits in the Bay-Delta area;
$16.8 million for the Louisiana Coastal Area Ecosystem Restoration
program, a nationally significant and urgent effort to both restore
habitat and protect the important Louisiana gulf region from the
destructive forces of storm driven waves and tides, which will
complement the ongoing Federal effort under the Coastal Wetlands
Planning, Protection, and Restoration Act, as amended; and $2 million
for the Lower Colorado River Basin, Onion Creek, Texas, project, which
will significantly reduce the risk of flood damages using nonstructural
solutions.
There are six new studies in the Investigations account, five of
which were recommended in fiscal year 2012. These six studies are:
--an important new reconnaissance study for fish passage at
Englebright and Daguerre Point Dams on the Yuba River in
California for $100,000;
--environmental restoration and flood damage reduction at Cano Martin
Pena in Puerto Rico for $100,000;
--the Chesapeake Bay Comprehensive Plan for $250,000;
--the Louisiana Coastal Area Comprehensive Plan for $100,000; and
--the national Water Resources Priorities Study for $2 million.
The fiscal year 2013 budget also includes $100,000 for a new study
of the Houston Ship Channel, Texas.
The Water Resources Priorities Study will establish a baseline
assessment of the Nation's flood risks on both national and regional
scales, improve existing programs, and reduce future costs by focusing
on which ongoing and future investments will best reduce flood risks.
The $8 million for new line-item called Reducing Civil Works
Vulnerability in the O&M account will aid the Corps in creating a more
robust Civil Works infrastructure.
Within the Floodplain Management Services Program, $3 million is
recommended to evaluate the potential for and encourage the use of
nonstructural alternatives and actions during post-disaster recovery
decisionmaking. With these funds, the Corps would leverage the
expertise of intergovernmental teams known as Silver Jackets to provide
selected technical services and support States and communities in the
development and implementation of actions to reduce flood risks, with
an emphasis on nonstructural alternatives.
infrastructure modernization
The Administration is developing and considering proposals to serve
as the foundation of a comprehensive water resources infrastructure
modernization initiative, which will help the Federal Government
support a 21st century water resources infrastructure. In considering
and developing these new policies, procedures, and strategies, the
Administration will continue to engage and collaborate with the
Congress and the many stakeholders whose interests are tied to the
Nation's water infrastructure, including State, local, and tribal
governments.
navigation
The budget includes a high level of investment in support of
domestic and global waterborne transportation, especially at coastal
ports that support the greatest national economic activity. On the
inland waterways, the budget focuses on maintaining reliable service at
those waterways with a high level of commercial use, specifically, the
Lower Mississippi River, Ohio River, Upper Mississippi River, Gulf
Intracoastal Waterway, Illinois Waterway, Tennessee River, and the
Black Warrior Tombigbee Waterway. Funding to operate and maintain the
Mississippi River, Baton Rouge to the Gulf project is $82 million, a
significant increase above the $68 million requested for fiscal year
2012.
The budget provides $68 million to continue deepening the New York
and New Jersey Harbor project in order to complete construction by
fiscal year 2014. The budget also includes $38 million to construct
dredge material placement sites at several deep draft ports to provide
additional capacity for the maintenance of these projects in the
future. It provides $12 million to continue studies and designs at
coastal ports, including several proposals to deepen existing channels
to accommodate Post-Panamax commercial shipping.
The budget also provides for use of $848 million from the Harbor
Maintenance Trust Fund to maintain coastal channels and harbors. This
is a 12-percent increase over the fiscal year 2012 budget and the
highest amount ever proposed in a President's budget for use of
receipts in the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund.
Inland waterway capital investments are funded at $201 million, of
which $95 million will be derived from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund.
This is the amount that is affordable within the projected level of
revenue to this trust fund under existing law. In September 2011, as
part of his Jobs bill proposal, President Obama transmitted to the
Congress a proposal to modernize financing of capital investments on
the Nation's inland waterways. The proposal includes increasing the
revenue paid by commercial navigation users sufficiently to meet their
share of the costs of capital development activities financed from the
Inland Waterways Trust Fund. A new vessel user fee would supplement the
existing fuel tax. The Administration will continue to work with the
Congress and stakeholders to enact such a mechanism to increase revenue
to this trust fund, in order to enable a significant increase in
funding for high-performing inland waterway capital investments in the
future.
flood risk management
Through both structural and nonstructural measures, the flood risk
management program serves as a vehicle to reduce the risk to human
safety and property from riverine and coastal flooding. The fiscal year
2013 budget provides $1.4 billion for the flood risk management
program, including $492 million that is directed at dam and levee
safety.
This flood risk management program also includes $41 million to
continue the comprehensive levee safety initiative to assess the
conditions of Federal levees and help ensure that they are safe. These
funds will also enable the Corps to better assess and communicate risk,
for example, by providing information that will assist non-Federal
entities in identifying safety issues with their levees. The Corps will
be conducting levee inspections and levee risk screenings, adding to
the data in the national levee inventory, and providing the available
levee data to communities for their use in gaining accreditation under
the Federal Emergency Management Agency's National Flood Insurance
Program.
In addition to this funding in the flood risk management program,
the budget includes $40.2 million in the navigation program to address
dam safety issues at two navigation dams (Locks and Dams 2,3,4,
Monongahela River, Pennsylvania, and Lockport Lock and Dam, Illinois).
aquatic ecosystem restoration
The fiscal year 2013 budget reflects a continuing effort by the
Corps and other Federal agencies to collaborate developing a unified
budget proposal, which reflects the Nation's priorities for restoring
its most significant aquatic ecosystems. Attachment 2 provides a list
of these ecosystems and the Corps funding amounts budgeted on this
basis.
ATTACHMENT 2.--FISCAL YEAR 2013 PRIORITY ECOSYSTEMS FUNDING
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ecosystem
account \1\ Projects and studies Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bay Delta:
I Yuba Fish Passage .1
I CALFED Coordination .1
San Pedro Watershed .2
I Sac-San Joaquin Delta Island and Levee 1.02
Study
I Sac-San Joaquin Comp Study .3
C Hamilton City 7.5
C American River Common Features 8
C Sac River Bank Protection 3
C Success Dam Remediation [DSAP] 3
O&M Additional studies and projects in 28.3
Navigation and Flood Risk Management
Programs
---------------
Total, Bay Delta 51.5
===============
Chesapeake Bay:
I Chesapeake Bay Comp (new recon) .3
I Lynnhaven .3
I Upper Rappahannock .05
I Anacostia--Montgomery .25
I Anacostia--Prince Georges .25
C Chesapeake Oysters 5
C Poplar Island 13.5
---------------
Total, Chesapeake Bay 19.6
===============
Everglades:
C Everglades 153.3
O&M Everglades 7.78
---------------
Total, Everglades 161.08
===============
Great Lakes:
I Interbasin Control Study [GLMRIS] 3
C Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal [CSSC] 24.5
O&M Dredging 75.09
---------------
Total, Great Lakes 102.59
===============
Gulf Coast:
I LCA--studies, PED 9.96
C LCA--Beneficial Use 5
C LCA--Amite Diversion 5.6
C LCA--Atchafalaya to N Terrebonne 6.2
---------------
Total, Gulf Coast 26.26
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Key: I=Investigation; C=Construction; O&M=Operation and
Maintenance.
The budget for the Army Civil Works program provides $161 million
to efficiently fund the ongoing South Florida Ecosystem Restoration
Program, which includes the Everglades, consisting of $153 in the
Construction account and $8 million in the O&M account. It also
supports several major ecosystem-wide initiatives, by providing a total
of $81 million in the aquatic ecosystem restoration program in support
of the Federal efforts in the California Bay-Delta, Chesapeake Bay, the
Great Lakes, and the gulf coast.
The budget includes $98 million for the Columbia River Fish
Mitigation program, an ongoing effort to reduce the adverse impacts of
a series of Corps dams on migrating salmon. Funds will be used to
construct juvenile fish bypass facilities, improve adult fish ladders
and conduct other activities that support salmon habitat. The budget
also provides $90 million for ongoing work under the Missouri River
Fish and Wildlife Recovery program to construct shallow water habitat
and undertake other activities to recover and protect federally listed
species, such as the pallid sturgeon.
planning improvements
The Army continues to work to modernize the Civil Works Planning
program to better address the current and future water resources needs
of the Nation. The Army has undertaken an aggressive review of all
ongoing, protracted feasibility studies to assure that studies are
scoped appropriately and to focus limited resources on studies with the
highest probability of leading to high performing projects. Proposed
changes are aimed at dramatically shortening the timeframe for
completion of pre-authorization studies while retaining the quality of
the analyses, reducing the cost of conducting planning studies, and
increasing Corps corporate and individual accountability for decisions.
The fiscal year 2013 budget includes $4 million for the national
Planning Support Program. These funds will be used to improve training
of Corps planning personnel, including through the Planning Associates
Program; support development and implementation of revisions to the
Water Resources Principles and Guidelines in accordance with
requirements in the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (sec. 2031,
Public Law 110-114); and provide for more stable, capable national
planning centers of expertise.
regulatory program
The budget includes $205 million for the Regulatory Program, which
is a $9 million increase above the fiscal year 2012 budget. This
funding increase is one of the Army's priorities. It will support a
transparent and timely permit review process, bringing greater program
efficiency and customer service. It will enable the Corps to better
protect high-value aquatic resources, enable more timely business
planning decisions, and support sustainable economic development.
veterans curation project
The fiscal year 2013 budget includes $3 million to continue the
Veterans Curation Project, which provides vocational rehabilitation and
innovative training for wounded and disabled veterans, while achieving
historical preservation responsibilities for archaeological collections
administered by the Corps. The project supports work by veterans at
curation laboratories located in Augusta, Georgia; St. Louis, Missouri;
and Washington, DC. This project will contribute to the goals of the
President's recently announced Veterans Job Corps.
american recovery and reinvestment act
The American Recovery And Reinvestment Act (ARRA) provided $4.6
billion for the Civil Works program. That amount includes:
--$2 billion for Construction;
--$2.1 billion for O&M;
--$375 million for Mississippi River and Tributaries;
--$25 million for Investigations;
--$25 million for the Regulatory Program; and
--$100 million for the Formerly Used Sites Remedial Action Program.
The Corps applied ARRA funds to more than 800 projects across the
Nation.
The Army is proud to report that 99.8 percent of the ARRA
appropriations for Civil Works are obligated, and more than 87 percent
of the funds have been outlayed to date. These investments helped
create or maintain direct construction industry jobs, jobs in firms
supplying or supporting construction work and the businesses that sell
goods and services to these workers and their families.
conclusion
In summary, the President's fiscal year 2013 budget for the Army
Civil Works program is a performance-based budget that supports
continued progress on important water resources investments that will
yield long-term returns for the Nation and its citizens.
These investments will generate jobs, contribute to a stronger
economy, support waterborne transportation, reduce flood risks to
businesses and homes, provide low-cost renewable hydropower, restore
important ecosystems, and deliver other benefits to the American
people.
Madam Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I look forward to
working with this subcommittee in support of the President's budget.
Thank you.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Secretary Darcy.
General Temple, would you like to make comments now? Please go
ahead.
STATEMENT OF MAJOR GENERAL MERDITH W.B. TEMPLE, ACTING
COMMANDING GENERAL, CHIEF OF ENGINEERS
General Temple. Madam Chairman and members of the
subcommittee, I'm Major General Bo Temple, the Acting Commander
of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and Acting Chief of
Engineers, and I'm honored to be here with Ms. Darcy to testify
regarding the President's fiscal year 2013 budget for the Civil
Works program.
The Corps is wrapping up an unprecedented period of
construction and project execution. Over the past 5 years, we
provided $12 billion in base realignment and closure (BRAC)-
related construction, $7 billion of American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act work in both our Military and Civil Works
programs, and about $14 billion of gulf coast recovery work.
In 2011, more than 2,000 Corps employees deployed in
response to multiple disasters, including Midwest tornadoes and
flooding in the Missouri, Mississippi, and Souris river basins
and also throughout the Northeast due to Hurricane Irene and
Tropical Storm Lee.
Our systems performed as designed, saving lives and
preventing billions in damages. However, as you are aware, many
of our projects were damaged, and we are currently working to
address those issues utilizing the $1.7 billion the Congress
appropriated for this purpose.
The fiscal year 2013 budget includes $4.7 billion to fund
Civil Works activities within the Corps' three main water
resources missions: Commercial navigation, flood and storm
damage reduction, and aquatic ecosystem restoration.
The budget includes $102 million for these and related
activities in the Investigations account, and $1 million in the
Mississippi River and Tributaries (MR&T) account.
It funds 81 continuing studies and six new studies. It also
includes more than $10 million for work on proposals to deepen
seven U.S. ports.
The budget includes $1.47 billion in the Construction
account and $99 million in the MR&T account, funding 101
construction projects including 57 flood and coastal storm
damage reduction projects, 5 of which are budgeted for
completion, 23 commercial navigation projects, 19 aquatic
ecosystem restoration projects, and mitigation associated with
2 hydropower projects.
The Operation and Maintenance (O&M) program includes $2.53
billion and an additional $134 million under the MR&T program
with a focus on the maintenance of key commercial navigation,
flood and storm damage reduction, hydropower and other
facilities.
The Corps will continue to implement actions to improve its
planning program through planning modernization efforts
focusing on how best to modernize the planning program to more
effectively address water resources challenges.
The Corps always strives to improve its efficiency and
effectiveness. In fiscal year 2013, the Corps will further
expand the implementation of modern asset management programs
using a larger portion of its funds for the most important
maintenance work while implementing an energy sustainability
program that pursues major deficiencies in the acquisition and
operations of our information technology assets as well as
finalizing the organization of the Corps acquisition work
force.
The fiscal year 2013 budget provides $30 million for
preparedness for floods, hurricanes, and other natural
disasters including $3 million in support of the Corps
participation in levee safety and other flood mitigation
initiatives such as the Silver Jackets program to provide
unified Federal assistance in implementing flood and coastal
storm damage reduction solutions.
Internationally, the Corps of Engineers continues to
support the mission to help Iraq and Afghanistan build
foundations for democracy, freedom, and prosperity. In Iraq and
Afghanistan, we completed or closed out hundreds of projects in
support of the host nations and coalition forces.
This critical infrastructure and our capacity building
efforts will play a key role in ensuring stability and security
for those nations.
PREPARED STATEMENT
The Corps remains committed to change that ensures an open,
transparent and performance-based Civil Works program while
remaining focused on consistently delivering innovative
resilient risk-informed solutions to the Armed Forces and to
the Nation.
Thank you, Madam Chairman and members of the subcommittee.
This concludes my statement, and I'm happy to take questions
when we're ready.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, General Temple.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Major General Merdith W.B. Temple
introduction
Madam Chairman and distinguished members of the subcommittee: I am
honored to be testifying before your subcommittee today, along with the
Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works), the Honorable Jo-Ellen
Darcy, on the President's fiscal year 2013 budget for the Civil Works
Program of the United States Army Corps of Engineers (COE).
The Corps is wrapping up an unprecedented period of construction
and project execution. Over the past 5 years, we provided $12 billion
in base realignment and closure (BRAC)-related construction; $7 billion
of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) work in our Military
and Civil Works programs combined; and about $14 billion of gulf coast
recovery work.
In 2011, the Corps responded to several devastating tornadoes and
floods, as well as hurricanes and tropical storms, under the National
Response Framework in support of Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA). Flooding was a significant problem as we experienced record
high water levels for a much longer duration than is the norm
throughout much of the country. Our flood risk reduction systems were
operated at their maximum capacity, some for the first time.
The great men and women of COE worked tirelessly, together with our
State, local, and industry partners, to ensure that we could deliver on
all of our commitments last year. It is through their efforts that we
were successful and will continue to be able to carry out the projects
and programs included in the fiscal year 2013 budget.
My statement covers the following 11 topics:
--Summary of fiscal year 2013 program budget;
--Direct Program;
--Investigations Program;
--Construction Program;
--Operation and Maintenance Program;
--Reimbursable Program;
--Planning Program Modernization;
--Efficiency and Effectiveness of Corps Operations;
--Value of the Civil Works Program to the Nation's Economy and
Defense;
--Research and Development; and
--National Defense.
summary of fiscal year 2013 program budget
The Corps is fully committed to its support of the Nation's
priorities to reduce the deficit, contribute to the economy, and
restore and protect the aquatic environment. The fiscal year 2013 Civil
Works budget provides the Corps with the means to support these
priorities. It is a performance-based budget, which reflects a focus on
the projects and activities that provide the highest net economic and
environmental returns on the Nation's investment or address significant
risks to human safety, to include continuing a comprehensive levee
safety initiative and supporting increased interagency and stakeholder
collaboration. The Reimbursable Program funding is projected to provide
an additional $1.6 billion.
direct program
The budget includes $4.7 billion for Civil Works activities, with
priority on the highest performing activities within our three main
water resources missions--commercial navigation, flood and storm damage
reduction, and aquatic ecosystem restoration. The budget invests in
more than 600 flood and storm damage reduction projects, 143 commercial
coastal navigation projects, and 51 projects on the inland waterways.
For example, it provides increased funding for high use, commercial,
coastal channels, and harbors including support of efforts to
accommodate Post-Panamax ships. In total, the budget supports ongoing
construction of 98 projects and three new construction starts. The
budget includes funds for 81 studies already underway and six new study
starts. It will enable the Corps to process approximately 80,000 permit
requests and to operate 75 hydropower plants with 350 generating units
that produce approximately 24,000 megawatts annually. At its multi-
purpose projects, the Corps also stores water to supply about 14
percent of the Nation's municipal water needs. The budget will also
sustain the Corps' preparedness to respond to natural disasters.
investigations program
The budget for the Investigations program will enable the Corps to
evaluate and design future projects that are most likely to be high-
performing within the Corps three main water resources mission areas.
The budget includes $102 million for these and related activities in
the investigations account and $1 million in the Mississippi River and
Tributaries account. It funds 81 continuing studies and six new
studies:
--Englebright and Daguerre Point Dams (Yuba River) Fish Passage,
California;
--Cano Martin Pena, Puerto Rico;
--the Chesapeake Bay Comprehensive Plan;
--the Louisiana Coastal Area Comprehensive Study; and
--the Houston Ship Channel, Texas.
Funding is also included for the Water Resources Priorities Study,
a high-priority evaluation of the Nation's vulnerability to inland and
coastal flooding, as well as the effectiveness, efficiency, and
accountability of existing water resource programs and strategies.
Investigations funding also includes $10.63 million for work on
proposals to deepen seven U.S. ports:
--Boston, Massachusetts;
--Charleston, South Carolina;
--Savannah, Georgia;
--Wilmington, North Carolina;
--Brazos Island, Brownsville Channel, Texas; and
--Jacksonville, Florida, and Houston, Texas.
construction program
The goal of the construction program is to deliver as high a value
as possible to the Nation from the overall available funding through
the construction of new water resources projects and the replacement,
rehabilitation, and expansion of existing flood and storm damage
reduction, aquatic ecosystem restoration, commercial navigation, and
hydropower projects. The fiscal year 2013 budget includes $1.47 billion
in the Construction account and $99 million in the Mississippi River
and Tributaries account to further this objective. Consistent with this
objective, the budget also gives priority to projects that address a
significant risk to human safety.
The budget funds 101 construction projects, including:
--57 Flood and Coastal Storm Damage Reduction projects (five budgeted
for completion);
--23 Commercial Navigation projects (including 11 continuing
mitigation items and 6 dredged material placement areas);
--19 Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration Projects (including 4 projects to
meet Biological Opinions); and
--mitigation associated with two Hydropower projects.
Three of these construction projects are new starts:
--Hamilton City, California;
--Louisiana Coastal Area Ecosystem Restoration, Louisiana; and
--Lower Colorado River,Wharton-Onion Creek, Texas.
This program also includes significant environmental mitigation
work in the Columbia River Basin and the Missouri River Basin needed to
support the continued operation of COE multipurpose projects, which
improves habitat and migration pathways for endangered and threatened
species.
Performance measures, which the Corps uses to establish priorities
among projects, include the benefit-to-cost ratios for projects with
economic outputs and the most cost-effective restorations of
significant aquatic ecosystems. The selection process also gives
priority to dam safety assurance, seepage control, and static
instability correction work and to activities that address a
significant risk to human safety. These performance measures maximize
the overall return to the Nation from the investment in the Civil Works
construction program, by focusing on the projects that will provide the
best net returns for each $1 invested.
operation and maintenance program
The facilities owned and operated by, or on behalf of, COE care
aging. As stewards of this infrastructure, we are working to ensure
that its key features continue to provide an appropriate level of
service to the American people, a growing challenge in some cases, as
proper maintenance is becoming more expensive at many of our projects.
The operation and maintenance (O&M) program for the fiscal year
2013 budget includes $2.53 billion and an additional $134 million under
the Mississippi River and Tributaries program with a focus on the
maintenance of key commercial navigation, flood and storm damage
reduction, hydropower, and other facilities. Specifically, the O&M
program supports completed works owned or operated by the COE,
including administrative buildings and laboratories. Work to be
accomplished includes:
--operation of the locks and dams of the inland waterways;
--dredging of inland and coastal Federal commercial navigation
channels;
--operating multiple purpose dams and reservoirs for flood damage
reduction, commercial navigation, aquatic ecosystem
restoration, hydropower, and related purposes;
--maintenance and repair of the facilities; monitoring of completed
storm damage reduction projects along our coasts; and
--general management of Corps facilities and the land associated with
these purposes.
reimbursable program
Through the Interagency and Intergovernmental Services Program we
help non-Department of Defense (DOD) Federal agencies, State, local,
and tribal governments, and other countries with timely, cost-effective
implementation of their programs. Rather than develop their own
internal workforces to oversee project design and construction, these
agencies can turn to COE, which already has these capabilities. Such
intergovernmental cooperation is effective for agencies and the
taxpayer by using the skills and talents that we bring to our Civil
Works and Military Programs missions. The work is principally technical
oversight and management of engineering, environmental, and
construction contracts performed by private sector firms, and is
totally financed by the agencies we service.
We only accept agency requests that we can execute without
impacting our Civil Works or Military Programs missions that are
consistent with our core technical expertise and that are in the
National interest.
Currently, we provide reimbursable support for about 70 other
Federal agencies and several State and local governments. Total
reimbursement for such work in fiscal year 2013 is projected to be $1.6
billion, reflecting the completion of ongoing reimbursable work and an
estimated amount for fiscal year 2013.
planning program modernization
The Corps will continue to implement actions to improve the
performance of its Civil Works Planning Program through a planning
modernization effort. This effort focuses on how best to prepare,
organize, manage, operate, and oversee the planning program to more
effectively address 21st century water resources challenges. This means
improved project delivery that yields smarter outcomes; improved
technical capability of our planners; enhanced collaboration with
Federal, tribal, State, local and nongovernment partners; evaluating
and enhancing production capability and staffing at Corps Planning
Centers of Expertise; and strengthening the objectivity and
accountability of our planning efforts. Our improved planning
performance will include:
--updated planning guidance and policy;
--streamlined, adaptable planning processes that improve our
effectiveness, efficiency, transparency, and responsiveness;
and
--enhanced technical capabilities.
In fiscal year 2011, the Corps launched a 2-year National Planning
Pilot Program to test these concepts and to develop and refine
processes for planning studies across all business lines. This approach
will be both sustainable and replicable, which will inform future Civil
Works guidance. Seven to nine pilot studies will be executed over the
course of this National Planning Pilot Program.
efficiency and effectiveness of corps operations
The Corps always strives to continually improve its investigations,
construction, and operations programs' efficiency and effectiveness. In
2013, the Corps will further expand the implementation of a modern
asset management program, using a larger portion of its funds for the
most important maintenance work, while implementing an energy
sustainability program that pursues major efficiencies in the
acquisition and operations of its information technology assets, as
well as finalizing the reorganization of the Corps' acquisition
workforce.
value of the civil works program to the nation's economy and defense
COE personnel continue to respond whenever needed to assist during
major floods and other natural disasters. The critical work that they
perform reduces the risk of damage to people and communities. The
budget provides $30 million for preparedness for floods, hurricanes,
and other natural disasters, including funding in support of Corps
participation of the levee safety and other flood mitigation
initiatives, including the Silver Jackets program, with a goal of one
in every State, and to provide unified Federal assistance in
implementing flood and storm damage reduction solutions.
research and development
Civil Works Program research and development provides the Nation
with innovative engineering products, some of which can have
applications in both civil and military infrastructure spheres. By
creating products that improve the efficiency and competitiveness of
the Nation's engineering and construction industry and by providing
more cost-effective ways to operate and maintain infrastructure, Civil
Works program research and development contributes to the national
economy and our quality of life.
national defense
Internationally, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers continues to
support the mission to help Iraq and Afghanistan build foundations for
democracy, freedom, and prosperity.
We are proud to serve this great Nation and our fellow citizens,
and we are proud of the work the Corps does to support America's
foreign policy, particularly with our ongoing missions in Afghanistan
and Iraq. Men and women from across the Corps--all volunteers and many
of whom have served on multiple deployments--continue to provide
critical support to our military missions there and humanitarian
support to the citizens of those nations. Currently, 885 Corps
employees (both civilian and military) are deployed in Iraq and
Afghanistan. Since these deployments began, the Corps has completed
more than 9,000 civilian and military projects that were managed by the
Corps in support of U.S. and Coalition efforts in those countries.
In Iraq, we completed a more than $15 billion construction program
and in Afghanistan we have constructed $5 billion worth of work through
fiscal year 2011. By the end of 2014 we will complete another $10
billion, for a total Afghanistan program of $15 billion. This critical
infrastructure and our capacity building efforts will play a key role
in ensuring stability and security for these nations.
conclusion
The fiscal year 2013 budget represents a continuing, fiscally
prudent investment in the Nation's water resources infrastructure and
in the restoration of its aquatic ecosystems. COE is committed to
change that ensures an open, transparent, and performance-based Civil
Works program, while remaining focused on consistently delivering
innovative, resilient, risk-informed solutions to the Armed Forces and
the Nation.
Thank you, Madam Chairman and members of subcommittee. This
concludes my statement.
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Reclamation
STATEMENT OF HON. ANNE CASTLE, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR
WATER AND SCIENCE
Senator Feinstein. Secretary Castle, please.
Ms. Castle. Thank you. Madam Chair, Ranking Member
Alexander, and members of the subcommittee, I appreciate the
opportunity to talk to you today about the water-related
programs of the Department of the Interior and the 2013 budget.
Commissioner Connor is going to address the specifics of
the Bureau of Reclamation budget, and I'm going to talk about
some of Interior's overall programs to address water challenges
in the West and contribute to the development of renewable
energy that are contained in the budget.
It's well known that we're facing unprecedented pressure on
our water supplies. And that's all across the country, but it's
particularly in the Western United States. We've got population
growth, aging infrastructure, and increased demand for water to
support domestic energy development.
We have increased recognition of environmental needs. We
have changing climate. And all of those are challenging already
scarce water supplies. This Administration puts a very high
priority on addressing these water challenges.
Interior's WaterSMART Program (Sustain and Manage America's
Resources for Tomorrow) Program is designed to do that. It's
designed to help secure and stretch our water supplies and to
provide tools to water managers that allow them to work toward
sustainability.
Reclamation proposes to fund the WaterSMART Program at $54
million. The WaterSMART Program includes our WaterSMART grants
that are funded at $21.5 million, the Basin Studies program
funded at $6 million, and the Title XVI Recycling and Reuse
projects that are funded at a little more than $20 million.
The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) also has $21 million in
the 2013 budget requested for WaterSMART programs and that's
primarily for the water availability and use assessment. These
WaterSMART programs have a very real and a very positive
impact.
We have set the goal of enabling the saving of 730,000
acre-feet over the 4 years from 2010 to 2013. That's as much
water as the San Diego County Water Authority uses to serve all
of its customers for 1 year.
We're on track to meet that goal. With our programs in 2010
and 2011, we've enabled the savings of almost 488,000 acre-
feet, and that number is right around the annual use for the
seven largest cities in the State of Colorado. So we're talking
about real water savings.
Another very important focus of the Department of the
Interior is our New Energy Frontier initiative that's intended
to foster the development of clean and renewable energy to
create jobs and to achieve greater energy independence.
And one of the components of the all-of-the-above energy
strategy is hydropower. Hydropower is clean, it's efficient,
it's flexible, and it's a renewable energy resource.
Reclamation's hydroelectric power plants produce an average
of 40 million megawatt hours of electricity every year. That's
enough to meet the needs of more than 3.5 million households.
Last year, Reclamation released an assessment of the
hydroelectric potential on its existing dams and reservoirs,
and that report highlighted 225 megawatts of hydro-potential
with favorable cost-benefit ratios.
In the next couple of weeks, we're going to release Phase 2
of that assessment that looks at the hydropower potential on
Reclamation's canals and conduits. And we're anticipating that
we'll see another 100 megawatts of potential on those
structures.
These facilities with potential are being made available
for private development. The Reclamation budget allocates $2
million to increase clean renewable energy generation by
integrating renewable technologies into Reclamation projects
and continuing the effort to optimize our own hydropower
projects so that we can produce more energy using the same
amount of water.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Madam Chair, we really appreciate the support that this
subcommittee has shown for Reclamation's mission, projects, and
those tangible benefits that you mentioned in your opening
statement. And we appreciate the support for the mission of the
Department.
I look forward to answering your questions.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Anne Castle
Madame Chair, Mr. Alexander, and members of this subcommittee, I am
pleased to appear before you today to discuss the President's fiscal
year 2013 budget for the Department of the Interior. I would also like
to thank the members of this subcommittee for your efforts to enact a
2012 appropriation, and for your ongoing support for our initiatives.
The fiscal year 2013 budget builds on that strong foundation with
$11.5 billion budgeted for the Department of the Interior. The budget
demonstrates that we can responsibly cut the deficit, while investing
to win the future and sustain the national recovery. Our budget
promotes the actions and programs as the President details in his
``Blueprint for an America Built to Last''; the budget supports
responsible domestic energy development and advances an America's Great
Outdoors strategy. The budget continues to advance efforts that you
have facilitated in renewable energy and sustainable water
conservation, cooperative landscape conservation, youth in the
outdoors, and reforms in our conventional energy programs.
I will discuss the President's fiscal year 2013 budget for the
Bureau of Reclamation and the Office of the Central Utah Project
Completion Act (CUPCA), including our proposal to reconsolidate the
CUPCA Office into Reclamation, and the water-related programs of the
United States Geological Survey (USGS). I thank the subcommittee for
your continued support of these programs.
introduction
Interior's mission--to protect America's natural resources and
cultural heritage and honor the Nation's trust responsibilities to
American Indians and Alaska Natives--is profound. Interior's people and
programs impact all Americans.
The Department of the Interior is the steward of 20 percent of the
Nation's lands including national parks, national wildlife refuges, and
the public lands. Interior manages public lands and the Outer
Continental Shelf, providing access for renewable and conventional
energy development and overseeing the protection and restoration of
surface-mined lands. Through the Bureau of Reclamation, Interior is the
largest supplier and manager of water in the 17 Western States and
provides hydropower resources used to power much of the country. The
Department supports cutting edge research in the earth sciences--
geology, hydrology, and biology--to inform resource management
decisions within Interior and improve scientific understanding
worldwide. The Department also helps fulfill the Nation's unique trust
responsibilities to American Indians and Alaska Natives and provides
financial and technical assistance for the insular areas.
The Department of the Interior makes significant contributions to
the Nation's economy. We estimate that it supports more than 2 million
jobs and approximately $363 billion in economic activity each year.
Visits to our national parks, cultural and historic sites, refuges,
monuments and other public lands contribute more than $47 billion in
economic activity from recreation and tourism. The American outdoor
industry estimates 1 in 20 U.S. jobs is in the recreation economy.
Conventional and renewable energy produced on Interior lands and waters
results in about $230 billion in economic benefits each year, and the
water managed by Interior is a major contributing factor to more than
$40.2 billion in agriculture.
2011 accomplishments
Three years ago, Secretary Salazar set Interior on a course to
create a comprehensive strategy to advance a new energy frontier,
tackle the impacts of a changing landscape, improve the sustainable use
of water, engage youth in the outdoors, and improve the safety of
Indian communities. These priority goals integrate the strengths of the
Department's diverse bureaus and offices to address key challenges of
importance to the American public. Interior has been making progress in
these areas, including:
--In 2011, the Department of the Interior generated a total of $13.2
billion in receipts benefitting the U.S. Treasury--from a
combination of royalties, rents and bonuses from mineral,
timber, and other natural resource development. Of the total
receipts generated by Interior in 2011, $11.3 billion was
collected from energy production on public lands, tribal lands,
and Federal offshore areas--a $2 billion increase over the
previous year--with receipts disbursed among Federal, State,
and tribal governments.
--Since March 2009, 29 onshore projects that increased approved
capacity for production and transmission of power have been
approved, including the first-ever utility scale solar project,
five wind projects, and eight geothermal projects. The Cape
Wind Energy Project, approved for construction and operation,
is the first-ever offshore commercial wind operation.
--We continue to make youth a priority, and increased the number of
youth employed in conservation activities through Interior or
its partners by 31 percent more than the 2009 levels. We
launched the YouthGO.gov portal in January 2011, a tool of the
Departments of the Interior and Agriculture to provide
information on education programs, outdoor activities, and job
opportunities.
--Water Sustain and Manage America's Resources for Tomorrow
(WaterSMART), established in 2010, has assisted communities in
improving conservation, increasing water availability,
restoring watersheds, resolving longstanding water conflicts,
addressing the challenges of climate change, and implementing
water rights settlements. The WaterSMART grant program has
provided more than $85 million in funding to non-Federal
partners, including tribes, water districts, and universities.
In 2011, we provided $33 million in funding for 82 WaterSMART
grant projects.
--The year 2011 was the second year of a 2-year pilot at four
reservations to conduct expanded community policing, equip and
train the law enforcement cadre, partner with the communities
to organize youth groups and after school programs, and closely
monitor results. The results exceeded expectations with a 35
percent overall decrease in violent crime in the four
communities. Information about the four reservations is being
analyzed, and the program will be expanded in 2013 to an
additional two communities.
--In December 2011, the President hosted the third White House Tribal
Nations Conference bringing together tribal leaders from across
the United States; we are improving the Nation-to-Nation
relationship with 565 tribes.
--The Department advanced key priorities and strategic goals that
will improve the conservation and management of natural and
cultural resources into the future.
--Interior and its Federal, State, and tribal partners have created a
national network of 22 Landscape Conservation Cooperatives
(LCCs) and eight Climate Science Centers (CSCs) in order to
address an increasing variety of conservation challenges.
--In the spirit of America's Great Outdoors, we welcomed new national
wildlife refuges in Kansas, the Dakotas, Pennsylvania, and
Florida at the headwaters to the Everglades. These refuges mark
a new era of conservation for the Department, one that is
community-driven, science-based, and takes into account entire
ecosystems and working landscapes.
--The Department worked with others to implement short-term measures
and develop a long-term action plan to help address water
supply and environmental challenges in the California Bay-Delta
area, invested more than $600 million in major water projects
over the past 3 years, and moved forward on longstanding water
availability issues in the Colorado River Basin.
fiscal responsibility
Interior's fiscal year 2013 budget must be viewed in the context of
the difficult fiscal times facing the Nation. This budget is
responsible and austere. Interior's $11.5 billion budget funds
important investments by eliminating and reducing lower priority
programs, deferring project start-ups, reducing duplication,
streamlining operations, and capturing savings. It maintains funding
levels for core functions that are vital to uphold stewardship
responsibilities and sustain key initiatives. The fiscal year 2013
budget includes $10.5 billion for programs funded by the Interior,
Environment, and Related Agencies appropriation. The fiscal year 2013
budget for Reclamation, including the CUPCA, is $1 billion in current
appropriations, $42.4 million below the 2012 enacted level.
Interior's fiscal year 2013 budget reflects many difficult budget
choices, cutting worthy programs and advancing efforts to shrink
Federal spending. Staffing reductions are anticipated in some program
areas, which will be achieved through attrition, and buy-outs in order
to minimize the need to conduct reductions in force to the greatest
extent possible. These reductions are a necessary component of
maintaining overall fiscal restraint while allowing us to invest
additional resources in core agency priorities.
growing the economy outdoors
The President's ``Blueprint'' recognizes the economic potential of
renewable energy development. The economic benefits could be
particularly significant in America's remote and rural places near
public lands. The Department's 2010 estimates identified nearly $5.5
billion in economic impacts associated with renewable energy
activities, a growing economic sector that supports high-paying jobs.
Interior is at the forefront of the Administration's comprehensive
effort to spur job creation by making the United States the world's top
travel and tourism destination. In a recent statement, President Obama
cited Department of Commerce figures showing that in 2010,
international travel resulted in $134 billion in U.S. exports.
The President has asked Secretary Salazar to co-chair an
interagency task force with Commerce Secretary Bryson to develop a
National Travel and Tourism Strategy to expand job creation by
promoting domestic and international travel opportunities throughout
the United States. A particular focus of the Task Force will be on
strategies for increasing tourism and recreation jobs by promoting
visits to the Nation's national treasures.
According to a departmental study, in 2010, 437 million visits were
made by American and international travelers to these lands,
contributing $47.9 billion in economic activity and 388,000 jobs. Eco-
tourism and outdoor recreation also have an impact on rural economies,
particularly in Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Nevada, North
Carolina, Oregon, Utah, and Wyoming.
america's great outdoors
The Administration continues to listen to the American public as
they ask for protection and restoration of our outdoors and to expand
opportunities for recreation through partnerships with States and
others and the promotion of America's parks, refuges, and public lands.
An important element in this effort is the restoration of our rivers to
both protect the environmental benefits and to secure future water
supplies. By encouraging innovative partnerships in communities across
the Nation, the Administration is expanding access to rivers and
trails, creating wildlife corridors, and promoting conservation while
working to protect historic uses of the land including ranching,
farming, and forestry. As part of America's Great Outdoors, Interior is
supporting 101 signature projects in all States across the country to
make parks accessible for children, create great urban parks and
community green spaces, restore rivers, and create recreational
blueways to power economic revitalization. Projects were selected in
concert with governors, tribal leaders, private landowners, and other
stakeholders and were evaluated based on the level of local support,
the ability of States and communities to leverage resources, and the
potential to conserve important lands and promote recreation.
The 2013 America's Great Outdoors initiative focuses on investments
that will lead to healthy lands, waters, and resources while
stimulating the economy--goals that are complementary. Through
strategic partnerships, Interior will support and protect historic uses
of lands, restore lands and resources, protect and interpret historic
and cultural resources, and expand outdoor recreation opportunities.
All of these activities have significant economic benefits in rural and
urban communities.
Interior's fiscal year 2013 budget continues to better equip land
and resource managers with the tools they need to effectively conserve
resources in a rapidly changing environment. Significant changes in
water availability, longer and more intense fire seasons, invasive
species, and disease outbreaks are creating challenges for resource
managers and impacting the sustainability of resources on public lands.
These changes result in bark beetle infestations, deteriorated range
conditions, and water shortages that negatively impact grazing,
forestry, farming, as well as the status of wildlife and the condition
of their habitats. Many of these problems are caused by or exacerbated
by climate change.
The Department's budget includes $6 million for Reclamation's Basin
Studies program, which funds Reclamation's partnerships with State and
local entities to initiate comprehensive water supply and demand
studies in the West.
Reclamation continues to participate in and support to the Desert
and Southern Rockies Landscape Conservation Cooperatives. These LCCs
are partnerships between Interior and other Federal agencies, States,
tribes, nongovernmental organizations, and other stakeholders, to bring
together science and sustainable resource conservation activities to
develop science-based solutions to on-the-ground challenges from a
changing environment within an ecological region or ``landscape.'' The
LCCs leverage the resources and expertise of the partners and work
across jurisdictional barriers to focus on natural resource issues
specific to a particular ecosystem or landscape.
investing in our youth
Furthering the youth and conservation goals of the America's Great
Outdoors initiative, the fiscal year 2013 budget proposes to continue
engaging youth by employing and educating young people from all
backgrounds.
Interior is uniquely qualified to engage and educate young people
in the outdoors and has programs that establish connections for youth
ages 18 to 25 with natural and cultural resource conservation. These
programs help address unemployment in young adults and address health
issues by encouraging exercise and outdoor activities. For example,
Interior is taking part in the First Lady's Let's Move initiative to
combat the problem of childhood obesity. Interior has longstanding
partnerships with organizations such as the 4-H, the Boy Scouts, the
Girl Scouts, the Youth Conservation Corps, and the Student Conservation
Association. These programs leverage Federal investments to put young
people to work, build a conservation ethic, and educate the next
generation of land and water stewards.
water challenges
Interior is working to address the 21st century pressures on the
Nation's water supplies. Population growth, aging water infrastructure,
changing climate, rising energy demands, impaired water quality, and
environmental needs are among the challenges to already scarce
supplies. Water shortage and water use conflicts have become more
commonplace in many areas of the United States, even in normal water
years. As competition for water resources grows, the need for
information and tools to aid water resource managers also grows.
Traditional water management approaches no longer meet today's needs.
In 2010, the Secretary issued a Secretarial Order establishing the
WaterSMART program which embodies a new water sustainability strategy.
WaterSMART coordinates Interior's water sustainability efforts, creates
a clearinghouse for water conservation best practices and implements a
Department-wide water footprint reduction program to reduce consumption
of potable water by 26 percent by 2020.
Reclamation proposes to fund the rebased WaterSMART at $53.9
million, $6.8 million above 2012 enacted levels. The three ongoing
WaterSMART programs include:
--the WaterSMART Grant program funded at $21.5 million;
--Basin Studies funded at $6 million; and
--the title XVI Water Reclamation and Reuse program funded at $20.3
million.
The rebasing adds the existing Water Conservation Field Services
program, funded at $5.9 million, and participation by Reclamation in
the Cooperative Watershed Management program, funded at $250,000.
WaterSMART is a joint effort with the USGS. The USGS fiscal year 2013
budget includes $21 million, an increase of $13 million more than the
2012 enacted level, for the USGS WaterSMART Availability and Use
Assessment program.
In November 2011, the Department adopted the WaterSMART Strategic
Implementation Plan, which discusses the coordination of activities
across bureaus, and the contributions they will make in providing
Federal leadership toward a sustainable water resources future. In
December 2011, we released a report on a pilot project within the
Colorado River Basin. This report represents a snapshot of Interior's
WaterSMART activities within the Basin and demonstrates the diversity
and significance of several ongoing Federal, State, tribal, local, and
nongovernmental cooperative efforts that are underway. It also
demonstrates the effectiveness of the WaterSMART program, and the
importance of these coordinated efforts to the sustainability of
resources in the Colorado River Basin.
Other significant programs and highlights specific to Reclamation
include:
--We are in dialogue with Mexico on the management of the Colorado
River. We have ongoing efforts to improve our management of
resources on the Colorado River, from renewable hydropower
development near the headwaters to a pilot program of
desalination near the Mexican border. We are completing
environmental compliance on a new protocol for high-flow
releases from Glen Canyon Dam to improve and protect downstream
resources. We have begun the process for updating the long-term
plan of operations for Glen Canyon Dam to incorporate the
scientific advancements that have occurred since the last plan
was finalized, more than 15 years ago.
--We are actively pursuing workable solutions to regional issues such
as in the California Bay-Delta. The Bay-Delta is a source of
drinking water for 25 million Californians and sustains about
$400 billion in annual economic activity, including a $28
billion agricultural industry and up until recently supported a
thriving commercial and recreational fishing industry. Our
efforts in the Bay-Delta are focused on co-leading an inter-
agency effort with the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ)
to implement the December 2009 Interim Federal Action Plan for
the California Bay-Delta. In coordination with five other
Federal agencies, we are leveraging our activities to work in
concert with the State and local authorities to encourage the
smarter supply and use of water, ensure healthy ecosystems and
water quality, help deliver drought relief services, and ensure
integrated flood risk management. Over the past 3 years, we
have invested more than $600 million in water projects in
California. This funding supports the co-equal goals of
providing a more reliable water supply for California and
protecting, restoring, and enhancing the Bay-Delta ecosystem.
We have also, in close coordination with NOAA and the State of
California, worked on the California Bay-Delta Conservation
Plan, a long-term plan aimed at restoring both reliable water
supplies and a healthy Bay-Delta ecosystem.
On February 22, 2012, we announced the initial Water Supply
Allocation for Central Valley Project (CVP) water users. Even though
2011 was a wet water year that allowed reservoirs to fill and provided
abundant flows in the Sacramento and San Joaquin river systems, the
exceedingly dry conditions earlier this winter pose risks to threatened
and endangered fish species, as well as to the water supplies of the
CVP. Interior, Reclamation, State and local agencies, and other
interested parties are working together to identify and secure
additional water supplies and create opportunities that will aid water
management in California. We will continue to work with our Federal,
State, and local partners to improve water supply reliability while
addressing significant ecological issues. Reclamation is continuing to
update the forecast to provide the most current information to its
stakeholders.
innovation through science
Sustainable stewardship of natural resources requires strong
investments in research and development (R&D) in the natural sciences.
Research and development funding is increased by $64 million in the
Department's fiscal year 2013 budget, with R&D funding increases among
all of the Interior bureaus, and particularly USGS with a $51 million
increase to fund R&D priorities in disaster response, hydraulic
fracturing, coastal and ocean stewardship, and ecosystem restoration.
The fiscal year 2013 budget includes R&D funding of $10.1 million for
Reclamation to address climate change adaptation, control invasive
quagga mussels, improve desalination technologies, and promote
renewable energy development.
new energy frontier
The fiscal year 2013 budget continues Interior's New Energy
Frontier initiative to create jobs and achieve greater energy
independence. The Administration's blueprint for energy security
focuses on safely and responsibly developing our domestic energy
resources, including both conventional and renewable resources. The
Department plays an important role by providing opportunities for safe
and responsible development on public lands and on the U.S. Outer
Continental Shelf.
hydropower
Hydropower is a very clean and efficient way to produce energy and
is a renewable resource. Each kilowatt-hour of hydroelectricity is
produced at an efficiency of more than twice that of any other energy
source. Further, hydropower is very flexible and reliable when compared
to other forms of generation. Reclamation has nearly 500 dams and
10,000 miles of canals and owns 58 hydropower plants, 53 of which are
operated and maintained by Reclamation. On an annual basis, these
plants produce an average of 40 million megawatt (MW) hours of
electricity, enough to meet the entire electricity needs of more than
3.5 million households on average.
Reclamation and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) are
parties to a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), signed in 1992, that
addresses the establishment of processes for early resolution of issues
related to the timely development of non-Federal hydroelectric power at
Bureau of Reclamation facilities. Reclamation and FERC recently met to
discuss how to improve the timeliness of the processes developed in
that MOU and resolution of authority issues.
The Department signed a MOU with the Department of Energy and COE
on March 24, 2010 to increase communication between Federal agencies
and strengthen the long-term relationship among them to prioritize the
generation and development of sustainable hydropower. This
Administration is committed to increasing the generation of
environmentally sustainable, affordable hydropower for our national
electricity supplies in as efficient a manner as possible. Activities
under this MOU have been ongoing, and have resulted in accomplishments
such as assessments of potential hydropower resources on Federal and
non-Federal lands, a collaborative basin-scale pilot project in Oregon,
and grant opportunities for R&D of new technologies. An example of its
on-going efforts to maximize potential generation at existing Federal
facilities, Reclamation has assessed the potential for developing
hydropower at existing Reclamation facilities and by utilizing low-head
hydroelectric generating capacity on Reclamation-owned canals and
conduits. A report on this assessment will be released within the next
few weeks.
The budget allocates $2 million to increase clean renewable energy
generation by exploring how renewable technologies including solar,
small hydropower, and hydrokinetics can be integrated into Reclamation
projects; by continuing the effort to optimize Reclamation hydropower
projects to produce more energy with the same amount of water; by
investigating hydro pump-storage projects that can help integrate large
amounts of variable renewable resources such as wind and solar into the
electric grid; and by working with tribes to assist them in developing
renewable energy sources.
indian land and water settlements
Interior's fiscal year 2013 budget includes $82.8 million in the
Bureau of Reclamation and Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) to implement
land and water settlements.
The Department has a unique responsibility to American Indians and
Alaska Natives, which is upheld by Interior's support for a robust
Government-to-government relationship as demonstrated by a new
comprehensive and transparent consultation policy that ensures there is
a strong, meaningful role for tribal governments.
In 2011, Interior started planning to implement the landmark $3.4
billion settlement of the Cobell v. Salazar lawsuit, and appointed a
Secretarial Commission on Trust Administration and Reform to oversee
implementation of the Settlement agreement. The Commission is
undertaking a forward-looking, comprehensive evaluation of Interior's
management of nearly $4 billion in American Indian trust funds--with
the goal of making trust administration more transparent, responsive,
customer focused, and accountable.
The Claims Resolution Act of 2010 settled the Cobell lawsuit and
four settlements that will provide permanent water supplies and
economic security for the Taos Pueblo of New Mexico and Pueblos of New
Mexico named in the Aamodt case, the Crow Tribe of Montana, and the
White Mountain Apache Tribe of Arizona. The agreements will enable
construction and improvement of reservation water systems, irrigation
projects, a regional multipueblo water system, and codify water-sharing
arrangements between Indian and neighboring communities. The primary
responsibility for constructing water systems associated with the
settlements was given to Reclamation; and BIA is responsible for the
majority of the trust funds.
Reclamation is budgeting $21.5 million in 2013 for the continued
implementation of these four settlements and $25 million for the
Navajo-Gallup Water Supply project. Reclamation is proposing the
establishment of an Indian Water Rights Settlements account to assure
continuity in the construction of the authorized projects and to
highlight and enhance transparency.
central utah project
CUPCA, titles II-VI of Public Law 102-575, provides for completion
of the Central Utah Project (CUP) by the Central Utah Water Conservancy
District (District). The Act also authorizes funding for fish,
wildlife, and recreation mitigation and conservation; establishes an
account in the Treasury for deposit of these funds and other
contributions; establishes the Utah Reclamation Mitigation and
Conservation Commission to coordinate mitigation and conservation
activities; and provides for the Ute Indian Rights Settlement.
The fiscal year 2013 budget proposes to reconsolidate the CUPCA
Office and program into the Bureau of Reclamation. This consolidation
is part of broader administration efforts to implement good Government
solutions to consolidate and streamline activities. The CUP is the only
water project within the Department of the Interior not managed by
Reclamation. The proposed merger would correct that anomaly, ensuring
that these projects receive equal and consistent consideration and
treatment. Concerns about Reclamation's previous management and
operation of the CUP have been addressed within Reclamation and
corrected. The fiscal year 2013 CUPCA budget is $21 million, a decrease
of $7.7 million from the 2012 enacted level. Of this amount, $1.2
million will be transferred to the Utah Reclamation Mitigation and
Conservation Account for use by the Utah Reclamation Mitigation and
Conservation Commission (Mitigation Commission). We propose to maintain
both the Central Utah Project Completion and the Utah Reclamation
Mitigation and Conservation Accounts for CUPCA appropriations after the
proposed consolidation of the CUPCA Office into Reclamation in order to
enhance transparency.
The fiscal year 2013 budget includes $17.3 million for use by the
District to continue construction of the Utah Lake System facilities
and to implement approved water conservation and water management
improvement projects. The Act requires a local cost share of 35 percent
for projects implemented by the District which increases the
effectiveness of the program. The budget for the District includes $7.3
million to fund the designs, specifications, land acquisition, and
construction of the Utah Lake System, a decrease of $6.7 million from
the 2012 enacted level. The budget also includes water conservation
measures at $10 million for construction of the Provo River Canal
Enclosure Project, which when completed will provide 8,000 acre-feet of
conserved water for endangered fish and convey 30,000 acre-feet of CUP
water.
The fiscal year 2013 budget includes $1.2 million for the
Mitigation Commission to implement the fish, wildlife, and recreation
mitigation and conservation projects authorized in title III ($1
million) and to complete mitigation measures committed to in pre-1992
Bureau of Reclamation planning documents ($200,000), all of which are
necessary to allow CUP operations.
Finally, the budget includes $1.2 million for the Program Office
for endangered species recovery and operation and maintenance costs
associated with instream flows and fish hatchery facilities and $1.3
million for program administration.
conclusion
Thank you for the opportunity to testify on behalf of the
President's fiscal year 2013 budget for the Department of the Interior
and the Bureau of Reclamation. I want to reiterate my appreciation for
the longstanding support of this subcommittee. This budget has fiscal
discipline and restraint, but it also includes forward-looking
investments. We have a tremendous opportunity to improve the future for
all generations with wise investments in healthy lands, clean waters,
and expanded energy options.
I look forward to working with you to implement this budget. This
concludes my testimony. I am happy to answer any questions that you may
have.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you, Madam Secretary.
Commissioner Connor.
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL L. CONNOR, COMMISSIONER
Mr. Connor. Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair, Ranking Member
Alexander, and members of the subcommittee, for the opportunity
to discuss Reclamation's fiscal year 2013 budget request.
The overall request for Reclamation is $1 billion. I have
submitted detailed written testimony for the record. The budget
reflects a comprehensive set of actions and initiatives that
support Reclamation's mission as well as hundreds of thousands
of jobs in the Western United States.
Reclamation is employing an all-of-the-above strategy in
the area of water resources. Certainty and sustainability are
primary goals with respect to the use of water resources and
require Reclamation to take action on many fronts and our
budget proposal was developed with that in mind.
To help meet the water and energy needs of the 21st
century, we must continue to maintain and improve existing
infrastructure, develop new infrastructure, conserve and make
more efficient use of limited water resources, protect the
environment, better understand and plan for future challenges,
and help clarify the relative rights to use water.
I'll briefly summarize areas of particular interest in our
budget. Infrastructure. Overall, the budget supports the need
to maintain our infrastructure in safe operating condition.
Approximately 52 percent of the water and related resources
account is dedicated to operation, maintenance, and replacement
(OM&R) activity with 48 percent allocated to resource
management and development.
OM&R include the Dam Safety program, Site Security program,
and Replacements, Additions, and Extraordinary Maintenance
(RAX).
A second priority area is WaterSMART. Secretary Castle
summarized our WaterSMART initiative. I'll simply reiterate
that WaterSMART is yielding significant results West-wide and
demand greatly exceeds available resources at this point in
time.
Ecosystem Restoration is a third-priority area. In order to
meet Reclamation's mission goals of producing power and
delivering water in a sustainable manner, we simply must
continue to focus on the protection and restoration of the
aquatic and riparian environments affected by our projects.
Specifically, the 2013 request provides substantial funding
for a number of restoration programs in California including
the Central Valley Project (CVP) Improvement Act, San Joaquin
River Restoration, Trinity River Restoration, and Bay-Delta
initiatives.
And our ESA Recovery and Compliance Programs have received
specific authorization from Congress and also enjoy broad
support from diverse interests.
Fourth, Cooperative Landscape Conservation is a
Departmental initiative in which Reclamation is actively
engaged. We are developing and implementing approaches to
understand and effectively adapt to the array of challenges
facing Western water management. Reclamation's Basin Studies
and Science and Technology programs are key efforts in this
area.
Fifth, to support the Department's New Energy Frontier
Initiative, the 2013 budget allocates funding to specifically
support Reclamation-wide Renewable Energy Initiatives and to
collaborate with other entities on renewable energy
integration.
Once again, Secretary Castle discussed our efforts in this
area and their yielding of significant results and all are part
of the President's all-of-the-above strategy for meeting the
country's energy needs.
Sixth, and finally, Reclamation has a longstanding
commitment to the Secretary's goal of strengthening tribal
nations. The 2013 budget supports this goal through a number of
activities including fisheries restoration, rural water
projects, and the implementation of the new Water Right
Settlements.
Reclamation has a large role in implementing settlements
and our goals are simple: help tribes realize settlement
benefits as quickly as possible; two, ensure certainty in the
use of water for tribes and their non-Indian neighbors; and
three, promote economic prosperity in Indian country in both
the short term and the long term.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Madame Chair, as Secretary Castle mentioned, we greatly
appreciate your support for our programs and efforts at the
Bureau of Reclamation, and I'm happy to answer questions at the
appropriate time.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Michael L. Connor
introduction
Thank you Madame Chair, Mr. Alexander, and members of this
subcommittee, for the opportunity to discuss with you the President's
fiscal year 2013 budget for the Bureau of Reclamation.
I appreciate the time and consideration this subcommittee gives to
reviewing and understanding Reclamation's budget and its support for
the program. Reclamation works hard to prioritize and define our
program in a manner that serves the best interest of the public.
Our fiscal year 2013 budget continues support for activities that,
both now and in the future, will deliver water and generate power,
consistent with applicable State and Federal law, in an environmentally
responsible and cost-effective manner. Overall, our goal is to promote
certainty, sustainability, and resiliency for those who use and rely on
water resources in the West. Success in this approach will help ensure
that Reclamation is doing its part to support the basic needs of
communities, as well as provide for economic growth in the
agricultural, industrial, energy, and recreational sectors of the
economy. In keeping with the President's pledge to reduce spending and
focus on deficit reduction, this budget reflects reductions and savings
where possible. The fiscal year 2013 budget allows Reclamation to
fulfill its core mission, but cost savings have been implemented where
possible.
The budget also supports the Administration's and Department of the
Interior's (Department) priorities to tackle America's water
challenges; promote America's Great Outdoors and Cooperative Landscape
Conservation; and support and strengthen tribal nations. The Department
will continue the Water Sustain and Manage America's Resources for
Tomorrow (WaterSMART) program (with participation from both Reclamation
and the United States Geological Survey) and Reclamation's budget
reflects that priority.
Reclamation's fiscal year 2013 budget is $1 billion, $42.4 million
below the fiscal year 2012 enacted level. Reclamation's budget request
is partially offset by discretionary receipts in the Central Valley
Project Restoration Fund, estimated to be $39.6 million. The request
for permanent appropriations in 2013 totals $174.1 million. The budget
proposes the establishment of a new Indian Water Rights Settlement
account and a discretionary appropriation for the San Joaquin River
Restoration Fund.
As the largest supplier and manager of water in the 17 Western
States and the Nation's second largest producer of hydroelectric power,
Reclamation's projects and programs are critical to driving and
maintaining economic growth in the Western States. Reclamation manages
water for agricultural, municipal and industrial use, and provides
flood control and recreation for millions of people. According to a
June 2011 economic report prepared by the Department, Reclamation
activities, including recreation, have an economic contribution of $55
billion, and support nearly 416,000 jobs. Reclamation's 58
hydroelectric power plants generate more than 40 million megawatt hours
of electricity to meet the annual needs of more than 3.5 million
households and generates nearly $940 million in revenues for the
Federal Government. It would take more than 23.5 million barrels of
crude oil or about 6.8 million tons of coal to produce an equal amount
of energy with fossil fuel. As a result, Reclamation facilities
eliminate the production of more than 27 million tons of carbon dioxide
that would have been produced by fossil fuel power plants.
The fiscal year 2013 budget allocates funds to projects and
programs based on objective, performance-based criteria to most
effectively implement Reclamation's programs and its management
responsibilities for its water and power infrastructure in the West.
water and related resources
The fiscal year 2013 budget for Water and Related Resources,
Reclamation's principal operating account, is $818.6 million, a
decrease of $76.4 million from the fiscal year 2012 enacted level. This
decrease is due, in part, to a shift of $46.5 million for the proposed
establishment of the Indian Water Rights Settlement account, and $12
million for a discretionary appropriation for the San Joaquin River
Restoration Fund.
The fiscal year 2013 budget includes a total of $395.6 million at
the project/program level for water, energy, land, and fish and
wildlife resource management and development activities. Funding in
these activities provides for planning, construction, water
sustainability activities, management of Reclamation lands including
recreation areas, and actions to address the impacts of Reclamation
projects on fish and wildlife.
The budget also provides a total of $423.1 million at the project/
program level for the operation, maintenance, and rehabilitation
associated with Reclamation's water and power facilities. Reclamation
emphasizes safe, efficient, economic, and reliable operation of
facilities, ensuring systems and safety measures are in place to
protect the facilities and the public. Providing adequate funding for
these activities continues to be one of Reclamation's highest
priorities.
highlights of the fiscal year 2013 budget for water and related
resources
I would like to share with the subcommittee several highlights of
the Reclamation budget including an update on the WaterSMART program,
and the Department's priority goal target to enable capability to
increase available water supply in the Western United States by 730,000
acre-feet by the end of 2013 based on cumulative savings since 2009.
WaterSMART Program.--The fiscal year 2013 budget continues to focus
resources on expanding and stretching limited water supplies in the
West to reduce conflict, facilitate solutions to complex water issues,
and meet the growing needs of expanding municipalities, domestic energy
development, the environment, and agriculture.
Reclamation proposes to fund WaterSMART at $53.9 million, $6.8
million above the fiscal year 2012 enacted level. There are five
ongoing WaterSMART programs:
--the WaterSMART Grant program, funded at $21.5 million;
--Basin Studies, funded at $6 million;
--the title XVI Water Reclamation and Reuse program, funded at $20.3
million;
--Water Conservation Field Services program, funded at $5.9 million;
and
--the Cooperative Watershed Management program, funded at $250,000.
Reclamation has budgeted $6.5 million to actively engage in
developing and implementing approaches to understand, and effectively
adapt to landscape-level conservation challenges, including the impacts
of climate change on western water management. The Basin Studies
program is part of an integrated strategy to respond to changing
impacts on the resources managed by Interior, and is a key component of
the WaterSMART initiative. In 2013, the Basin Studies program will
continue West-wide risk assessments, coordinated through the
Department's Landscape Conservation Cooperatives (LCCs) and focus on
the threats to water supplies from changing weather patterns.
Reclamation will continue to participate in and lead the Desert and
Southern Rockies LCCs. Included within Reclamation's Science and
Technology program is water resources research targeting improved
capability for managing water resources under multiple drivers,
including a changing climate. This research agenda will be collaborated
and leveraged with capabilities of the Interior Climate Science
Centers.
Supporting Renewable Energy Initiatives.--To support the
Administration's New Energy Frontier initiative, and the Renewable
Energy priority goal, the 2013 Reclamation budget allocates $2 million
to provide support for the renewable energy initiative and to
collaborate with other agencies and entities on renewable energy
integration. The funds will be used to explore how other renewable
energy technologies can be integrated into Reclamation projects.
Reclamation will continue the effort to facilitate the development of
sustainable hydropower; optimize Reclamation hydropower projects to
produce more energy with the same amount of water; explore hydro pump-
storage projects that can help integrate large amounts of variable
renewable resources such as wind and solar into the electric grid; and
work with tribes to assist them in developing renewable energy sources.
These important projects can help produce cleaner, renewable energy.
Supporting Tribal Nations.--Reclamation has a longstanding
commitment to realizing the Secretary's goal to strengthen tribal
nations. The fiscal year 2013 budget continues to support that goal
through a number of activities and projects ranging from ecosystem
restoration to rural water infrastructure and the implementation of
water rights settlement. The budget includes $6.4 million for the
Native American Affairs Program to continue support of Reclamation
activities with Indian tribes. These activities include providing
technical support for Indian water rights settlements and assisting
tribal governments to develop, manage, and protect their water and
related resources. Also, the office provides policy guidance for
Reclamation's work with tribes throughout the organization in such
areas as the Indian trust responsibility, Government-to-government
consultations, and Indian self-governance and self-determination.
Rural Water Projects.--The Congress has specifically authorized
Reclamation to undertake the design and construction of seven projects
intended to deliver potable water supplies to specific rural
communities in the West. Reclamation has been working diligently to
advance the completion of all of its authorized rural water projects
consistent with current fiscal and resource constraints with the goal
of delivering potable water to tribal and non-tribal residents within
the rural water project areas. In support of rural communities, the
fiscal year 2013 budget includes a funding increase to advance the
construction of rural water projects.
Reclamation has proposed $69.6 million in funding for Reclamation's
seven on-going authorized rural water projects. This funding reflects
the high priority that the Department and Reclamation place on
improving the circumstances of rural economies and those living in
rural economies. Tribal and non-tribal people will greatly benefit by
this demonstrated commitment to rural water construction.
Specifically, the budget includes $18 million for operation and
maintenance of tribal features for two projects--the Mni Wiconi Project
and the Garrison Diversion Unit of the Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin
Program--and $51.6 million in construction funding combined for the
seven projects:
--Garrison Diversion Unit, (North Dakota);
--Mni Wiconi Rural Water System, (South Dakota);
--Jicarilla Apache Reservation Rural Water System, (New Mexico);
--Lewis and Clark Rural Water System, (South Dakota, Iowa,
Minnesota);
--Fort Peck Reservation/Dry Prairie Rural Water System, (Montana);
--Rocky Boys/North Central Montana Rural Water System, (Montana); and
--Eastern New Mexico Water Supply Project, (New Mexico).
The fiscal year 2013 budget includes sufficient funding to complete
construction of the Mni Wiconi Project.
Aging Infrastructure.--In recognition of the growing need to
address aging infrastructure associated with Reclamation projects, the
2013 Reclamation budget includes $7.3 million for a Reclamationwide
Aging Infrastructure program that will make use of recently enacted
authorities such as the aging infrastructure program enacted in Public
Law 111-11. This funding will address the infrastructure needs of
Reclamation projects, which is essential for maintaining system
reliability and safety and to support sustainable water management by
promoting established asset management practices. This budget will
provide additional funding for an increased number of extraordinary
maintenance and rehabilitation activities which will enhance the
ability of Reclamation and its operating entities to preserve the
structural safety of project facilities, while continuing delivery of
project benefits.
Dam Safety Program.--A total of $87.5 million is budgeted for
Reclamation's Safety of Dams program. This includes $67 million
directed to specific dam safety modifications; of which $15 million is
for work at Folsom Dam. Funding also includes $19.4 million for safety
evaluations of existing dams and $1.1 million to oversee the Interior
Department's Safety of Dams program.
Site Security.--A total of $26.9 million is budgeted for Site
Security to ensure the safety and security of the public, Reclamation's
employees, and key facilities. This funding includes $5.9 million for
physical security upgrades at high-risk critical assets and $21 million
to continue all aspects of bureau-wide security efforts.
This includes law enforcement, risk and threat analysis, personnel
security, information security, risk assessments and security-related
studies, and guards and patrols.
Ecosystem Restoration.--In order to meet Reclamation's mission
goals of generating power and managing water in a sustainable manner
for the 21st century, one focus of its programs must be the protection
and restoration of the aquatic and riparian environments affected by
its operations. Ecosystem restoration involves a large number of
activities, including Reclamation's Endangered Species Act recovery
programs, which directly address the environmental aspects of the
Reclamation mission. These programs also implement important river
restoration efforts that support the America's Great Outdoors
initiative.
The fiscal year 2013 budget provides $128 million to operate,
manage, and improve the Central Valley Project. This amount includes
$16.1 million for the Trinity River Restoration program, and $2.9
million for the Red Bluff fish passage to complete postconstruction
activities of the new pumping plant and fish screen, which will be
operational in the spring of 2012, as well as continued biological and
research and monitoring activities.
The budget provides $27.2 million for Lower Colorado River
Operations to both fulfill the role of the Secretary as water master
for the Lower Colorado River and continue the multispecies conservation
program, which is $17.8 million of that total, and provides long-term
Endangered Species Act compliance for the river operations.
The budget includes $18.9 million for Endangered Species Act
Recovery Implementation programs, which includes $8 million in the
Great Plains Region to implement the Platte River Endangered Species
Recovery Implementation program. This funding will facilitate the
implementation of measures to help recover four endangered or
threatened species, thereby enabling existing water projects in the
Platte River Basin to continue operations, as well as allowing new
water projects to be developed in compliance with the Endangered
Species Act. This program also includes $8.4 million for the Upper
Colorado and San Juan River Endangered Fish Recovery programs. This
funding will continue construction of a system that automates canal
operations to conserve water by matching river diversions with actual
consumptive use demands and redirecting the conserved water to improve
in-stream flows. The budget also provides $18 million for Columbia/
Snake River Salmon Recovery. This funding will be used for the
implementation of required Biological Opinion actions including
extensive hydro actions, plus tributary habitat and hatchery
initiatives as off-sets for the impacts of Federal Columbia River Power
System operations.
The fiscal year 2013 budget includes $7.1 million for Reclamation
to move forward with actions that address water supply enhancement and
restoration of natural resources that support the Klamath Basin
Restoration Agreement and are authorized under existing law. The
Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement includes restoration and related
activities to reduce conflicts over water between the Upper and Lower
Klamath Basins.
The results of the Klamath Dam Removal and Sedimentation Studies
conducted over the past several years will be used in discussions over
whether or not removing PacifiCorp's four dams on the Lower Klamath
River is in the public interest and advances restoration of the Klamath
River fisheries. No funds are budgeted in 2013 for this effort.
The fiscal year 2013 budget includes $22.5 million for the Middle
Rio Grande project. Within this amount $8.4 million supports the
acquisition of supplemental non-Federal water for Endangered Species
Act efforts and low flow conveyance channel pumping into the Rio Grande
during the irrigation season. Further, funding will be used for
recurring river maintenance necessary to ensure uninterrupted,
efficient water delivery to Elephant Butte Reservoir, reduced risk of
flooding, as well as water delivery obligations to Mexico.
The Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement project budget is $9.5
million, which will continue funding grants to implement conservation
measures that stretch water supplies and improve fishery conditions.
central utah project completion act
The fiscal year 2013 budget proposes to consolidate the Central
Utah Project Completion Act (CUPCA) program with the Bureau of
Reclamation, while maintaining a separate appropriations account for
CUPCA. This consolidation is part of broader administration efforts to
implement good Government solutions to consolidate and streamline
activities when possible. The proposed merger would ensure that all
major Federal water projects within Interior are managed by
Reclamation, ensuring that these projects receive equal consideration
and treatment. The fiscal year 2013 CUPCA budget is $21 million, a
decrease of $7.7 million from the fiscal year 2012 enacted level. Of
this amount, $1.2 million will be transferred to the Utah Reclamation
Mitigation and Conservation Account for use by the Mitigation
Commission.
central valley project restoration fund
The fiscal year 2013 budget includes $39.9 million for the Central
Valley Project Restoration Fund (CVPRF), a decrease of $13.2 million
from the fiscal year 2012 enacted level. This budget is indexed to 1992
price levels and determined on the basis of a 3-year rolling average.
This budget is offset by collections estimated at $39.6 million from
mitigation and restoration charges authorized by the Central Valley
Project Improvement Act (CVPIA). The fund supports a number of programs
authorized by the CVPIA, including anadromous fish restoration and the
acquisition and delivery of water to State and Federal wildlife
refuges.
california bay-delta restoration
The fiscal year 2013 budget includes $36 million for CALFED,
pursuant to the CALFED Bay-Delta Authorization Act, a decrease of $3.7
million from the 2012 enacted level. The budget will support
implementation of the Bay Delta Conservation Plan, under the following
new program activities--$1.9 million for a Renewed Federal-State
Partnership, $6.6 million for Smarter Water Supply and Use, and $27.6
million for actions that address the Degraded Bay-Delta Ecosystem.
san joaquin river restoration fund
The fiscal year 2013 budget funds activities consistent with the
settlement of Natural Resources Defense Council v. Rodgers as
authorized by the San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act. The Act
included a provision establishing the San Joaquin River Restoration
Fund to implement the provisions of the Settlement. The Settlement's
two primary goals are to restore and maintain fish populations, and
restore and avoid adverse water impacts. Under the Settlement, the
legislation provides for approximately $2 million in annual
appropriations from the Central Valley Project Restoration Fund for
this purpose, as well as permanent funds of $88 million. The
legislation also authorized appropriations and Reclamation proposes $12
million of discretionary funds for the San Joaquin Restoration Fund
account in 2013.
indian water rights settlements
The fiscal year 2013 budget includes $46.5 million in the proposed
Indian Water Rights Settlement account. Of this amount, $21.5 million
is for implementation of the four settlements included in the Claims
Resolution Act of 2010. These settlements will deliver clean water to
the Taos Pueblo of New Mexico, the Pueblos of New Mexico named in the
Aamodt case, the Crow Tribe of Montana, and the White Mountain Apache
Tribe of Arizona. Reclamation is proposing the establishment of an
Indian Water Rights Settlements account to assure continuity in the
construction of the authorized projects and to highlight and enhance
transparency in handling these funds.
In addition to the four settlements, the account also budgets $25
million for the on-going Navajo-Gallup Water Supply Project (authorized
in title X of Public Law 111-11). The total for Reclamation's
implementation of Indian Water Rights Settlements in 2013 is $106.5
million, $46.5 million in discretionary funding and $60 million in
permanent authority, which is provided in title VII of the Claims
Resolution Act.
policy and administration
The fiscal year 2013 budget for the Policy and Administration
appropriation account, the account that finances Reclamation's central
management functions, is $60 million.
research and development
Reclamation's Science and Technology Program focuses on a range of
solutions for supporting the bureau's capability to manage, conserve,
and expand water supplies. This year Reclamation's budget includes $13
million to support research and development programs which give the
highest priority to address the impacts of drought and climate change;
mitigation of invasive species such as zebra and quagga mussels;
creating new water supplies through advanced water treatment; and
advance renewable energy development on Reclamation lands.
permanent appropriations
The total permanent appropriation in 2013 of $174.1 million
includes $111.1 million for the Colorado River Dam Fund and $60 million
for Reclamation's Indian Water Rights Settlements account.
campaign to cut waste
Over the last 2 years, the Administration has implemented a series
of management reforms to curb growth in contract spending, terminate
poorly performing information technology projects, deploy state-of-the-
art fraud detection tools, focus agency leaders on achieving ambitious
improvements in high-priority areas, and open Government up to the
public to increase accountability and accelerate innovation.
In November 2011, President Obama issued an Executive order
reinforcing these performance and management reforms and the
achievement of efficiencies and cost-cutting across the Government.
This Executive order identifies specific savings as part of the
Administration's Campaign to Cut Waste to achieve a 20-percent
reduction in administrative spending from 2010 to 2013. Each agency was
directed to establish a plan to reduce the combined costs associated
with travel, employee information technology devices, printing,
executive fleet efficiencies, and extraneous promotional items and
other areas.
The Department of the Interior's goal is to reduce administrative
spending by the end of 2013, $207 million from 2010 levels. To
contribute to that goal, the Bureau of Reclamation is targeted to save
$13.5 million by the end of 2013.
fiscal year 2013 priority goal for water conservation
Priority goals are a key element of the President's agenda for
building a high-performing Government. The priority goals demonstrate
that they are a high value to the public or that they reflect
achievement of key departmental milestones. These goals focus attention
on initiatives for change that have significant performance outcomes
which can be clearly evaluated, and are quantifiable and measurable in
a timely manner. Reclamation's participation in the Water Conservation
priority goal helps to achieve these objectives.
Reclamation's water conservation efforts are critical to sustain
the economy, environment, and culture of the American West. Competition
for finite water supplies is increasing because of population growth,
ongoing agricultural demands, and increasingly evident environmental
needs. With increased emphasis on domestic energy development,
additional pressure is placed on limited water supplies, as significant
amounts of water may be required for all types of energy development.
At the same time, climate change, extended droughts, and depleted
aquifers are impacting water supplies and availability.
In response to these demands, by the end of 2013, Reclamation will
enable capability to increase available water supply for agricultural,
municipal, industrial, and environmental uses in the Western United
States by 730,000 acre-feet cumulatively since 2009 through its
conservation-related programs, such as water reuse and recycling (title
XVI), and WaterSMART grants.
Moreover, Reclamation's Water Conservation program addresses a
range of other water supply needs in the West. It plays a significant
role in restoring and protecting freshwater ecosystems consistent with
applicable State and Federal law, enhancing management of our water
infrastructure while mitigating for any harmful environmental effects,
and understanding and responding to the changing nature of the West's
limited water resources.
Finally, the fiscal year 2013 budget demonstrates Reclamation's
commitment to meeting the water and power needs of the West in a
fiscally responsible manner. This budget continues Reclamation's
emphasis on managing those valuable public resources. Reclamation is
committed to working with its customers, States, tribes, and other
stakeholders to find ways to balance and provide for the mix of water
resource needs in 2013 and beyond.
conclusion
This completes my statement. I would be happy to answer any
questions that you may have at this time.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much. And, we'll now
proceed with questions and, Mr. Connor, let me thank you for
your constant cooperation and helpfulness. It's really been
very special.
I just want you to know how much it's appreciated.
Mr. Connor. Thank you.
NATOMAS LEVEE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Senator Feinstein. Let me speak for a moment about a deep
concern in California.
I've had occasion to speak with people about it. It's the
Natomas Project in Sacramento. My understanding is it's 42
miles of levees, 18 have been repaired at a cost of about $320
million by Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency (SAFCA). I've
had a chance to talk with Secretary Darcy about it.
It's priority number one for the City of Sacramento. I have
been told that a failure could cause a flood which would flood
as much as 20 percent of the city. Is that correct?
Ms. Darcy. Madam Secretary, I believe that's accurate.
Senator Feinstein. I know it's not included in what you're
proposing. Can you tell us why it hasn't been included?
Ms. Darcy. On this specific project, I may have to defer to
the General, because that portion of the project is one that
I'm not quite familiar with.
Senator Feinstein. General Temple, could you speak directly
into the microphone?
General Temple. Sorry. I'll have to get back to you on the
specifics pertaining to that, but I do know that we are
diligently working to reduce flood risk in the Central Valley
of California, and Natomas is certainly a key part of that.
Senator Feinstein. Right. Well, I think I know what
happened. In the 2010 Chief's report, the costs were identified
to be $1.1 billion in necessary levee improvements which I
understand is a high ticket item.
The question I have is, can the work be segmented? So the
work that's most critical, where there are people behind the
levee, can be protected. Madam Secretary?
Ms. Darcy. I believe that the portion that you're
discussing needs authorization; that portion that you're
discussing is currently not an authorized part of the project.
Senator Feinstein. Well, that's interesting. Do you have
any information as to why it's not authorized?
Ms. Darcy. That Chief report is still pending; there has
been no authorization for any projects since 2007.
Senator Feinstein. So when would authorization be likely?
Ms. Darcy. That Chief's report is pending; it's up to the
Congress to authorize the project.
Senator Feinstein. Right. Well, I can tell you this, I
think this is the number one levee need in California, and
Sacramento is the capital city. It's been confirmed that 20
percent of the city would be flooded. It's a very serious
problem and I know we've discussed it.
Anything that can be done, would be very much appreciated,
so I just want to publicly bring it to your attention.
HARBOR MAINTENANCE TRUST FUND
I marked a question that I wanted to be sure to ask, and
here it is. The subject is harbor maintenance taxes to the
States which generated them.
It's my understanding that California ports provide at
least 30 percent of the funding that goes into the Harbor
Maintenance Trust Fund. If we assume that the trust fund
generates $1.5 billion annually, then California annually
contributes $450 million into the fund, so how much dredging of
eligible harbors and waterways in California were reimbursed by
the trust fund in 2011?
Ms. Darcy. I believe the figure, Senator, is $102 million.
Senator Feinstein. $102 million. So, about 5 percent of the
annual revenues?
Ms. Darcy. Give or take, close to 5 percent.
Senator Feinstein. So, this is one of the problems that----
Senator Graham. California is getting ripped off.
Senator Feinstein. So, it's a bipartisan issue now. You
know, it's only so long that you can tolerate paying this money
and not getting back adequate services.
The question I have is, what would be the impact of
changing the law in a manner that sets a percentage of the
revenues generated in a given State to be returned to that
State?
Ms. Darcy. If the law were changed to do that, then the way
we would budget for the revenues coming from the fund would be
based on that percentage.
Currently, we look at the appropriation that we have from
the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund. This year's President's
budget includes $848 million. And what we do with that money
now is look at where the needs are around the country.
All ports pay into this Fund, so we look at the needs
nationally. We don't do it on an----
Senator Feinstein. I don't disagree with that. I think
that's not a bad way to do it. I think it's a responsible way
to do it.
On the other hand, we have 50 percent of the container
traffic coming into America, coming into LA-Long Beach, and
harbor maintenance is a huge issue. Our harbors are decrepit.
So this is my view, and I don't know that others on this
subcommittee agree, but if you have a lot of traffic, harbor
maintenance also relates to things like the ability to move
those containers out.
Intermodal transportation, roadways that are suitable, are
also important because the delivery of a container doesn't end
at a port. This is something I am really concerned about, and
would like to ask your help on in the future as to how we might
be able to work this.
I think all of it should go to areas of need. I could make
the argument to take all of it for California. Mr. Graham could
make a pretty good argument to take it to a certain harbor
called Charleston.
Senator Graham. Not all of it.
Senator Feinstein. Not all of it, but he'd take a part of
it.
So, I think we've got to work something out that is fair.
I'd really like to have your cooperation in trying to do so in
the future.
Ms. Darcy. We'd be happy to work with you.
Senator Feinstein. I appreciate that. Thank you very much.
Senator Alexander.
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Well, I think the chairman has roused up an ``amen'' corner
over in the southern section of the subcommittee, and I'd just
like to say as we begin this discussion, I have a pretty good
idea what Senator Graham's going to be talking about when the
time comes.
And I agree with him. We've been having some discussions
about--and Secretary Darcy, I think this is mainly aimed for
discussion with you--and I'll leave it to him to explore this,
I hope that's what he intends to do, is that we need to take a
big look at these two trust funds, and think bigger than the
funds.
Think about what the needs of our country are, and outline
a policy and a program and an idea, and think in a big way
about it, and I very much agree with that. And part of that may
be recognizing that in some cases, we need a different sort of
formula for harbors.
And it may mean we need different ways of collecting money.
But my experience in Government is you don't start out by
talking about the money, you start out by talking about the
policy and the need and what our goals are. And then, it makes
it a lot easier to figure out how we pay for it.
Now, in that spirit, let me narrow down something that I
think emphasizes the problems with one of the funds, the Inland
Waterways Trust Fund. The problem with the Harbor Trust Fund,
of course, it has a lot of money in it, we just can't spend it.
INLAND WATERWAYS TRUST FUND
The Inland Waterways Trust Fund doesn't have much money in
it, but it has a lot of needs. One of the reasons we don't have
money for the dams and locks that it should be funding is this
Olmsted Lock on the Ohio River that between last year and this
year, according to the budget, increased its costs by $1
billion from $2 billion to $3 billion.
And this one lock is soaking up the money that ought to go
for other priority projects. Have you given any consideration
to changing the cost sharing on the Olmsted Lock from the
current 50-50 to something such as 90 percent from the Treasury
and 10 percent from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund so that we
could consider other priority projects?
Ms. Darcy. No, Senator. Under current law, we have to cost
share 50-50 from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund.
Senator Alexander. Well, why can't we change that to 90-10?
Ms. Darcy. That would take an Act of Congress.
Senator Alexander. Well, we're in a position perhaps to do
that if you were to recommend it. You think it'd be a good
idea?
Ms. Darcy. I think what we'd have to look at is all the
competing priorities on the system before we made any
recommendation.
Senator Alexander. Well, do you think it's a good idea for
one big project to soak up virtually all of the money available
for the Inland Waterways Trust Fund dams and locks?
Ms. Darcy. Well, unfortunately, given the constraints of
the incoming revenue from the tax, that's all that we can
afford at this time. The priorities have been discussed with
the industry.
Unfortunately, it is a very expensive project.
CHICKAMAUGA LOCK
Senator Alexander. Has this huge increase, 50-percent
increase, just this year in the cost of this lock, changed the
projected timeline to restart construction on Chickamauga Lock?
Ms. Darcy. I don't believe so, but in general I----
Senator Alexander. That would be encouraging news.
General Temple. Do you mean whether it has changed the
timeline for construction on Chickamauga Lock?
Senator Alexander. To restart construction, right. Is the
fact that they're going to spend an extra $1 billion on
Olmsted, has that affected the timeline for restarting
construction on Chickamauga Lock?
General Temple. It will affect it in 2013, Sir, based on
current projections of revenue and priorities.
Senator Alexander. General, have you made projections about
how much longer the current Chickamauga Lock can be operated
and maintained?
General Temple. Our asset management database system is
going to be used to perform that analysis. We know that we can
sustain operations on the Lock at least through 2013.
How much longer we'll be able to do it given its current
condition, which you're very aware of----
Senator Alexander. You mean it might be closed after 2013?
General Temple. There is that possibility, Sir, depending
upon----
Senator Alexander. You might close the Chickamauga Lock
after 2013?
General Temple. There is that possibility, Sir, depending
on the status of the Lock itself and its integrity.
Senator Alexander. Well, that is dramatic news for the
people of the Southeastern United States which I've not heard
before.
What would it take to keep it open?
General Temple. Sir, if we were able to continue to apply
O&M dollars to keep it going because of the expensive concrete
situation that I know you're familiar with there, we would be
able to sustain it for some time longer.
Senator Alexander. But you've recommended reduced funding
for aggressive maintenance on the Chickamauga Lock?
General Temple. That is correct, Sir, because of competing
priorities and funds available, we had to make some difficult--
--
Senator Alexander. So you're going to spend, you're going
to increase by 50 percent the cost of this one project, Olmsted
Lock, by $1 billion and run the risk that after 2013, which is
only a year plus a few months away, that the Chickamauga Lock
might be closed which would cost thousands of jobs in the
Tennessee-Georgia area, put 150,000 heavy trucks on I-75 and
threaten the operations at the Tennessee Valley Authority, the
Oak Ridge Laboratory, and many industries in the area.
General Temple. Sir, that is the recommendation based on
working with all of the stakeholders to determine the relative
needs throughout the entire system.
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Ms. Darcy. Senator, could I just add something? The 2013
budget includes Operation and Maintenance dollars for the
Chickamauga Lock. We just haven't added the enhanced
maintenance.
So the maintenance that we have ongoing, hopefully, will
continue to keep it operable. We just haven't included funding
for the enhanced maintenance. We will continue to monitor the
effects of that.
Senator Alexander. Well, I would hope so. Even the
possibility that it might close at the end of 2013 is a
startling development to me if that's what you're saying. Is
that what you're saying?
Ms. Darcy. We don't anticipate it closing, but it's a
possibility. Right now, we are providing funding for ongoing
maintenance, just not for the enhanced maintenance.
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Senator Alexander.
Senator Collins.
Senator Collins. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
VERNAL POOL REGULATIONS
Secretary Darcy, the Corps has permitting responsibilities
under section 404 of the Clean Water Act for development
activities that may occur in wetlands.
And several of my constituents, including municipal
officials, hospital on the coast that had a project underway,
have raised concerns about the application of regulations in
the New England district, particularly, as they differ
dramatically from what is required under State law and
maintenance, known for very strong environmental laws.
And they seem to be far more demanding than those supplied
by the Corps in other parts of the country. For instance, for
significant vernal pools, the State of Maine regulates a 200-
foot terrestrial buffer area that includes the vernal pool.
The Corps published rule requires a 500-foot radial
circumference. But more recently, guidance has been issued, not
through the formal rulemaking process, but just guidance, that
increases the radial distance to 750 feet for any vernal pool
that may be perceived as having critical habitat.
Now, just so I want to understand the difference, if you
apply a 700-foot buffer to property, it results in a regulatory
footprint of more than 40 acres for just a 50-foot diameter
vernal pool.
So going from 500 feet to 750 feet has enormous
consequences and has brought to a halt several important
development projects that municipalities have been pushing in
Maine.
I'm interested in first getting a better understanding of
how your New England district determined to increase the
regulated area to a 750-foot radius without going through the
normal Administrative Procedure Act (APA) procedure and instead
did it through informal guidance.
Ms. Darcy. I can't answer that because I don't know, but I
will commit to you that I will ask the New England district as
soon as this hearing is over, and I will find out why.
Senator Collins. Let me ask you a second question. In the
New England district, it also appears that the Corps has
abandoned the nationwide permit program and has begun to defer
to the commenting agencies on protection of vernal pool habitat
even in the less significant, and frankly, ubiquitous forested
wetlands that are present throughout my State of Maine.
Now, by contrast, again, the State distinguishes between
significant vernal pools as well as natural and manmade vernal
pools in its regulation. But the Corps does not make that
distinction, and instead is regulating every vernal pool in the
same way.
And in my State there are literally thousands of vernal
pools and forested wetlands that are different from other
States and the application of this regulation in Maine has the
potential to affect literally tens of thousands of acres of
land. And that's why we're getting this slew of complaints.
Now, by contrast, in the South Atlantic district, these
nationwide permits are still available for projects with
multiple acres, and in some cases, projects are allowed without
permits.
And, again, I'm trying to understand why is there such a
great difference in the way the New England district regulates
wetlands versus the South Atlantic district?
Ms. Darcy. I'm going to say that it's probably because of
the different topography and geography that we're dealing with,
but I am not sure that is a good enough answer. I think I owe
you a better answer than that as to why the New England
district is considering these differently from other districts,
considering the nationwide application of permits.
Senator Collins. Well, I would ask that you respond to
those questions in writing, and my time has expired. I have a
couple more that I will submit for the record on this issue as
well.
I know it's a very technical issue, but what I'm hearing
from everyone from officials in Brewer, Maine to a manufacturer
in Auburn, to a hospital in Rockport, Maine, there's something
going on.
And, as I said, Maine has strict environmental laws. We
prize our environment. But the implications of this new
approach by the New England district is bringing to a halt a
lot of very important economic development projects.
I do want to thank the President for including $13 million
in the budget request for the dredging of the Portland Harbor.
That is a very important project to economic development in my
State.
And I am still concerned about those smaller ports and will
be proposing a question for the record. Thank you.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you, very much.
Senator Lautenberg, I usually do early bird, and you've got
a bird earlier than----
Senator Lautenberg. I consider Senator Graham a friend, and
I wouldn't want to deprive him of the opportunity to proceed,
if necessary.
Senator Graham. I will certainly defer, if you need to go
Senator Lautenberg.
Senator Lautenberg. All right. Now, it's my hand. Thank you
very much. Thank you, members of the Corps for the wonderful
work you do and for the dependence that we've built over a long
period of time for you to fix things sometimes where nature's
gone wrong, or where man's gone wrong.
PASSAIC RIVER BASIN
But we need your work to continue and we need it to be
appropriately budgeted. Last year, President Obama toured the
Passaic River Basin in New Jersey following Hurricane Irene.
And the budget includes $1 million for a study to find a
long-term solution to chronic flooding in this area. However,
I'm told it will take at least 3 years for construction to
begin on a solution.
Now, how can the Corps, General, expedite this project to
ensure that families in the Basin have flood protection as soon
as possible?
General Temple. Well, thank you, Sir. We are re-looking our
whole planning program in order to address this issue of
timeliness, and this includes not only changing the process in
order to get after timeliness, but also we are using six pilot
projects to look at how we can compress studies in a way to
provide these studies more quickly.
We're taking a look at the entire inventory of all of our
feasibility studies to determine how best to apply our limited
capabilities against the highest priority studies, and we're
improving our training and certification of all of our
planners.
That said, we're striving towards a goal of a three-by-
three-by-three strategy which involves a $3 million effort at
less than 3 years in order to provide these types of services,
Sir.
So, we're working to compress the schedule, and we'll
certainly do that in this case.
ONGOING FLOOD CONTROL STUDIES
Senator Lautenberg. Ms. Darcy, the budget requests funding
for six new Army Corps studies is included. However, the budget
doesn't include funding for several critical ongoing New Jersey
studies including the Rahway River Basin, the South River
Raritan River Basin, the Stone Brook Mill Stone River.
Now, why does the budget request funding for these new
projects while leaving out these three ongoing, flood control
programs; do you know?
Ms. Darcy. Well, Senator, we did provide some money in the
work plan for these three studies. However, in evaluating the
ongoing studies for funding in 2013, these did not compete as
effectively as some other studies.
Senator Lautenberg. Well, we'd like to make sure that we
get these things in order because we know one thing, the three
projects that I talk about are critical to the safety and
wellbeing of people in those areas.
NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR DEEPENING
I'm pleased that the budget includes, Secretary Darcy, $68
million to complete the deepening of the New York-New Jersey
Harbor, a critical economic engine that supports more than
230,000 regional jobs.
Now, following completion of the construction phase, what
are the Corps plans to maintain the Harbor so that large cargo
ships have easy and sustained access to the port and that we
don't lose these ships to other places?
Ms. Darcy. Once the deepening is completed, we will
continue to operate and maintain that harbor through the Harbor
Maintenance Trust Fund, and it will compete within that trust
fund for available dollars.
Senator Lautenberg. The Corps is filled with experienced
professionals that do great work. However, the most frequent
complaint that I hear from local communities about the Corps is
that it takes too long. I think, generally, you made reference
to that in your comments.
Is the Corps considering ways to decrease the time to build
projects? Perhaps, General, that question should go to you?
General Temple. Thank you, Sir.
When I spoke earlier about the transformation of planning,
that's a subset of Civil Works transformation, which includes
four key elements.
First, planning, which I described a little earlier. Also,
a focus on performance based budgeting processes which are
reflected, for instance, in the 2013 budget.
Performing a complete inventory of our assets and
performing better asset management across those facilities that
we're responsible for.
And last, but not least, we are looking at how we deliver
these through changes in methods of delivery that allow us to
leverage the expertise across each district, across each
region, and indeed, across the entire enterprise, to ensure
that we deliver our products and services in a more timely
fashion.
Senator Lautenberg. Now, we appreciate the fact that
there's almost always an overload in the Corps because there
are more projects than there are hands or dollars. But we
encourage you to keep up your good work.
Thank you very much.
General Temple. Thank you, Sir.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Senator Lautenberg.
Senator Graham.
IMPACT OF PANAMA CANAL EXPANSION ON UNITED STATES SHIPPING PORTS
Senator Graham. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
I want to recognize the Executive order issued by President
Obama. It says, ``Improving Performance of Federal Permitting
and Review of Infrastructure Projects'' dated March 22.
I am very impressed by this document. It really does
through the Executive branch lay out a way to speed up these
projects and to come up with a better vision about how to
execute and maintain major infrastructure projects.
The one thing I would suggest is to look at putting port
people on the steering committee, the people that are on the
front lines. But I just wanted to recognize the
Administration's efforts in that regard.
Now, you also report, Secretary Darcy, in June?
Ms. Darcy. Yes, Sir.
Senator Graham. And as you can tell from a California
perspective, the current system's not exactly where you would
like it to be.
And from Senator Lautenberg's question, you have a harbor
that's been studied, designed, constructed, and he's worried
about maintenance of large ships. Now, I'm worried about the
Chickamauga Lock. I didn't know about it, but I'm worried about
it now. So, good, I am sufficiently worried.
What we're doing, among ourselves up here, is trying to
create a vision, in collaboration with the Executive branch,
that recognizes things are about to change dramatically.
The ports on the west coast seem to have a real need in
terms of interior infrastructure development, and the
definition of harbor maintenance doesn't seem to get us to that
need.
I would argue that the best way for us to have a vision is
to look at these trust funds anew. And try to find ways to get
more money in the system, maybe more matching money.
But what we're going to be working on among ourselves is
when the Panama Canal expands in 2015, it has a direct impact
on the east coast, and will change shipping as we know it,
including the interior along the Mississippi River and other
places; do you agree with that?
Ms. Darcy. Yes, Sir.
Senator Graham. So what we're looking at doing is seeing
how can we reconstruct or redesign these trust funds to get the
money in place to build toward a vision?
So rather than worrying about funding up front, we're
trying to create a vision, a vision that would allow west coast
ports who have a different problem than the east coast to be
able to access funds that they're helping generate to make sure
that America on the west coast has the best facilities possible
in an international competition for export jobs.
And, if we don't get this right soon on the east coast,
ports are going to pop up along the Caribbean, Cuba, and other
places, and if we don't watch it, this change in shipping is
going to be lost to the United States.
Do you agree that's a possibility?
Ms. Darcy. It's a possibility, yes.
Senator Graham. So what we're looking at doing is that some
ports need to be deepened along the east coast. Maybe we can
look at the Harbor Trust Fund anew and say that, you know,
dredging is a new activity allowed in the Harbor Maintenance
Fund.
And when it comes to Harbor Maintenance definitions on the
west coast, allow money for interior development. Now, the
inland piece is going to be affected by what happens on the
east coast.
So what I would suggest is that we try to create a vision
of what happens to our interior ports, based on Panama Canal
expansion, look at what the west coast needs, in terms of their
harbors, and take these trust funds and redesign them to meet
the reality of the 21st century.
Do you think that's a good project for us to engage in?
Ms. Darcy. I do. I think we need to look at both trust
funds as to what needs need to be met that aren't being met by
them right now as well as increasing the revenues to them.
Senator Graham. And the trust funds, as I understand it,
generate about $1.2 billion a year, right?
Ms. Darcy. The Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund generates
about $1.4 to $1.5 billion a year.
Senator Graham. And how much do we spend each year?
Ms. Darcy. The President asked for $848 million this year.
Senator Graham. So I would just suggest that people are
paying or investing in these ports through fees that we ought
to be using the money to make sure that we meet the President's
goals of doubling exports.
Do you agree that one way to double exports in America is
to have modern ports and shipping systems?
Ms. Darcy. Yes, and we're trying to reach that goal by
keeping what we have in working order.
Senator Graham. Okay. Now, that's just not enough. We need
to keep what we have in working order, but we also need to have
the best in the world. So that's our goal, right?
Senator Feinstein. Would you yield for just a moment?
Senator Graham. Yes, I will.
Senator Feinstein. I once took a little tour of ports, the
Hong Kong port, the Singapore port, other ports. Our ports are
so far behind in infrastructure that it's scary.
Senator Graham. It's scary, isn't it.
Senator Feinstein. We are nowhere close to modern.
Senator Graham. And we're going to fix that together,
aren't we?
Senator Feinstein. Yes, I hope so. For existing ports as
well as potential future port improvements.
Senator Graham. Okay. Yes, Ma'am.
So, my time is up. But here's what I would like in the June
Report. I'd like you to detail, as much as you can, the
reasonably known consequences of Panama Canal expansion,
knowing that you're going to have limited funds no matter what
you do, and give us some sense of prioritization.
Look at the idea of changing the Harbor Maintenance Fund
and allow dredging to come out of that pot of money. Change the
definition of the Harbor Maintenance Fund when it comes to west
coast port Interior infrastructure development.
Look at the Interior Trust Fund and see if it can be
married up with the Harbor Maintenance Fund to create a vision
that goes from the east coast to the interior to the west
coast.
And give us some idea of what happens if the Panama Canal
expands, and what affect the larger ships will have on the east
coast as well as the interior of the country. What kind of
ripple effect will it have?
And not just try to maintain what we got, but think outside
the box and suggest to us ways to leverage the current system,
ask for matching funds that are not asked for today, maybe more
money coming from the private sector.
This effort should not be just to maintain what we have,
but to get ahead of the world before it's too late. Because if
we don't act in a reasoned, rational way, this shipping that's
coming through the Panama Canal is going to be lost.
And if we don't upgrade our west coast ports, we're going
to lose jobs at a time we need jobs.
Do you think the June Report could be that expansive and
that forward leaning?
Ms. Darcy. The report, the study as you know, is well
underway, and I'm not sure that we are looking at the uses of
the trust funds in that report.
Senator Graham. Could you do that?
Ms. Darcy. We can try; because the Corps is on track to
have it completed by----
Senator Graham. Well, just think big.
Ms. Darcy. Think big.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Senator.
Senator Landrieu.
Senator Landrieu. Thank you, Madam Chair.
And I agree with the Senator that we have to think big, but
we're going to need a bigger budget to do that. And there's
absolutely no way around it.
This budget that we have in front of us, despite the very
good work that this chairman has done, and it is in no a
reflection on the work that she has done, or that we've done
over the course of the last years, simply does not have enough
money to maintain or invest or build the structures that we
have to to build an economy that lasts.
And that's just the simple truth. There's no way around it.
And until we can figure out a way to put more private and
public money on the table, we're not going to get there.
I want to thank the Chairwoman for her extraordinary help
with the very limited resources that are in this budget, in the
President's request, and reflected in our 302(b) allocation.
To thank her very much for the $1.7 billion that you were
able to find and direct, Madam Chair, last year for emergency
flooding. It has been a tremendous help to not just Louisiana
and to our communities that were flooded, but all throughout
the Mississippi River, and I understand, the Missouri River as
well, and around the country.
So thank you very, very much for being supportive. I want
to thank the Corps, even with this limited and wholly
insufficient budget, that you were able to start two new
projects in the country. And one of them is a project that we
should have started 30 years ago. But at least it's getting
started now.
LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA PROJECTS
And that is the Louisiana coastal area projects. There were
only two new starts. The sad story is that if we had started
this project, and this isn't only the Corps' fault, there's
enough blame to go around.
We could have saved the size of the State of Rhode Island,
which we have already lost, and we're not sure even with this
new project, and the billions of dollars that we're finding
through a variety of sources, to put towards saving Louisiana's
coast, which is America's wetlands.
We're not sure how much of that marsh we can ever recover.
But we think we can stop the degradation. We think we can build
safe communities for the millions of people that live near this
shore, from Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama, that
simply cannot be moved north.
So we thank you for recognizing the significant importance
of that. But I do want to talk about these trust funds because
that is the first step. And Senator Levin has been particularly
vocal on this, and I want to do a shout out for him.
Because he's worked extremely hard. And I was wondering
why, and then I looked at the map of all of the ports, and saw
the cluster of ports in Michigan. And it dawned on me that that
is one reason.
But he's right. We have a cluster of ports in the southern
part of the country, on America's energy coast. And the fact
that we have not been allocating, Madam Chair, all of the money
to these trust funds that the private sector is paying into
them, I think this should be the major issue for our
subcommittee.
I mean the highway committees have done a pretty good job
of building support to capture the gasoline dollars for surface
transportation. We need to be very aggressive in gathering the
maritime dollars that are being paid for our ports and for our
dredging.
I understand from looking at this issue that is a huge
issue now for us in Louisiana. And I want to ask you if this is
true? That of all of the waterways that taxpayers have put in
money to build, that the average width and depth is only one-
third, we're only maintaining about one-third of that capacity;
is that correct?
Or, do you think it's more close to one-half?
Ms. Darcy. I would like to say it's more, closer to one-
half, but I think it's probably somewhere in between.
Senator Landrieu. So, Madam Chair, just think about this
big picture for a minute. Of all the waterways in the country
that bring in resources from the South, the East, and the West,
our channels, this budget, is barely maintaining one-third of
their capacity, either at width or depth.
What that means is our economy is weaker every day that a
ship has to be light-loaded or stand offshore because the
channel isn't deep enough to come in. Senator, whether this is
natural gas coming in or going out, or whether this is
fabrication materials coming in and out. They're standing
offshore because the channels are not wide enough or deep
enough.
This is really a shame. And people focus on infrastructure,
thinking about roads and bridges and mass transit. I'm going to
be on a tear this year to focus on our water transport because
it's crucial.
MODIFIED CHARLESTON METHOD FOR MITIGATION
And, finally, I know my time is out, I want to follow up on
one other point. And this is of great concern to Louisiana. Our
division down in Louisiana, the New Orleans Division of the
Corps, has recently adopted what they call the Modified
Charleston Method for Mitigation.
Until I can get a better explanation, I'm going to try to
insert money in this bill to prevent that from going in place
until I can understand how the cost is going to affect our
efforts to save our coast.
Because just what Susan Collins--Senator Collins was
speaking about the complaints in Maine, Madam Chairman, if we
don't really understand this mitigation, sort of one for one,
like if you take an acre of wetlands, you have to replace it,
I'm all for that.
I mean I don't think we can have a net loss of wetlands.
But the Corps is now going to a method that's costing a three-
to-one. So, instead of a levee, let's say that I have to build
a lot of that you have to help pay for, this is why it's
important to you, and to me, instead of it costing $100, that
same foot of levee is going to cost $400.
It's going to bankrupt us. We have a problem as it is under
the one-for-one. If we go to a three-to-one method, the
projects are going to become that much more expensive. So I
know that there's an environmental reason for this, and I want
to be sensitive to it.
But we also have to be sensitive to the taxpayers that are
picking up this tab, and be very clear before we implement this
what the economic impacts are going to be.
So would you make just a brief 30 seconds, and then I'll
thank the Chair for allowing me to go a little over, on the
increased cost for flood control if we use that Charleston
method?
Ms. Darcy. Thank you, Senator Landrieu.
What's being referred to as the Modified Charleston Method
is a different way of evaluating permit applications. As you
say, there's an increase in the acreage that would be used for
the mitigation on flood control and other projects.
That method is just starting to be used in some of our
districts, and what I think I need to do is take a look at what
the impact is on all of our districts. Because not all
districts are using it.
One of the reasons for using it was to have some
consistency throughout a State. And I think consistency is
something that we need to have, but your concern about the cost
impacts is one that I think we need to look at before we move
forward.
Senator Landrieu. So before we expand that, I would really
recommend that we get an analysis of the economic impact for
California, for Louisiana, for, you know, South Carolina, North
Carolina, so at least we know what we're laying on people
Because the final question, Madam Chair, we have an
obligation to put up some money, but remember, the local
governments have to put up some funding too. And this is
substantially increasing their costs.
And I'm getting nothing but complaint after complaint from
our levee boards. My parish officials said, Senator, this will
absolutely bankrupt us, and that's the last thing we need to
do.
Senator Feinstein. You have done yeoman's service to your
State.
Senator Landrieu. Thank you.
Senator Feinstein. I don't know of anyone that's worked
harder than anybody for their State than you have.
Here's the problem. You know, we're the chorus talking to
each other. The fact of the matter is that the Corps' budget is
down 5.4 percent. The Bureau's budget is down 1.3 percent.
Here's the overall issue in the energy and water portfolio,
the security part of it, which is tens of billions of dollars,
has projects that start out costing $600 million end up costing
$6 billion. That's an actual case.
It all has to do with the nuclear security and the warheads
of this Nation. They are absorbing a bigger and bigger part.
And you can't change that. It's a mandatory spending item.
Who suffers? The Corps, the Bureau. They are pushed and
compressed. Somehow people have to wake up to this, and talk to
the Administration to help us because it simply isn't the right
thing.
At home, our infrastructure is poorer and poorer and
poorer. Our ports are outdated. Our levees need fixing. The
storms are bigger. The hurricanes are stronger. The tornadoes
are much more volatile.
Senator Landrieu. Yes.
Senator Feinstein. The damage is much, much greater. There
is no ability to respond to it proportionately. That's just a
fact.
Senator Landrieu. Yes.
Senator Feinstein. That's why I love both these budgets
because I said earlier, it's where the pedal hits the metal.
It's really where we live. It's what we see.
If 20 percent of Sacramento gets flooded, and I know that's
going to happen, and the Corps confirms it to me, and the levee
collapses, all I can say is it would have been an earmark. I
would put it in, but I can't put it in.
Senator Landrieu. Yes.
Senator Feinstein. So the bottom line is, I have to fish
around for a way to go around that. It's wrong. It's just plain
wrong. I've been here for 20 years. I've never seen anything
like it. I mean, why be on the Appropriations Committee if you
can't do anything to be of help.
Senator Landrieu. Right.
Senator Feinstein. So I am overwhelmed with frustration. I
asked the staff to give me a paper of the eight big nuclear
projects and whether they're on budget and whether the costs
have been borne out. Nothing done in the last 10 years there.
Have the costs that it was initially scheduled to be, been
accurate? So we're going to study root causes for this because
I think Senator Alexander agrees, and you see it here now.
I am really concerned about Sacramento. The major is
concerned about Sacramento. The House delegation is concerned.
In the old days, I'd just put an earmark in. I can't do that.
Senator Landrieu. Well, Madam Chair, I'm with you 1,000
percent. I serve on the Appropriations Committee, obviously,
I'm on the subcommittee, but I can honestly say, of all the
committees I serve on, there is no budget that is in more
crisis than this one.
We have strains on all the other budgets. They're strained.
This is one wholly insufficient. And the reason I know I can
say that is because if I asked you, Ms. Darcy, what your
backlog is today, there are two new starts in the country that
you have in your budget.
They're probably 50 that are worthy to be started, and one
of them might be your project, but they don't have the money to
do it. So I'm happy to be one of the two. But the sad story is
there should be 50 new starts.
And, if I asked you what your backlog is, isn't it about
$60 billion?
Ms. Darcy. Yes, it is.
Senator Landrieu. And so, how much money do you have this
year if you could apply it to the backlog to get these
projects? You have about $2 to $3 billion, right, in
construction money, of the $60 billion?
Ms. Darcy. Yes. It's $1.5 billion.
Senator Landrieu. You see what I'm saying about this budget
being in crisis? I don't think the defense budget is that far
backlogged. I don't think the health budget is that far
backlogged. It's strained.
This budget is wholly insufficient, and it's not your
fault, Madam Chair. It's our fault as the general
Appropriations Committee, and we have to say to the President,
and to our leadership, we cannot take it, the country cannot.
And I'll just say this one more thing, if there was ever an
example of what's going to happen, when the levees broke in New
Orleans, in 52 places, and the cost has exceeded to fix it $140
billion, is there any other case study that needs to be
presented to thinking people that we cannot survive on this
budget?
That's the budget that produced the 52 breaks. Lord help us
if something happens to Sacramento. You will feel waves across
the whole country because of the products that come out of
that.
So I just have to say I'll do what you want, Madam Chair,
but we have to do something extraordinary this year for this
budget.
Senator Feinstein. I think we have to find a way, and right
now, I'll tell you, I don't know what that is. If anyone has a
suggestion, I'm open to it.
I think maybe we send a shock wave, and we just don't fund
some of these other things.
Senator Alexander. Well, Madam Chair. I think there's a way
to deal with this. I think Senator Graham, you, and others have
come up with a pretty good idea.
We need to ask the Administration, starting with the
thinking that's already done, to think with us, and provide a
vision, an idea, for what we need to do about locks and dams
and what we need to do about harbors.
And then--and not think about the money, think about the
vision. And then after we have the plan or the vision, then
we'll see how much it costs, and then we'll see how we pay for
it.
Senator Landrieu. Could you put the gulf coast in that
vision?
Senator Alexander. Don't you have locks and dams and
harbors, yes. Of course, I mean, for the whole country, for the
whole country.
And part of our problem is we're all tied up in the rules
that we have around here which we can change. But if we start
out just arguing about the rules that we have, that create the
absurdity of having a fund with a lot of money in it that we
can't spend, even though we have a lot of needs, and the other
fund doesn't have any money in it.
Even though we should be able to construct a way to do
that, we just need to start with a vision, then with how to
fund it, then how much it costs, and then with how to fund it.
And I think we can do that in fairly short order, and I'd like
to be a part of it.
PROJECT PRIORITIZATION
Senator Feinstein. Well, for example, the Natomas Project
isn't authorized. Why isn't it authorized?
Are you planning to send your number one priority projects
for a bill to get them authorized? Or have you been kiboshed?
Ms. Darcy. As the Chiefs Reports are approved by the Chief
of Engineers and cleared by the Administration, they are sent
to the Congress. We have sent, since 2007, 14 Chiefs reports,
and we probably have about another 12 to 13 that might possibly
be completed this year. All of them would need to come to the
Congress for an authorization.
Senator Feinstein. So summarize that. What does that mean
to you?
Ms. Darcy. What it means is that by the end of this
calendar year, we will probably have more than 20 Chiefs
reports that will need to be authorized by the Congress. They
range from harbor deepening projects to aquatic ecosystem
restoration projects to flood control projects around the
country.
Senator Feinstein. Priority one? The highest priority?
Ms. Darcy. Of those projects?
Senator Feinstein. Yes.
Ms. Darcy. I don't know that I could put one above the
other.
Senator Feinstein. Well, let me ask you, is there any way
for the Administration to propose, award a bill, for the
highest priority projects in the country based on protection of
life and property?
Ms. Darcy. That's a possibility. Any Water Resources
Development Act (WRDA) proposal that would be developed would
include other kinds of policy changes that we are looking at
within the Administration.
Within the President's budget, he talked about the White
House Task Force on Navigation. In your conversations here
today you discussed the need for revamping both the trust
funds, that's something that I think this Task Force is going
to have to tackle.
In addition, we're working on a capitalization
modernization program within the Administration, looking at
ways on how we can recapitalize this aging infrastructure.
We've all heard today we don't have enough money to do that, so
we need to look at different ways.
Senator Feinstein. Stop, stop. I don't mean to be rude, but
here's the problem. The Administration has all of the clout.
Therefore, it has the responsibility.
Let me tell you a little story. When I was mayor, I used to
have these Monday morning department head meetings. The
Director of Public Works waited until after one of these
meetings, and he said to me, ``Madam Mayor, I've got some news
for you. I think if there were an earthquake, the rim around
Candlestick Park would come down.'' I said, ``Oh, my God, Jeff.
I don't have money.'' I said, ``How much would it be?'' He came
back and said that to retrofit just the rim at $6 million.
Then I thought, well, Candlestick is used so infrequently,
you know, what is the real liability here? Then I thought, I
now know, therefore, I have a responsibility. So we took and
took from others. We had $2 million a year for 3 years.
Who would have ever thought the San Francisco Giants would
be in the World Series. At 5 o'clock on a weeknight in
Candlestick Park when the big earthquake struck, and the rim
held. And the estimate was you had a 60,000 seat stadium, 20 to
30,000 people would have been impacted.
As it is, one of the floors of the Bay Bridge fell down.
So, you know, there's a responsibility. I think on a Federal
level, we take this stuff too much for granted. I now know what
will happen in Sacramento. You know. You have an obligation
because this is administration.
Anything we do is an earmark. Anything you do is not, and
it gets done. So, I heard you on the public record say that you
agree that 20 percent of the City of Sacramento would be
flooded if that levee collapses.
What are you going to do about it? You have a
responsibility. I have a responsibility. The White House has a
responsibility. So, you know, I think up there, there is this
perception that, well, it's a low priority, you know, the W61
warhead is more important, et cetera.
Well, not if you get flooded. And, you know, the chances of
it getting flooded are much greater than ever having to use the
W61 warhead. So, we need to see some passion from the
Administration to help because that's where it's at right now.
Ms. Darcy. Yes, Ma'am.
Senator Feinstein. We could put earmarks in the bill and a
rule of order would lie against the bill, and I don't know
whether we could get the votes or not to overcome it.
But these are not private companies that somebody's doing
an earmark for. These are major projects that protect the
people and the property of the people. And I think that's
really important, and it's the quality of life, and it's the
ability to run an economy.
So, Senator Landrieu is absolutely right. But right now,
it's got to come from the Administration, and I've got to ask
you all to be forceful and fight the fight, and we'll back you
up.
I'm going to write a letter to the President, and ask you
all to sign it, and ask him to adjust his budget. Then, he can
do it, and then it's not an earmark.
It will be for the most serious projects that involve the
safety of the people of this country. So, the projects for what
hurricanes are doing, and what tornadoes are doing and the
destruction that's caused. Those related to the climate getting
warmer.
In California, I've tracked the last 5 years of the water
levels, and they're definitely changing from the historic
average, and the snow pack is getting less and less. So it's
just frustrating, to see the Corps and the Bureau take these
cuts, and to see another part of our budget which is mandatory
with billions of dollars of cost overruns.
It's very frustrating.
General Temple. Madam Chairman.
Senator Feinstein. Yes, General, back us up.
General Temple. Do you mind if I take us back to Chick Lock
for just a minute?
Senator Feinstein. Of course.
General Temple. I did say earlier that there was a
possibility that the Lock could close after 2013, but based on
the monitoring that we've done, and assuming that we have
normal operating and maintenance dollars to maintain the Lock,
we don't anticipate that it would close within about the next 5
years.
It could, but we don't anticipate that it will. I just
wanted to make sure it was clear.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you. I know Senator Alexander is
pleased.
General Temple. Thank you. Thank you, Sir.
Senator Feinstein. We have been joined by Senator Harkin.
Senator, we're delighted to have you.
Senator Harkin. Thank you very much.
Senator Feinstein. You'd like to ask some questions?
Senator Harkin. Madam Chair, thank you very much. I
appreciate your indulgence, thank you very much. We all have
other committees and many things that we're working on, so I
appreciate this opportunity.
And thank you for your wonderful leadership on these
issues. I appreciate it very much.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you.
FEASIBILITY STUDIES
Senator Harkin. I just had a couple of questions I wanted
to go over with General Temple and the Secretary.
But, first, General Temple, I want to go over these
feasibility studies and flexibility on feasibility studies.
Well, I've been briefed and am supportive of your three-three-
three concept to reduce the maximum level of cost and time
taken to complete feasibility studies as outlined in your
February 8 memorandum.
I think this is an important advance. But I also think it's
important for the Corps to move forward with specific guidance
beyond just the question of scoping, regarding things like the
use of older data, simplifying requirements, and providing for
accelerated review in order to maximize the ability of your
districts to reach the goal of keeping these feasibility
studies to 3 years and costing under $3 million.
So it's the issue of providing guidance. My question is,
what actions will the Corps be taking to provide additional
guidance to the districts regarding these issues? What degree
can there be simplification, and the waving of certain current
requirements that are now the law?
And what would be the timing of providing more detailed
guidance to the districts on this issue? If you need me to
elaborate, I will, elaborate anymore on that. Okay.
General Temple. No, that's fine, Sir. Thank you.
Because what you're talking about is planning
transformation within the Corps. And as you may know, we have
six pilot projects that are ongoing, in addition to the
guidance that we've already put out.
We will use information that we collect from those pilot
projects to adjust the guidance, to address many of the issues
that you have just described. The planning transformation is a
work in progress, and as we continue to learn, we will continue
to adjust it to achieve the three-by-three-by-three goal that
you mentioned earlier, Sir.
Senator Harkin. Okay, General, let me pursue this just a
little bit further. So you got the six pilot projects. You're
using the data from that to inform you on the guidance
principles that you will put out.
Is there any way you can give me some kind of a timeframe
on this at all? Some of these people are looking for detailed
guidance on what they need to do, and so they're waiting on
that kind of guidance.
General Temple. We will address guidance pertaining to
planning as we look at each feasibility study in addition to
input that we get from the pilot studies.
So it is a continuous process, Sir. I mean, I can't give
you a time because we are working on this all the time, but
we'll continue to make progress on it as we move forward
together, Sir.
Senator Harkin. Well, I hope at least I detect some sense
of urgency on your part.
General Temple. Yes, Sir, absolutely.
Senator Harkin. Thank you. That's very important.
DES MOINES RIVER
I'm also concerned about projects, and I think you'll pick
up on this, where a local government is paying and conducting a
feasibility study, but again, working to meet these
requirements of what they call a ``work-in-kind credit.'' I'm
specifically talking about Des Moines, Iowa.
I'm facing a very difficult problem with the Corps, the
Corps having made a determination of higher flows on the Des
Moines River, which is probably true, which calls into question
the current flood control system meeting these Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) requirements for a 100-year
event.
The city is moving as fast as possible to take corrective
action. What specific actions are best though, however, does
require considerable analysis. I think we all should be doing
whatever we can to allow the process to move forward as quickly
as possible to provide appropriate flood protection and to
avoid significant economic problems if large areas of Des
Moines are determined to be in a flood zone.
So again, I'm asking that the Corps be, I guess what I'm
asking is the Corps be at least as helpful to these local
sponsors as if the Corps was doing it themselves.
General Temple. Absolutely, Sir. We're aware of the Des
Moines situation. We will support the local efforts in
addressing this particular issue. It is very important. Yes,
Sir.
OLMSTED LOCK
Senator Harkin. I appreciate that. Third, I don't know if
you covered this before I was here, if you have, did you cover
anything about the Olmsted Lock at all on the Ohio? No.
Well, people have suggested that it's logical for the Corps
to do an in-depth study of the way Olmsted is being
constructed, the amount of money that it's taking, which, of
course, is keeping us from moving ahead on our whole plan for
the Upper Mississippi Locks.
Others have suggested it might be prudent to hold up
additional work on Alton as a thorough study is conducted and
move forward on other important navigation projects. I just
wonder if you could tell me how you feel about that.
Senator Alexander. Senator Harkin, if I may intercede.
Senator Harkin. Yeah.
Senator Alexander. We did discuss that a little bit and the
Olmsted Lock on the Ohio River is increasing from $2 billion to
$3 billion this year, a 50-percent increase, and it's soaking
up all the money that could be used for other priority
projects.
And my question of Secretary Darcy was, have they
considered changing the allocation or recommending a change in
the allocation from 50 percent from the appropriations and 50
percent from the trust fund to 90 percent from appropriations
and 10 percent from the trust fund, which would free up trust
fund money for other priorities.
So thank you for letting me intercede there.
Senator Harkin. No, I appreciate that. So where are we on
this? Because I'm with you on this. I'm shocked at the amount
of increase in the cost for that Lock.
General Temple. Yes, Sir. We've asked the division and the
district to take a look at multiple methods of delivery with
respect to this project to see what we can do to deliver the
project in a more speedy fashion at less cost if that's
possible.
And we expect that report back a little later this spring,
Sir. And at that time we'll be able to make a better assessment
of the way forward. Thank you.
MISSOURI RIVER
Senator Harkin. Okay. Thank you.
One last thing on the Missouri River which General McMahon
knows well. I appreciate the work that's being done to restore
the levees on the Missouri River, but I want to raise a couple
of issues.
We do need to move forward with the master manual for the
Missouri River, but again, I want to be on record as saying
that it has to be balanced for flood protection but for
hydroelectric generation and also for navigation. And these
things all have to be put in balance. It can't just be one or
the other. These all have to be balanced.
So I guess you are going to have a vulnerability assessment
on the Missouri River in May, is that right Jo-Ellen, Secretary
Darcy?
Ms. Darcy. I think it is next month that it's due, yes,
Sir.
Senator Harkin. Okay. Good. And the reason I mentioned
General McMahon is because there's these levees north of
Council Bluffs that I understand they've been included in an
examination of those needs, in a vulnerability assessment.
There's a problem with them that they were all private
levees. But the impact on public property and public lands from
not fixing those lands could be sizeable, and so we'd looked at
those in the past, and as I understand it, they're at least
going to be included in the vulnerability assessment.
So I appreciate that very much. Thank you, Secretary Darcy.
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much. I just got a note.
If you have the opportunity, you should ask Reclamation a
couple of questions.
Ms. Castle. We need you to justify our salary for the
afternoon.
CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT
Senator Feinstein. Well, let me do that just with a couple,
and I don't mean to exclusively focus on California. But we've
got a big water problem coming up, Mike, and in contrast to
last year's near-record level precipitation, 2012 looks to be a
fairly dry year.
The Central Valley Project allocation certainly reflects
that, and the South of Delta agricultural service contractors
have 30 percent of their contract. The snow pack is still about
54 percent of normal. So these are really concerning things.
Can you provide us with a status report of actions the
Bureau intends to take to increase deliveries beyond the 30-
percent allocation?
Mr. Connor. Yes, Madam Chair. As a threshold matter, I just
wanted to say I appreciate your kind words, but I've got to
tell you, it's your leadership on these issues and your
understanding that the current water supply situation
infrastructure in California is just unsustainable. This is
what necessitates us to act.
And your urging that we do things better, that we don't
accept the status quo, that we coordinate better, is much
appreciated and very necessary, quite frankly.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you.
Mr. Connor. You're absolutely right about this year's water
condition and I'll get to those actions. I just want to give
you a statistic that just kind of blew me away on Monday when I
received it.
So last year at this exact time in the 2011 water year, we
had combined releases from Shasta, Oroville, the State Water
Project, and Folsom of 70,000 cubic feet per second (cfs). This
year at this point in time, we're at 6,100 cfs, less than 10
percent of what we were last year. So that gives you the
context of the hydrology.
And notwithstanding the fact that overall, there has been
some precipitation that has moved into Northern California as
of late, it's late in the season. It's certainly not near what
it was last year, and it hasn't hit the San Joaquin Drainage
Basin, which is at a record low, only comparable, I think, in
the worst droughts of the late 1970s quite frankly.
So it is a tough year. On the allocations, we're at 30
percent South of Delta Water Service contractors as you
mentioned. Based on some of the hydrology and the actions that
we're taking. Hopefully, we will have another allocation
announcement in the next 7 to 10 days.
So look for that. I just wanted to put that on your radar
screen. Based on specific actions recognized going into this
year that we are in an extremely deficit situation, we've
already started to take some actions.
And we haven't done it alone. We've done it with our
partners in the Central Valley Project. We made what we call
``Section 215'' Water, this is surplus water, available much
earlier than we had and under much different conditions than we
had historically.
So I think in January we saw an opportunity to make some of
the surplus water available through the pumps in the Central
Valley Project and we made available about 70,000 acre-feet
early on.
That doesn't show up in the allocation, but at least that's
good wet water that our contractors can use in this year. We've
got a number of other actions that we're looking at that is
reflected in the water plan now that we've put out.
We just put out our Central Valley Project water plan for
2012, and that's a result of the discussions we had back in
2010, where we started identifying these other actions. So
certainly shifting this partnership that we have with the
Metropolitan Water District and the State Water Project to try
and use some of their water from San Luis Reservoir early in
the season to shore up our supplies.
And we can pay them back later on. I think that's going to
be an action that will yield a significant amount of water this
year. We are working with the State of California and looking
at the Yuba Accord water as a way to help make some additional
water available to both the State Water Project and the Central
Valley Project.
Senator Feinstein. What was that?
Mr. Connor. Yuba Accord. There was some water made
available. I can't remember the year that the Yuba Accord was
developed.
Senator Feinstein. That's okay.
Mr. Connor. But it does make some water available out of
that system for both the State Water Project and now we're
looking at a sharing arrangement with them that we will try and
make use of.
We are still actively trying to promote the water transfer
program. So the first couple I mentioned, the 215 water, Yuba
Accord, the source shifting activity, that is stuff that we are
trying to bring to the table, those actions, this year, to help
shore up water supplies.
Also water transfers. We are looking at trying to
facilitate, particularly, East-West transfers in the Central
Valley, just because it's going to be tough to get water from
North to South this year.
So we will try and shore up and make additional water
supplies available through water transfers. Beyond that, there
are mid-term type of actions that we're looking at, at some
additional infrastructure, interties East to West, that might
facilitate additional transfers in the future above and beyond
what we've been doing historically.
New conservation programs that we can help fund and support
that might allow our contractors in one area of the CVP to make
new water supplies available for transfers to those with
smaller supplies allocations.
And finally, refuge diversification, which we've talked
about since 2010. Even the last couple of years using Recovery
Act funds, we were able to drill a significant number of wells
that helped to diversify the Refuge Water supplies.
It's not a whole lot, but 10 to 20,000 acre-feet is very
helpful in splitting that between the level 4 refuges and
diversifying the Refuge supply to make that and allow CVP base
supplies to be used for other contractors is something that
we're still looking at.
So that's the array of things that we're doing short term
and mid-term to try and improve water supplies.
Senator Feinstein. Let me ask you this. In your judgment,
what would be the amount of acre-feet that these administrative
changes could provide?
Mr. Connor. I think looking at this year if you throw in
the surplus, the 215 water, we should be in that----
Senator Feinstein. Source shifting with the Metropolitan
Water District of Southern California in particular.
Mr. Connor. Source Shifting, I think would add, we're
looking at, if we can pull this agreement together, something
in the neighborhood of 50,000 acre-feet. You add that to the
70,000, Yuba Accord is still a little unclear.
But I think we'll be in the 150,000 acre-foot range and
depending on transfers that we can additionally facilitate
somewhere in the 150 to 200,000 acre-foot range. So that's
getting up to--not a lot of that water shows up on the
allocations itself, but for context, that is an 8- to 10-
percent range of south of Delta Water Service Contracts.
Senator Feinstein. How about at the pumps? Can any changes
be made in how the pumps are run, the reverse flow?
Mr. Connor. Well, we are operating under the current
existing biological opinions right now, notwithstanding the
Court orders that have remanded to both Fish and Wildlife
Service and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) Fisheries to go back and look at some of the reasonable
and prudent alternatives.
And because the court did not feel that those were defined
or justified enough, we're operating under those Reasonable and
Prudent Alternatives (RPAs) right now, and we're under a
schedule for coming up with new biological opinion actions in
response to court order, probably 2 years on the Fish and
Wildlife Service biological opinion and about 4 years on the
NOAA Fisheries biological opinion.
Senator Feinstein. What does that translate to?
Mr. Connor. Well, that means that until such time as there
are new biological opinions in place as a result of the court
orders, we're going to keep operating under the existing ones.
Senator Feinstein. Even though they have been found to be
wanting.
Mr. Connor. Yes. And that's where the Court left it. I
should say though that we have improved how we implement our
actions under the biological opinions, and we're going to
continue to try and do that.
One of the criticisms of the Court was that our triggers
for certain actions that restricted pumping were from their
view not well-justified.
So we've tried to work with the Fish and Wildlife Service
and NOAA Fisheries to get better data collection, do more real-
time monitoring. Whether it's turbidity as it relates to smelt
or actually tracking the salmon, so that we can be better
justified in when we restrict the pumps and we know it's
because there's fish in the immediate area.
That had significant effect in 2011 particularly with the
Delta Smelt, the implementation of the Fish and Wildlife
Service Pilot program.
Senator Feinstein. Well, that's really what I mean by
adaptive management of the pumps.
Mr. Connor. Yes.
Senator Feinstein. To really track the movement of fish and
get a better sense of the predatory aspects of other fish too.
Mr. Connor. Yes. We're doing it better as far as monitoring
where the fish are. We still have some ways to go on the
predatory aspects and better understanding that aspect of it,
quite frankly.
Senator Feinstein. You previously allowed a permit change
for the Jones Pumping Plant which allowed for a 500 cfs
increase. It helped in 2010. Can you do it again?
Mr. Connor. I think in 2010 we were looking at increasing
pumping at the Banks plant, the State Water Project plant. And
we had some permitting left to do because they have more
capacity.
Senator Feinstein. Well, didn't you say the Army Corps had
the Banks plant?
Mr. Connor. Well, we have to go through an Army Corps of
Engineers permitting process to get the additional capacity,
the 500 cfs additional capacity late in the season. That's what
we were looking at in 2010.
Senator Feinstein. So are you saying that Jones is the same
thing as Banks?
Mr. Connor. Jones is our pumping plant in the Central
Valley Project. Banks is the State Water Project.
Senator Feinstein. Right.
Mr. Connor. You know, adjacent pumping plant. And they have
more capacity. We don't really have additional capacity at the
Jones Pumping Plant.
Senator Feinstein. So, in other words, if you increase
Jones Pumping, it comes from Banks, is that right?
Mr. Connor. Well, we would look at specifically the idea we
talked about in 2010, which was increasing the pumping
permitting, the ability to pump more, the permit, at Banks.
So that late in the season, post July, when there are not
nearly the restrictions in place on pumping because the fish
have moved out of the system, near the pumps, that we could use
that opportunity to pump more and get it in the reservoir south
of Delta, San Luis Reservoir, south of Delta.
But we do need to go through the Corps of Engineers
permitting process. The State has to be lead in that particular
effort, and we have to be their partners in that.
Senator Feinstein. Well, as I recall in 2009, we got about
450,000 acre-feet from a number of administrative changes, that
you and Interior as well were very cooperative and very helpful
with, to get to 45 percent of the allocation south of Delta
which is enough to allow farmers to contract, to plant, to
harvest, to get a minimal level.
I've been told that they have to have at least 45 percent
of their contract. Are you going to be able to get there this
year?
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
Mr. Connor. I don't know that we'll be able to get to 45
percent. With the allocation, it's going to very tough. We're
going to try and look at the opportunities to move the
allocation up.
And then there are, as I mentioned before, those other
mechanisms that don't necessarily show up in the allocation,
where we can try and make water available. All told, we're
certainly striving as a goal to get close to that 45 percent.
Through the allocation and additional water supplies, it's
going to be very tough this year.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing but
were submitted to the Departments for response subsequent to
the hearing:]
Questions Submitted to Hon. Jo-Ellen Darcy and Major General
Merdith W.B. Temple
Questions Submitted by Senator Dianne Feinstein
Question. Why is flood control spending down in your budget for
fiscal year 2013 when compared to fiscal year 2012?
Answer. The fiscal year 2012 budget included $1.45 billion for
flood risk management compared to $1.41 billion in fiscal year 2013.
The fiscal year 2013 budget for flood risk management was developed to
advance the highest priority studies and construction projects. Funding
levels were based on the execution schedules identified for those
studies and projects.
Question. Of the six new study starts that you have proposed, five
are for ecosystem restoration. Were there no flood control studies that
ranked higher in your selection process?
Answer. The one flood control new start study recommended in fiscal
year 2013 is the ``Water Resources Priority Study''. This study
supports the Corps flood risk management business line as a high-
priority study that will provide a baseline assessment of the Nation's
flood risks at both a regional and national level. The study will also
assess existing Federal, State, and local programs and strategies for
managing flood risk, which will provide a basis for significant
recommendations on ways to better manage flood risks at the national,
regional, State, and local levels.
Question. What is your selection process for your proposed new
starts?
Answer. New starts are initially prioritized within their assigned
business programs. One of the most difficult tasks in preparing a
performance-based budget is balancing the most important work,
including new starts, across multiple business programs and sub-
programs in order to obtain the expected outcomes. New starts are
selected when their expected outcomes are likely to be competitive with
priorities for other high-performing activities supported in the
budget. That prioritization is based upon overall performance
guidelines, as follows:
--projects funded to address dam safety assurance, seepage control,
and static instability correction problems;
--mitigation, environmental compliance, and treaty requirements or
biological opinions;
--projects funded to address a significant risk to human safety;
--projects funded on the basis of their economic or environmental
return;
--nonstructural flood damage reduction projects and coastal
navigation projects; and
--coastal navigation projects (project phase would support jobs or
economic activity).
Question. One of your proposed new starts is a $2.2 billion
project. At $150 million a year, which is an optimistic funding level,
it would take 15 years to complete. With flat to declining budgets, how
will this project get completed in a timely manner?
Answer. The Administration continues efforts to fund more
efficiently those projects and studies with the highest return to the
Nation in order to bring those project benefits on line sooner. In this
constrained fiscal environment, tough decisions will need to be made
regarding funding for other remaining ongoing projects and studies that
are not expected to provide as high of a return.
Question. You have a new $8 million line item in your request
called ``Reducing Civil Works Vulnerability'' with an estimated $10
million annual continuing cost. What does this new program propose to
do and how much is it ultimately going to cost? What benefits will it
provide to the Civil Works program?
Answer. The Reducing Civil Works Vulnerability (RCWV) Program will
increase the resilience of Corps projects and programs to the effects
of the dynamic, often strongly interacting changes in demographics,
land use and land cover, social values and social vulnerability,
economic conditions, ecosystem habitat suitability, and aging
infrastructure that arise independently from climate change and
variability. These changing conditions could interact with each other,
or with climate change and variability, in ways that increase the
vulnerability of Civil Works (CW) projects, programs, missions, and
operations. Through RCWV, the Corps will develop comprehensive
solutions to reduce vulnerabilities and improve resilience of U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (USACE) missions and operations. This activity will
benefit all USACE business lines and requires close coordination with
complementary activities, including responses to climate change, flood
and coastal storm damage reduction, navigation, ecosystem restoration,
hydropower, recreation, emergency management, and water supply.
Question. In your budget request, you generally require a project
to have a benefit to cost ratio of 2.5; however, for flood control
projects, you have included a number of projects with benefit-to-cost
ratios considerably less than 2.5. These are listed with the additional
criteria of providing substantial life-saving benefits. What does that
phrase mean?
Answer. Providing substantial life-saving benefits is defined by a
substantial reduction in risk to human life due to flood inundation.
The risk factors that are generally understood to have the most
significant, large-scale impacts on potential loss of life from
flooding include population at risk, warning time, and inundation depth
and are evaluated together to provide a relative assessment of the
life-risk associated with each project.
Question. I notice that you have finally increased funding for the
Lower Mississippi River from the lower numbers of the last few years to
a request of $81.7 million. How much have we spent on the Lower
Mississippi to maintain the navigation channel for each of the past 5
years? Do you believe that the request is sufficient? In light of the
new policy to not reprogram funds to this project from other projects,
what is your plan to ensure navigation is maintained if funding runs
short?
Answer. Navigation expenditures for the Mississippi River Baton
Rouge to the Gulf project for the past 5 years, including all regular,
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, and Supplemental appropriations
are as follows:
--fiscal year 2007: $76,351,238.87;
--fiscal year 2008: $87,787,717.33;
--fiscal year 2009: $114,634,195.08;
--fiscal year 2010: $134,291,130.03; and
--fiscal year 2011: $106,740,907.01.
Approximately $151 million is anticipated to be expended in fiscal
year 2012. Funding needs for the project vary considerably from year to
year depending on climatic conditions in the Mississippi River basin.
The fiscal year 2013 budget amount of $81.67 million for the project is
appropriate given the anticipated needs in fiscal year 2013. The Corps
monitors the channel conditions on a regular basis and uses that
information to schedule dredging activities and maintain navigation.
Question. Your request for the Missouri River Fish and Wildlife
Recovery is up significantly this year to $90 million. As you know,
many people in that area question the need for this spending in light
of the record flooding that occurred along the Missouri River in 2011.
They believe that this funding would be better spent on flood control
for the basin. How do you answer those critics? If this number were
substantially cut, what would be the potential impacts to the
operations of the Missouri River?
Answer. The Missouri River Fish and Wildlife Recovery Program
(MRRP) was designed to address mitigation requirements (loss of
habitat) for the Bank Stabilization and Navigation Project (BSNP) and
endangered species requirements of the 2003 amended Biological Opinion
(BiOp). The program allows the Corps to continue to operate the
Missouri River for all eight congressionally authorized purposes--
including flood risk management and navigation--while meeting our
environmental requirements of the Endangered Species Act (ESA).
As stated, there is $90 million in the fiscal year 2013 budget for
Missouri River Recovery. If that funding were cut or significantly
reduced, the Corps would not be in compliance with the ESA and may not
be in a position to serve all congressionally authorized purposes on
the Missouri River.
The Missouri River Recovery Program is not in competition with
funding for repairs to the reservoirs, levees, and other Missouri River
infrastructure damaged by last summer's record flows. Based on current
estimates to date, the Corps has received all the funds required to
return the system to pre-flood conditions in time for the 2012 run-off
season.
Question. There are a number of projects in your request that are
designated as ``high performing projects.'' Many have benefit-to-cost
ratios of 2.0 or less. What is it about these projects that makes them
``high performing?'' How were they chosen over projects with similar
benefit-to-cost ratios?
Answer. High-performing construction projects anticipate high-
economic, safety, and environmental benefits to the Nation. Examples of
selection criteria include projects that will significantly reduce risk
to human safety, or restore a degraded ecosystem structure, function,
or process to a more natural condition.
Question. Based on your budget request, do you have concerns about
potential failures of any of the Inland Waterway projects in fiscal
year 2013? Some of them are in serious condition. Do you see a
potential increase in unscheduled lock outages occurring due to this
budget request?
Answer. The Army is committed to facilitating commercial navigation
by providing safe, reliable, highly cost-effective, and environmentally
sustainable waterborne transportation systems. The fiscal year 2013
budget prioritizes funds on those projects that have the highest level
of commercial traffic, greatest risk of failure due to component
conditions, and the greatest economic consequences of failure. The
Corps continues to monitor the risk of component failures that could
disrupt or stop traffic. Every effort is made to use the available
funding in a way that will reduce the risk of scheduled and unscheduled
outages due to mechanical failures on both high and moderate use
waterways.
Question. The Corps is the biggest Federal producer of hydropower
in the country.
What is the condition of these projects?
Answer. The design life of these facilities is usually 35 years.
Based on the condition assessment process used by the Corps within the
last 3 years, 36 percent of the turbines and 17 percent of the
generators are rated either in poor or marginal condition.
The rating scale is as follows:
--Good (Condition Index 8.0-10.0).--Expected to continue to provide
reliable service for some time in the future. Continue routine
maintenance and inspections.
--Fair (Condition Index 6.0-7.9).--Expected to provide reliable
service in the near future. Continue routine maintenance and
inspections.
--Marginal (Condition Index 3.0-5.9).--Expected to provide a marginal
level of service in the near future. A more detailed
investigation is needed to determine potential problems and
plan a repair strategy.
--Poor (Condition Index 0-2.9).--Immediate intervention is required
to determine the problem and plan a repair strategy.
These ratings are indicative of the aging hydropower infrastructure
and the decaying nature of this type of equipment over time.
Question. Has there been an increase in unscheduled outages?
Answer. In 1999, the Corps' average unscheduled outage rate was
1.97 percent and has steadily increased to 4.36 percent in 2011,
compared to an electrical industry standard of 2 percent.
Question. Is there a plan for reinvestment in these projects to
ensure they continue to supply needed electricity?
Answer. The Corps is implementing a Hydropower Modernization
Initiative (HMI) to address aging hydropower infrastructure issues for
197 generating units in 54 power plants that are not directly funded by
the Department of Energy's Bonneville Power Administration. HMI study
results show that an investment of approximately $4 billion over 20
years would improve reliability, restore design level efficiencies and
capture improvement and upgrade opportunities where they exist. The
fiscal year 2013 budget for hydropower will fund minimum maintenance
and does not include funding for major rehabilitation of any hydropower
projects. In some areas of the country, the Corps is working with
hydropower users on agreements for direct non-Federal financing of
major maintenance work.
Question. We provided $1.7 billion in disaster funds to repair
damages to Corps projects in December 2011. Was this funding sufficient
to repair all of the damages due to natural disasters? If not, did you
include funding in your budget request for these repairs? If not, why
not? Isn't it important to repair these projects to pre-disaster
conditions to ensure they continue to provide the benefits for which
they were constructed?
Answer. Fiscal year 2012 supplemental funds focused on repairs
resulting from historic flooding in 2011 in the Missouri and
Mississippi River Basins that are covered by Presidential disaster
declarations, using the following priorities:
--Class I: Urgent and Compelling (Unsafe).--Heavily damaged projects
that have breached or failed where there is a probable loss of
life.
--Class II: Urgent (Potentially Unsafe).--Damage projects that are
likely to fail where there is a probable loss of life and
economic damage.
--Classes IIIA and IIIB: High Priority, including:
--Class IIIB (Conditionally Unsafe).--Damaged systems that are
likely to fail where there is a potential for economic,
environmental, and an indirect potential for loss of life.
--Class IIIA (High Impact to Navigation).--Damaged systems directly
impacting high-use navigation.
--Class IV: Priority (Marginally Safe).--All other damaged systems
not meeting Class I, II, or III above.
The Corps has made significant progress toward completing priority
repairs. The Corps identified 11 Class I (urgent and compelling)
projects and expects to complete interim protection for 10 projects by
March 31, 2012. Full completion is expected (pre-event conditions
restored) by March 31, 2013. There is one Class I project that
anticipates completion by March 31, 2014. Similarly, the Corps
identified 31 Class II (urgent) projects and expects completion of
interim protection for 14 projects by March 31, 2012. Full completion
is expected by March 31, 2013. Fourteen Class II repairs are
anticipated to be complete by March 31, 2014, and three repairs expect
completion after March 31, 2014. The Corps identified 31 Class IIIB
(conditionally unsafe) projects and expects completion of interim
protection for 19 projects by March 31, 2012. Full completion is
expected by March 31, 2013. Twelve Class IIIB repairs are anticipated
to complete by March 31, 2014.
A small portion of the costs of damage repairs is not covered by
Presidential declarations and, therefore, not eligible for disaster
relief funding. Repairs not eligible for disaster relief funding were
considered during development of the fiscal year 2012 work plans, and
will again be considered during formulation of the fiscal year 2014
budget.
harbor maintenance trust fund
The RAMP Legislation (requires that receipts of the Harbor Maintenance
Trust Fund be expended annually)
Question. There seems to be considerable misunderstanding about the
workings of the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund (HMTF). Can one of you
simply explain how it is collected and how it ties into the overall
Corps budget?
Answer. The Water Resources and Development Act of 1986 authorized
the collection of an ad valorem Harbor Maintenance Tax (HMT) on cargo
to recover costs associated with operating and maintaining Federal
commercial navigation coastal and inland harbors within the United
States. Most of the revenue comes from imports, but some comes from
coastwise movement of some domestic cargo, and from passengers. Exports
and commodities carried on the fuel-taxed inland waterways are exempt
from the tax. The HMT is generally collected at the port of entry by
Customs and Border Protection, based on the value of the imported
commodities. The receipts are deposited in the HMTF by the Treasury
Department. Spending from the HMTF is proposed in the President's
budget for the Civil Works program and appropriated by the Congress.
Appropriated funds are transferred from the HMTF to the Corps
expenditure accounts to reimburse the General Fund of the U.S. Treasury
for eligible navigation expenditures. In developing an overall budget
for the Civil Works program, each project, program, or activity
competes for funding on an equal basis.
Question. Are either of you aware of the Realize America's Maritime
Promise (RAMP) legislation (S. 412 in the Senate, H.R. 104 in the
House)?
Answer. Yes, we are aware of the RAMP legislation in the House and
the Harbor Maintenance Act legislation in the Senate. These bills have
almost identical language and seek significantly more spending for work
that is authorized to be financed from the HMTF.
Question. Can either of you provide us with a short synopsis of the
bill?
Answer. The House and Senate bills would direct the Congress to
annually appropriate an amount equal to the total anticipated HMT
receipts, plus interest, for any fiscal year for the operation and
maintenance of the Corps coastal and inland navigation harbors, as well
as the U.S. portion of the St. Lawrence Seaway, which is operated by
the St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation.
Question. I realize this is asking a lot but can either of you give
this Committee your opinion on how the Administration might implement
this bill if it were enacted into law? We're not going to hold you to
this, but it is important to know what could happen.
Answer. The Army and the Administration have emphasized the need to
allocate Civil Works funding based on performance.
Question. Based on what you know of the Administration's budget
process, do you believe the Administration would provide the Corps with
$700-800 million in additional budget ceiling or would they just
rearrange funding within the previously planned Corps budget to meet
the requirements of the law?
Answer. Budget decisions are not made in advance. However, proposed
increases generally compete for funding on the merits with other
potential uses of those funds.
Question. Do you believe additional resources might be worked into
the budget to account for the law, or would other missions of the Corps
suffer because of the law?
Answer. As stated above, budget decisions are not made in advance.
proposal to return harbor maintenance taxes to the states where
generated
Question. It is my understanding that California Ports provide at
least 30 percent of the funding that goes into the HMTF. Can either of
you confirm that number for fiscal year 2011?
Answer. An estimated $432 million in HMT was collected on cargo
shipped through California ports in fiscal year 2011, which was
approximately 29 percent of the $1.469 billion in total HMT tax
collected in fiscal year 2011.
Question. If we assume that the Trust Fund generates $1.5 billion
annually, then California annually contributes some $450 million to
this Trust Fund. How much dredging of eligible harbors and waterways in
California were reimbursed by the Trust Fund in fiscal year 2011? In
other words, how much of our $450 million is returned to the State? It
is my understanding that it is less than 5 percent of the annual
revenues. This seems very inequitable.
Answer. The HMT generated $1.469 billion in fiscal year 2011.
Approximately $94 million was expended on California navigation
projects in fiscal year 2011 and subject to recovery from the HMTF.
Most of the revenue comes from imports, but some comes from coastwise
movement of some domestic cargo and from passengers. Neither the ports
nor the States pay this tax.
Question. Would it be possible for the law to be changed in such a
manner that a set percentage of the revenues generated in a given State
would be returned to that State?
Answer. The Congress could consider such a change or other changes
to the current law.
Question. What would be the impacts of such a change? Do you
believe that the Corps would only rearrange port funding, or would this
generate additional dredging resources?
Answer. In the absence of a specific proposal, it would be
difficult to say what the impacts might be or how it might affect
Federal spending.
Question. How can we best increase the amount of funding for the
maintenance of our harbors and waterways without having a deleterious
impact on other aspects of the Corps' program?
Answer. In the current fiscal environment, the Administration
generally has been seeking offsets for any proposed spending increases.
inland waterways trust fund
Question. I note that your budget request anticipates additional
funding being available from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund (IWTF) for
fiscal year 2013. How do you anticipate that these additional funds
will be generated?
Answer. The revenues from the existing diesel fuel tax are expected
to increase to approximately $95 million annually. This reflects an
estimate of how forecasted changes in the broader economy will affect
the amount of receipts collected from this excise tax. The budget also
includes an estimate that enactment of the Administration's inland
waterways user fee proposal, submitted to the Congress in September
2011, would generate $80 million in receipts in fiscal year 2013.
However, the IWTF share of the spending proposed in the fiscal year
2013 budget is financed using the expected revenues from the existing
tax, not from the user fee proposal.
Question. How sure are you of these projections?
Answer. The increase in receipts from the existing tax is a
projection. It represents a reasonable estimate based on forecasted
changes in the broader economy, but it is only an estimate.
Question. If this amount is not generated, what work will you have
to curtail?
Answer. That would, in part, depend on how much is collected during
the remainder of fiscal year 2012. However, if the amount collected in
fiscal year 2013 is significantly below $95 million, the Corps would
have to curtail some work. One option would be to spend somewhat less
on one of our two largest ongoing inland waterways construction
projects, either the Olmsted Locks and Dam project or the Lower
Monongahela Locks and Dams 2, 3, and 4 project.
Question. In light of the new cost ceiling that the Administration
is proposing for Olmsted Lock and Dam, what is the projection of the
share of the Trust Fund that will be utilized over the next 10 years by
Olmsted?
Answer. That would largely depend upon progress to enact a long-
term mechanism to enhance revenues in the Trust Fund sufficient to meet
the cost-sharing authorized in the Water Resources Development Act of
1986.
Question. Several of our other locks and dams are in serious
maintenance and rehabilitation needs. Is the funding that will be left
after spending the necessary amounts from the IWTF to keep Olmsted on
schedule sufficient to ensure that we will not see major failures of
this critical infrastructure?
Answer. Lock and dam maintenance is not funded by the IWTF. Major
rehabilitation, however, would be in competition for funding with
ongoing inland waterways construction projects. The fiscal year 2013
budget prioritizes funds on those projects that have the highest level
of commercial traffic, greatest risk of failure due to component
conditions, and the greatest economic consequences of failure. The
Corps continues to monitor the risk of component failures, that could
disrupt or stop traffic. Every effort is made to use the available
funding to reduce scheduled and unscheduled outages due to mechanical
failures on both high and moderate use waterways.
Question. I don't want to see one of these projects fail and
disrupt commodity movements. These projects are getting older every
year and if funds are not available from the Trust Fund, they have to
come from somewhere. Has the Administration considered an aggressive
maintenance schedule to ensure that we do not have a failure?
Answer. The IWTF is used to fund construction activities, rather
than operation and maintenance activities. The Administration has
provided increased maintenance funding for those projects that provide
the greatest economic and safety return.
work plans
Question. Due to the fact that we had a continuing resolution in
fiscal year 2011 and the Committee policy for fiscal years 2012 and
2013 is not to include earmarks in appropriation bills, the Corps has
been given extraordinary leeway to expend funds for the prosecution of
water resource projects. Unfortunately, the Committee has little say,
outside of providing criteria to consider, as to how these work plans
are assembled. We are unsure who, within the Administration, has input
into their preparation. It is all very mysterious to us. One thing I
can assure you based on my review of your work plans is that funding
would be applied differently if the Congress were doing the earmarking
rather than the Administration.
It appears that since fiscal year 2011, funding in some cases is
being applied to bring projects for which the Administration has a
policy issue of some type to a logical stopping point. Is that the
case?
Answer. All ongoing projects were first evaluated for a minimum
level of funding, for example, to complete an increment of useful work
or to otherwise meet ongoing requirements. However, all projects
competed for such funding, whether or not there was ``a policy issue of
some type'' with the project. After projects were funded on that basis
where needed, the Corps work plan for fiscal year 2011 allocated the
remaining funding to policy-consistent work.
Question. I want to make sure we understand. All of these are
projects that meet the standard definition used for years to determine
funding such as technically sound, environmentally sustainable, and
economically viable?
Answer. Some unbudgeted projects and even some previously budgeted
projects with changed conditions no longer meet those standards.
Question. Are these projects that meet the tests that I just named
being considered for funding in subsequent work plans?
Answer. All ongoing projects that could use funding in the
applicable fiscal year would be considered for funding, with priorities
to be given to work based on performance and on criteria provided in
reports accompanying the appropriations.
Question. If not, it would appear that utilizing the work plan
funding is a way for the Administration to shut down all projects
except those that meet your specialized criteria for budgeting. Is that
the case?
Answer. The Administration is committed to maximizing the return on
the investment in Civil Works projects. In some cases, it is clear that
continued Federal investment in certain studies or projects is not the
best use of available funding. Bringing those projects to a logical
stopping point allows the Corps to invest its resources to provide a
greater overall return to the Nation, while allowing local sponsors to
complete the other projects if they choose to do so.
Question. How are local sponsors being impacted by these decisions?
Answer. The Corps works very closely with local sponsors to ensure
that they are fully aware of funding decisions and can plan
accordingly.
Question. Aren't costs incrementally increased by trying to find
these logical stopping points as opposed to continuing construction?
Answer. While funding could be used to advance those projects,
providing that funding would divert resources from higher priority work
elsewhere. Therefore, for lower priority work, reaching a logical
stopping point is sometimes the best use of available funding. Even for
those projects that are funded to logical stopping points, the work
plans sought to ensure safe site conditions, meet legal requirements,
and complete useful increments of work.
Question. Won't this end up costing the national economy more in
the long run if you continue to curtail these projects?
Answer. It is possible that some projects would cost more, but the
national economy as a whole will benefit if the funding is allocated to
higher performing activities. The intent is to optimize the use of the
available funding and to efficiently fund those projects that are
expected to provide the highest return to the Nation.
contributed funds
Question. In fiscal year 2012, the Congress provided additional
authority to the Corps for contributed funds. These are funds that
local sponsors gratuitously contribute to the Federal Government with
no expectation of repayment, is that correct?
Answer. Yes, this authority authorizes State and political
subdivisions thereof to voluntarily contribute funds, with no repayment
authorized.
Question. How is this authority being utilized?
Answer. In accordance with the law, the Corps may accept
contributed funds for authorized studies and projects for all water
resources development project purposes and for all phases of authorized
projects. Every request is reviewed to ensure that the acceptance of
such funds is legally appropriate, that the accomplishment of such work
is advantageous in the public interest, and that the work will not
negatively impact other work in the affected Corps district for which
funds have been appropriated by the Congress. Prior to acceptance of
contributed funds, the Congress first must have appropriated some
Federal funds for the study or construction of the project,
respectively. Upon receiving a proposal from the non-Federal sponsor to
provide contributed funds, the Army provides notification to the House
and Senate Appropriations Committees prior to negotiating an agreement
for the acceptance of contributed funds.
Question. Concern has been expressed that contributed funds could
be undertaken ahead of budgeted work or other work the Corps
undertakes. How is this new authority impacting the Corps' workload?
Answer. The Corps is required to evaluate whether the work to be
undertaken with contributed funds will impact ongoing work for which
the Congress has appropriated funds. The Corps has sufficient expansion
capacity to accomplish work funded from both sources. We do not
anticipate any negative impacts on the execution of other ongoing work,
as demonstrated by the recent experience with American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funding where the Corps executed $4.5 billion
of additional work without any negative impacts to ongoing work.
Question. Concern has also been expressed that the Corps would try
to take on more architect-engineer type work in-house with contributed
funds. Are you continuing to contract out at least the same portions of
work that you have in the past as required in congressional direction?
Answer. Yes, the Corps is continuing to contract out at least the
same portions of work as in the past, consistent with congressional
direction.
Question. Are there any negatives to this contributed funds
authority that the Committee should be aware of?
Answer. At this time, we are not aware of any negative outcomes
associated with this contributed funds authority. We will continue to
monitor the use of this authority.
section 104 credits
Question. As you are aware, the new policy on crediting has been
extremely controversial in California and other States. I appreciate
how you have worked with us to ensure that the language in section 2003
was interpreted appropriately. I am not completely happy with the
guidance that you recently released, but it is much better than the
draft guidance. It is my understanding that credit will not be afforded
prior to the draft report stage of the project. Is that correct?
Answer. Yes. When a project partnership agreement has not yet been
executed, an in-kind memorandum of understanding (MOU) must be executed
prior to a non-Federal sponsor initiating construction work in order
for such work to be eligible for credit. As provided in the guidance,
an in-kind MOU for construction work may not be executed prior to the
release of the draft feasibility report for public review.
Question. There could be cases where that may be too restrictive
for some flood control agencies that are trying to maximize flood
protection for their citizens. In those limited cases, will you
consider exceptions to this policy?
Answer. Yes, exceptions to this policy will be considered in those
very limited cases where a compelling reason can be demonstrated why
the construction work for which credit is sought must be undertaken
prior to the release of the draft feasibility report for public review.
Question. If lands are purchased as a part of the credited work,
are those lands generally credited against the lands required for the
overall project?
Answer. Yes. Section 221 does not alter any responsibility of a
non-Federal sponsor to provide or pay for lands, easements, rights-of-
way, relocations and disposal areas (LERRDs) for a project, nor does it
affect the affording of credit for such LERRDs. Any LERRDs required for
a project, including LERRDs associated with work determined to be
integral to the project, will continue to be credited as LERRDs toward
the non-Federal cost share.
interagency performance evaluation task force
Question. After Hurricane Katrina, the Interagency Performance
Evaluation Task Force was charged with looking at the technical issues
surrounding the levee failures in New Orleans. Another group was
charged with reviewing the policy and decisionmaking process that led
to the system that was in place at the time. It is now 6\1/2\ years
after Katrina yet funding remains in the budget request, at an even
higher level than in the past. The justification shows an allocation of
about $12 million through fiscal year 2012, but an additional $53
million in funding needed to complete.
What exactly is this funding for?
Answer. The Interagency Performance Evaluation Task Force (IPET)
assessment reviewed the technical issues associated with the
infrastructure performance during Hurricane Katrina. The Hurricane
Protection Decision Chronology (HPDC) reviewed the policy and
decisionmaking associated with the New Orleans hurricane protection
system over several decades leading up to Katrina. Those two
assessments were the drivers for the Chief of Engineers announcement of
the ``12 Actions for Change'' initiative in August 2006. That strategic
program was initiated to incorporate the lessons learned from the two
post-Katrina assessments into Corps policy, practice, and culture in
order to modify the way the Corps plans, designs, constructs, and
maintains its infrastructure. The ongoing program continues to be
funded under the IPET/HPDC Lessons Learned Implementation remaining
item. This is an ongoing program, aimed at continuous learning and
application of lessons from Katrina and subsequent experience.
The strategic program continues being executed by four national
teams. The four national teams established multiple project delivery
teams to execute specific tasks in support of the program. The teams
have been working on policy, guidance, methods, tools, technology, and
training to expand USACE's use of systems-based approaches, increasing
the use of risk management in our business practices and
decisionmaking, communicating risk more effectively, and giving greater
priority to technical competence and professional accountability. While
all actions are interrelated, each of the four teams has a focus area:
Comprehensive Systems Approach.--Emphasizes an integrated,
comprehensive and systems based approach incorporating anticipatory
management to remain adaptable and sustainable over time. These changes
require USACE to use collaborative, adaptive planning and engineering
systems throughout the project life cycle to effectively manage its
aging infrastructure in an environmentally sustainable manner through
explicit risk management. Approximately $3.6 million has been allocated
to this team through 2012. The fiscal year 2013 budget includes $3.6
million to continue development of supporting technologies to improve
the effectiveness of post-authorization evaluations and assessments of
incremental change over time; address climate change impacts to water
resources projects, with particular emphasis on developing the
framework for how climate change and sea level change should be
considered in making decisions for existing infrastructure investments;
and continue to implement the consistent nationwide project datum and
associated subsidence standards and certification.
Risk Informed Decisionmaking.--Emphasizes integrated risk
management. These changes require USACE to use risk and reliability
concepts in planning, design, construction, operations and major
maintenance and to improve its review of completed works program by
including an assessment component with the goal of ensuring safe,
reliable, and resilient infrastructure. Approximately $2.5 million has
been allocated to this team through 2012. The fiscal year 2013 budget
includes an additional $2 million to further develop supporting methods
and technologies to support the transformation of Inspection of
Completed Works from project element inspection to a risk-based system
assessment; advance the understanding of risk and reliability including
establishment of a Risk Gateway containing resources for webinars,
training, and the development of a second generation risk model to
broaden the techniques used in New Orleans for Corps-wide use.
Risk Communication.--Emphasizes clear and candid communication of
risk both internally and externally, supporting risk-informed
decisionmaking. These changes require USACE to improve its
effectiveness in communicating risk; to coordinate a risk management
approach and policy with all agencies and stakeholders; and to
specifically establish ways and means to increase public involvement in
informed risk decisionmaking. Approximately $1.5 million has been
allocated to this team through 2012 focusing most on risk communication
skills. The fiscal year 2013 budget includes an additional $300,000 to
provide training on public participation skills and methods. A pilot
will also be conducted to test those methods in the USACE
infrastructure environment.
Professional and Technical Expertise.--Emphasizes professionalism
and technical competence. The purpose is to enable development of
expert Corps capability to provide safe, reliable, adaptable,
sustainable systems. Approximately $1.5 million has been allocated to
this team through 2012. The funds have been used to assess
competencies, gaps, methods of delivery, and sustainable strategies for
maintaining and building core competencies. The fiscal year 2013 budget
includes an additional $100,000 to survey technical staff and input
technical competencies into Army's Competency Management System, a
recently developed tool that will help USACE managers to better
integrate competency gaps into the hiring process.
The total cost for the four focus areas, before consideration of
post-2011 assessment activities, is $62 million. This figure does not
include $9.9 million to update the system assessment to learn from the
historic flooding of 2011, and develop ways to apply those lessons, as
the scope and cost for the update were only recently developed.
Question. Why aren't the new activities split out as a new start
studies? It seems like this Katrina study is just morphing to fit
whatever crisis is at-hand.
Answer. The 2011 flooding in the Greater Mississippi Basin was
among the largest and most damaging in this century, comparable to the
major floods of 1927 and 1993. Due to the historic nature of the
flooding, a post-flood assessment of the entire system performance is
needed to review the operational decisionmaking process and to identify
opportunities for improving future system operation and performance.
The assessment is intended to evaluate performance of the overall
system and the decision and communication processes and recommend
operational changes, both within and outside of existing authorities
and policies.
The post-flood assessment and the New Orleans assessment are
interdependent in that they employ similar analytic methods, contribute
to the same objective (to improve the operations and performance of
Civil Works water resources systems), and will be applied jointly to
the modification of policy, practice, and culture. Consequently, the
post-2011 flood assessment was integrated into the IPET/HPDC Lessons
Learned Implementation remaining item.
Question. Do you envision this as a permanent line item in the
budget or is there a definitive endpoint to the proposed activities?
Answer. The total cost for the scoped activities described above is
$71.9 million, before consideration of future price level adjustments.
The activities will compete for available funding until completed.
performance-based budget and development of work plans
Question. The Administration claims the budget funds the highest
performing projects and programs in its water resources missions. It
appears to us that the budget, as proposed, is woefully short of
funding those projects that contribute to the national economy and
provide benefits and services to the Nation through navigation and
flood control. The Congress generally has increased the agency's budget
above the Administration's request and expanded the list of projects
and types of projects funded. Still, fundamental questions about what
the agency does and how it operates are being asked by some observers.
The perspectives on how to proceed among Members of Congress, project
sponsors, fiscal conservatives, environmental interests, and other
stakeholders vary widely.
What performance-based criteria does the Corps use in determining
how much funding it proposes for planning and construction projects?
Not the individual projects or studies but the overall funding levels
for the accounts?
Answer. Performance criteria are not used to set account totals.
Rather, the Corps evaluates each planning and construction project
based on its individual merits, using the criteria applicable for that
type of project, and account totals are established by considering the
relative returns of investments among the various accounts, within the
totals available for Civil Works.
Question. It seems that the monetary benefits that Corps
infrastructure provide to the national economy is not considered when
determining funding levels. How do you determine the level of funds
within each business line?
Answer. Funding levels within each business line are determined at
the project level and considering the relative return of investments
within each business line, within the totals available for Civil Works.
white house navigation task force
Question. We read with interest in the Administration's budget
proposal to create a White House navigation task force.
What is the scope and intent of this task force?
Answer. Details of the task force's scope, intent, and composition
are being developed. The task force will provide a forum for developing
a broad strategy for investments in support of navigation and may also
seek to coordinate amongst the many Federal navigation programs. The
task force would develop this strategy through a multimodal view of the
Nation's investments in navigation, whereas the Corps is focused on the
type of infrastructure that the Corps has constructed and maintains.
Question. Who will be included on the task force?
Answer. Details of the task force composition are being developed.
Question. Will the Corps get a seat at the table?
Answer. Details of the task force composition are being developed,
but we anticipate that the Corps would be involved.
Question. What about the navigation industry?
Answer. Details of the task force composition are being developed.
water resources modernization
Question. The President's fiscal year 2013 budget proposes a new
Water Resources Modernization Initiative as the foundation of a
comprehensive strategy for investing in the Nation's water
infrastructure. We are pleased that the President is committed to
investing in a 21st Century Infrastructure for America--including its
water infrastructure--as a means to strengthen the Nation's economy,
create jobs, and bolster our long-term global competitiveness.
What specific proposals will the Administration include in this new
modernization initiative?
Answer. The Administration and the Corps are exploring options for
modernizing water resources laws, policies, and practices, including
project financing. This effort will be very broad in scope. We want to
consider what improvements are possible within existing law and policy,
what the limitations of those improvements may be, as well as whether
policy revisions or new authorities should be proposed. On the topic of
funding, which is a part of this effort, the Administration has already
proposed a user fee to help finance inland waterways capital
investments. Proposals to change the way that the Nation finances
investments in our other program areas may also be considered.
We are open at any time to a discussion with the Congress, our
cost-sharing partners, or other stakeholders on your and their
suggestions to help us to improve current water resources laws,
policies, and practices.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Patty Murray
army corps of engineers--levee vegetation
Question. Assistant Secretary Darcy, as you know from our previous
conversations my home State and the entire west coast are very
interested in the ongoing process regarding levee vegetation. Let me be
clear--we must make sure that our levees are safe. But we also have to
balance levee safety with meeting other requirements, such as the
Endangered Species Act (ESA) and our Federal tribal treaty
responsibilities.
As you know, in the West vegetation on levees has been a critical
tool in ensuring that levee sponsors are meeting ESA requirements and
tribal treaty obligations. My colleagues from Washington State, and I
have been working with you and your staff for several years on the
draft Policy Guidance Letter (PGL) that will ultimately completely
transform the process by which the Corps issues variances to allow
levee vegetation.
As I read the latest draft guidance, published in February, I'm
pleased that some of the issue we've brought to your attention have
been included. However, I continue to have concerns about how this PGL
will actually be implemented on the ground.
In particular, I am concerned about the ambiguity in the PGL
regarding the ESA and tribal treaty obligations. I'm pleased to see the
Corps acknowledge that these important requirements must be met, but
can you please provide clarity on how the Corps will address this in
variance applications or System Wide Implementation Framework plans?
Answer. The Corps recognizes that in executing its authorities and
responsibilities to promote structurally sound levee systems in
furtherance of life safety, the agency must also address environmental
and natural resource needs and the rights and interests of tribal
nations through compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and
treaties. In instances where multiple interests are involved, the Corps
will collaborate with levee sponsors, natural resource agencies, and
tribal nations to develop solutions to meet the mandates of all
applicable environmental and tribal requirements, while recognizing the
paramount importance of protecting human life. The Corps and the levee
sponsors will be able to use either the vegetation variance process or
a more comprehensive system-wide improvement framework (SWIF) process
to develop strategies for addressing the multiple objectives and
constraints that may apply to a particular levee system.
The Corps believes that a reasonable approach to addressing these
responsibilities and developing sustainable solutions is to review the
environmental impacts of the application of levee system standards as
they are applied to the site-specific circumstances. With this
approach, the Corps recognizes that each levee system is a unique
flood-risk reduction system that operates within the broader and
equally unique local ecosystem. This approach also recognizes that the
analysis of potential environmental impacts is dependent upon future,
undetermined actions and decisions of the levee sponsors who operate
and maintain the levee systems.
The Corps will work closely with the levee sponsors, appropriate
resource agencies and tribal nations, as well as other interested
parties, to complete the environmental compliance process. As part of
that process, the levee sponsors will be required to:
--provide the background information and documentation necessary to
complete environmental requirements; and
--implement any measures that are required as a product of the
environmental compliance as a condition of their choosing to
participate in the program for rehabilitation assistance under
Public Law 84-99.
Environmental compliance on levee systems operated and maintained by
the Corps remains the responsibility of the Corps.
Question. The Seattle District in my home State of Washington has
been intimately involved in managing vegetation on levees for many
years and has an on-the-ground working knowledge of the region. I
understand the need for Corps Headquarters to be involved in this
process but have concerns about Headquarters employees who have never
been on the ground in my State making final decisions on something this
important. As you finalize the PGL, what steps will you take to
delegate decision authority for the approval of variances and SWIF
plans to the District or Division level?
Answer. Both the vegetation variance process and SWIF policies will
be reviewed periodically and process improvements will be considered,
including future delegation of decision authority, based on
demonstration of consistent application of the PGL nationally and
lessons learned.
Question. Ms. Darcy, making a change of this magnitude in the
process for variance applications is likely to be costly to levee
sponsors--particularly in the Washington, where as I mentioned we have
had a District-wide variance in place for several years. What financial
and technical resources will the Corps provide to levee sponsors who
want to stay eligible for the Public Law 84-99 program, but do not have
the capacity to develop the technical elements needed to complete a
variance application or a SWIF plan?
Answer. The Corps will work closely with levee sponsors to help
determine the most viable option to meet Corps policies and standards.
Both the vegetation variance process and SWIF policy encourage a
collaborative approach. The Corps will assist levee sponsors through
these processes by providing technical expertise, levee data (if
available), and other applicable subject matter experts. For example,
the vegetation variance process encourages involving the Corps
vegetation experts as part of the scoping of variance packages, to
determine early in the process the required environmental and
engineering analysis.
Question. The Corps' own Engineering Research Development Center
(ERDC) analysis of levee vegetation produced--at best--mixed results.
The ERDC report indicates that, in contrast to the standing Engineer
Technical Letter (ETL), vegetation can actually be good for levees in
some cases. It is critical that the Corps provide resources for
continued scientific investigation into this issue. What are your
plans, with ERDC, to implement a prioritized research program to
provide a regionally appropriate, technical basis for a vegetation
management policy that supports our shared objectives of safe levees,
riparian habitat that supports salmon recovery and meets ESA
requirements, and cost-effective management for levee sponsors and the
Corps?
Answer. The results of the initial ERDC vegetation research
indicated that:
--In some cases, tree roots could have a potential shallow
reinforcing effect that improves slope stability, but the
weight of the tree and wind loads on the tree could have a
negative impact on overall deeper seated slope stability; and
--At some locations where a tree was found to increase the factor of
safety under one set of conditions, that same tree was found to
decrease the factor of safety when other likely conditions were
considered.
Overall, impacts of vegetation on levees remains a complex topic, and
the Corps intends to conduct additional research and work with external
scientific professionals to further identify future vegetation research
topics that address both short-term and long-term needs. A follow-up
ERDC report on this topic is being developed.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Mary L. Landrieu
Question. Secretary Darcy and Major General Temple, thank you for
your testimony today. As you know, Corps of Engineers projects are
vitally important in Louisiana. For decades, the people of my State
have been fighting a noble battle to save the most productive and
environmentally significant coast and delta in the world. We are losing
25 to 35 square miles of wetlands per year--about a football field an
hour--which places millions of lives and critical national resources at
alarming risk.
While I have concerns about many Corps issues, I recognize that the
Corps has consistently been woefully underfunded, which presents great
challenges in addressing the needs of Louisiana and the Nation.
I am pleased to see that the Administration requested funding for
Louisiana Coastal Area projects. However, we simply must find a way to
make greater investment in critical flood protection, navigation, and
restoration projects. Some people may say that this country cannot
afford these investments--I say we cannot afford not to make them. Last
year's historic flooding along the Mississippi River provided a perfect
example of how wise and timely investment in construction and
maintenance can save lives and resources.
Since 2008, the Corps' construction budget has been reduced by more
than 50 percent, yet our backlog is greater than $60 billion in
projects nationwide. This near halt in construction funding has dire
consequences across the country. But it is most concerning after what
we learned in Louisiana from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita--the approach
of ``patch and pray'' when it comes to flood protection does not work.
I also have continued concerns about insufficient funding to
address the Nation's dredging needs, particularly when channel users
pay a fee that would cover the costs, but the total amount being
collected is not being used for dredging. On average, full channel
dimensions are available only one-third of the time at the busiest 59
harbors in the United States. I am pleased that the budget provides a
12-percent increase from last year's request for use of Harbor
Maintenance Fund dollars, including an increase for dredging on the
Lower Mississippi, but this still will not meet the needs of the Nation
or the State of Louisiana.
As you know, I have been frustrated by the number of years the
Corps spends studying projects. In Louisiana, time is not on our side,
and we cannot afford 10 years to study flood control and restoration
projects. I understand the Corps is working toward more efficient
processes. Can you provide some details about the Corps efforts to
decrease the number of years spent studying projects?
Answer. A new planning modernization initiative was introduced in
January 2011 that is focused on risk-based scoping to define the
appropriate levels of detail for conducting investigations, so that
recommendations can be captured, succinctly documented, and completed
within a goal of 18 months. Corps leadership has issued guidance
mandating all typical feasibility studies be completed in 18-36 months.
The proposed process should dramatically shorten the amount of time and
cost of conducting planning studies and increase corporate and
individual accountability for decisions. This process will save time
and money for both the Federal Government and the project sponsors.
As part of this initiative, all ongoing feasibility studies are
under review. The Corps will reclassify to inactive those studies with
limited likelihood of success, so funding can be focused on the most
credible and viable projects to improve feasibility study execution and
delivery. Studies that are classified as inactive will be considered
for future year funding, but this approach will enable the Corps to
more efficiently fund those studies that are most likely to result in
high-performing projects.
I continue to hear from a number of concerned ports, businesses,
and citizens about consistent navigability along the Lower Mississippi
River. The Corps was responsive to these concerns and provided
additional dredging dollars earlier this year, but I believe we need to
be more proactive. The Mississippi is the central artery for navigation
for nearly the entire Nation. As you know, 40 percent of the entire
continent is drained by the Mississippi River Delta. This drainage
basin (approximately 1,234,700 square miles) covers about 40 percent of
the United States and ranks as the fifth largest in the world.
The inland waterways of the United States include more than 25,000
miles (40,000 km) of navigable waters. Much of the commercially
important waterways of the United States consist of the Mississippi
River System--the Mississippi River and connecting waterways.
Question. I appreciate the increase for dredging on the Lower
Mississippi, but does your request provide enough funds to ensure that
the Mississippi River remains open for business at the maximum
authorized depths?
Answer. The Corps will continue to keep the river open for
navigation, except during flood or other emergencies. The river will be
dredged to the maximum authorized depth in some areas. In other
reaches, there could be some reductions in channel width at certain
times of the year, as is the case with other navigation projects around
the country. The budget includes $81.7 million for the Lower
Mississippi River Baton Rouge to the Gulf project, which is the highest
amount ever budgeted for this project. The Corps monitors the channel
conditions on a regular basis and uses the information to schedule
dredging activities and maintain navigation.
Question. How are you balancing this critical need with the needs
that other essential waterways are facing across the State of Louisiana
and the Nation?
Answer. The Corps focuses on funding those navigation projects with
the highest level of commercial usage, greatest risk of failure, and
greatest economic consequences. Other factors taken into consideration
include:
--whether the project serves as a critical harbor of refuge or a
subsistence harbor, or supports public transportation, U.S.
Coast Guard search and rescue operations, the national defense,
or other Federal agency use; and
--the reliance on marine transportation for energy generation or home
heating oil deliveries, and the level of commercial use (albeit
less than a medium level of commercial use).
inland waterways
Question. Ms. Darcy, I have grave concerns regarding the Olmsted
Lock and Dam project. This project was authorized by the Congress in
the Water Resources Development Act of 1988 at an estimated project
total cost of $775 million. The most recent cost estimate is more than
$3 billion. The August 1985 Corps of Engineers feasibility report that
the Congress used to authorize the project in 1988 assumed a 7-year
duration. Funds to initiate construction of the Olmsted project were
appropriated in fiscal year 1991, which means the project should have
been complete in 1998.
Can you provide an update on the project's current status and an
explanation of the inordinate delays and the cost increases associated
with those delays? Would you say it about 50-percent complete? What is
the Corps projection for completion year?
Answer. The Olmsted cost increase to $2.918 billion (October 2011
price levels) is attributed primarily to low initial estimate, which
increased substantially in light of construction and contractual
complexities associated with the innovative ``in-the-wet'' construction
technique. This method also lengthened the duration of construction
which pushed costs into an unanticipated period of higher than average
inflation associated with building materials utilized for construction.
There are several factors that have contributed to the low initial
cost estimate. Factors that were unknown when the project was
authorized include the negative impacts on productivity due to river
conditions (elevation and velocities) and the complexity of shell
fabrication necessitated by the seismic condition at the site. Early
on, a decision was made to use the innovative ``in-the-wet''
construction method. After constructing and setting the first set of
shells in 2010, the government and contractor realized that the effort
associated with fabrication and setting these large pieces of precast
concrete and filling them with tremie concrete was not like any work
they had previously experienced or previously had estimated. The
construction challenges associated with developing this innovative
method of construction have been overcome, but required a lot more
effort than was originally envisioned.
Roughly 77 percent of the increase in the estimated total cost of
the project, in real terms (above inflation) is associated with the
increase in the cost of constructing the dam.
The project will be approximately 50-percent complete by the end of
fiscal year 2012.
The Army Corps is working on a Post Authorization Change Report on
the Locks and Dams 52 and 53 Replacement project (Olmsted Locks and
Dam), Illinois and Kentucky. The report re-estimates the project's
benefits and costs and on that basis recommends that the Congress raise
the authorized total cost for the project to $2.918 billion (October
2011 price levels). This is roughly a 95-percent increase in real terms
from the total cost now authorized--$775 million (October 1987 price
levels). The budget includes a general provision to authorize this
proposed increase in the total cost for the project, and provides $144
million to continue construction of the project in fiscal year 2013.
The Post Authorization Change Report is currently under review and is
expected to be transmitted to the Congress shortly.
The report estimates that the Olmsted Locks and Dam part of the
project will become operational in fiscal year 2020, based on the
minimal project features required for the dam to hold the pool and pass
navigation through the locks. Physical Completion for the dam contract
is projected to be in fiscal year 2021, including contractor de-
mobilization and equipment salvage. The remainder of the work,
including other required facilities, buildings and grounds, river
dikes, demolition of Locks and Dams 52 and 53 and permanent operating
equipment is projected to be finished in fiscal year 2024, thus
completing the project.
The schedule in the report assumes that the Corps will spend an
average of about $150 million per year on this project, consistent with
recent funding levels and the level of receipts to the Inland Waterways
Trust Fund (IWTF) under current law.
The report estimates that the maximum that the Corps could use
efficiently and effectively on the remaining work on this project is
around $215 million per year, or roughly $65 million more per year than
the $150 million per year funding stream assumed in this report.
Enactment of legislation that provides additional receipts to the IWTF
would be necessary to reach the higher level of funding, which could
cut up to 3 years from the project schedule, resulting in savings of
approximately $150 million.
Question. What is the Corps doing to address concerns about the
experimental ``in-the-wet'' construction approach currently being used
to construct the project? Have you considered going back to the
traditional cofferdam construction approach?
Answer. The Corps has assembled a team of experts to consider
alternative construction techniques. The team is developing a concept
level design for ``in-the-dry'' construction to a degree that can be
used to prepare a reliable cost estimate and schedule suitable for
comparison to the ongoing ``in-the-wet'' construction for the navigable
pass portion of the dam. The Corps will evaluate the team's
recommendation based on the concept level design and certified cost
estimate by the summer 2012 to determine the most cost-effective way to
complete construction.
Question. What impact do the delays and cost increases have on
other inland waterway construction projects? (Note: The Inner Harbor
Navigation Canal Lock Replacement Project has been waiting for
replacement for more than 50 years.)
Answer. For the Civil Works program as a whole, completing the
Olmsted project is a priority. Based on the current level of revenues
to the IWTF, the Post Authorization Change Report includes a schedule
based on continued funding of the Olmsted project at approximately $150
million annually. Enactment of legislation that provides additional
receipts to the IWTF would be necessary to reach the higher level of
funding for the Olmsted project, which could cut up to 3 years from its
schedule and also result in savings of approximately $150 million. Work
on some other inland waterways projects is being suspended due to a
lack of resources in the Trust Fund to continue construction. This
highlights the importance of enacting a long-term mechanism to increase
receipts to the IWTF.
Question. I understand that by September 30, more than $748 million
will have been allocated from the IWTF for the Olmsted project. This
means that the inland waterway industry has already paid double the
amount that was intended when the project was authorized, the same is
true for the general taxpayer.
What are the average annual economic benefits that the Olmsted
project is expected to return to our national economy when the project
is finally completed? Is this average annual economic benefits figure
also a measure of the cost to the Nation's economy of each year that
the Olmsted project's completion is delayed?
Answer. Average annual net benefits, that is, total average annual
benefits less the total annual construction, operation, and maintenance
costs needed to generate those benefits, is an appropriate measure of
the long-term economic impact of the Olmsted project. Economic analyses
in the draft Olmsted Locks and Dam Post Authorization Change Report,
which is currently under review, indicate that the Olmsted project will
generate an estimated $875 million in total average annual National
Economic Development (NED) benefits. The average annual cost required
to generate those NED benefits is estimated as $235 million. Thus, the
indicated average annual net benefit is an estimated $640 million.
These estimates reflect differences in benefits and costs over a
theoretical 50-year period, after discounting. They do not reflect the
benefits and costs associated with any particular subset of those
years, such as the actual construction period. The estimates also are
based on a variable discount rate, as provided in section 80 of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1974, which does not reflect the
long-term opportunity cost of capital for the economy as a whole.
Finally, any delay in project completion at this point is due to the
low level of receipts in the IWTF. The Administration has proposed
legislation to address that problem.
Question. From this point forward, what is the amount of additional
economic benefits that will be lost to the Nation's economy because of
further delays in the Olmsted project's completion?
Answer. The Olmsted cost increase to $2.918 billion (October 2011
price levels) is attributed primarily to a low initial estimate, which
increased substantially in light of construction and contractual
complexities associated with the innovative ``in-the-wet'' construction
technique. This method also lengthened the duration of construction,
which pushed costs into an unanticipated period of higher than average
inflation associated with building materials utilized for construction.
The schedule for this project reflects the nature of the work that
remains. It changes over time, as the Corps incorporates lessons
learned and reassesses the challenges that it will encounter in
completing this complex engineering project. When the project is
complete, the Nation's economy will realize all of the project's
benefits. The ``delay'' reflects the magnitude of the challenge, which
has been more daunting than expected.
For the 91 million tons of traffic that pass through Locks and Dam
52 and the 81 million tons that pass through Locks and Dam 53 annually,
Olmsted offers a new reliable project in place of the two aging and
unreliable projects. Much of the savings estimated in the Post
Authorization Change Report occur from avoiding anticipated cyclical
lock maintenance service disruptions at Locks and Dams 52 and 53.
Completing Olmsted will also save $32 million annually in Federal
maintenance costs now spent to maintain the locks and dams to keep them
operating.
beneficial use of dredged materials
Question. I understand that approximately 50 million cubic yards of
dredged material are dumped into the ocean annually.
Can you provide any general data about how beneficial uses--such as
nourishment of beaches with clean sand or development of wetland
habitats--compare to current and other alternate disposal options?
Answer. The Corps strives to use dredged material beneficially when
technically feasible, environmentally acceptable, and cost effective.
Corps regulations (CFR 335.7, 53 FR 14902) require the Corps to
identify the least costly dredged material placement alternative that
is consistent with sound engineering practices and meets all Federal
environmental requirements. This is known as the Federal Standard or
Base Plan. In some cases dredged material may be used beneficially at
about the same cost as the Federal Standard. However, the majority of
beneficial use options are typically more costly than other placement
options, and there would need to be a non-Federal sponsor willing to
pay all or a portion of the additional costs beyond the placement
method found to be the least costly, environmentally acceptable method
for the navigation project.
Question. Can you tell us more about the Corps Regional Sediment
Management Program? I understand it is still in its infancy but am
interested in hearing about its successes and about plans to expand the
program.
Answer. The Regional Sediment Management (RSM) program supports
sustainable solutions to optimize the use of sediments to benefit a
region. Under the RSM program, the Corps has been successful in
identifying and understanding regional sediment transport processes
along the Nation's shorelines and is now applying this knowledge to
implement solutions to better manage and use sediments. These solutions
span multiple projects, programs, State, local, and political
boundaries and allow the Corps to better manage sediment regionally.
Examples of key successes of the RSM program include the
Jacksonville District's St. Johns County, Florida RSM initiative, which
linked navigation channel maintenance dredging with the adjacent shore
protection project to leverage funds, technical capabilities, and most
importantly, manage the sediment to accomplish the missions of both
projects. The Mobile District is working with stakeholders to develop
an RSM strategy to place material dredged from the Upper Mobile Harbor
within Mobile Bay to create 1,000 acres of marsh habitat. The strategy
will reduce the amount of sediment taken to the offshore placement area
40-miles south of the Upper Mobile Bay navigation channel and provide
environmental benefits. The Portland District has collaborated with
stakeholders to identify and permit four near-shore placement areas for
the mouth of the Columbia River. Rather than placing material in the
offshore deepwater placement area, where sediment is lost to the
system, the material will be placed in the new near-shore sites to feed
adjacent shorelines, create environmental habitat, and assist with
maintaining the jetty infrastructure by reducing erosion along the base
of the structure.
The RSM program will continue to move forward engaging stakeholders
to adopt regional approaches to sediment management. Approximately $1.8
million is included in the fiscal year 2013 budget for the RSM program.
wetlands mitigation
Question. The Corps New Orleans District Office recently adopted
the Modified Charleston Method (MCM) to determine mitigation
requirements for 404 permits. I understand that in some cases, the
mitigation ratio has more than doubled. This drastic increase in
mitigation requirements has caused a significant economic impact and
has the potential to bankrupt vital public works projects and
development efforts.
The New Orleans District's response to public comments on the
adoption of the new method states that they did ``not have the
resources to conduct an economic impact study'' regarding the impacts
of MCM implementation. How is the Corps working to balance
environmental impact, economic concerns, and the need to proceed with
important public works projects?
Answer. An economic analysis is not required prior to adopting and
implementing impact and mitigation assessment methodologies. However,
the Corps does consider the effects to the regulated public when
adopting new policies or guidance. In this case, the need to provide
applicants and our regulatory staff with a rapid and repeatable method
to assess impacts and mitigation in a consistent and predictable manner
was a major consideration in the adoption of the MCM. When planning
projects that may require work in wetlands, applicants should be aware
that the Corps evaluates each project to determine compensatory
mitigation requirements for unavoidable impacts in accordance with the
Federal mitigation rule. The applicant can use the MCM to assess the
impacts and to determine the amount of mitigation that may be required
and then contact existing mitigation banks within the watershed to get
an estimate of the mitigation cost. This information may be used by the
applicant in its economic analysis for its proposal. The applicant may
determine that the cost of mitigation is excessive and then work to
redesign the project to avoid or minimize wetland impacts so that costs
associated with mitigation are reduced.
We have examined the impacts of the MCM on mitigation requirements
for permits issued between May 2011 and October 2011 and our analysis
reveals that the mitigation ratios have increased from 1.6:1 to 2.4:1
on an acre basis. Although this shows an increase, the ratio does not
represent a doubling of mitigation requirements.
Subsequent to the publication of the Federal Mitigation Rule in
April 2008, applicants are required to include in their application ``.
. . a statement describing how impacts to waters of the United States
are to be avoided and minimized. The application must also include
either a statement describing how impacts to waters of the United
States are to be compensated for or a statement explaining why
compensatory mitigation should not be required for the proposed
impacts.'' Our mitigation rule encourages the use of assessment tools,
if available, when determining mitigation requirements.
A permit is issued if the district commander determines that the
proposed project complies with the section 404(b)(1) guidelines and is
not contrary to the public interest. Mitigation for unavoidable impacts
is part of this determination. Our goal is to provide applicants with a
balanced decisionmaking process to ensure aquatic resource protection
while allowing economic development to move forward in accordance with
Federal laws and regulations.
New Orleans District MCM is an improvement over the previous
process used for reviewing mitigation proposals. Previous mitigation
estimates were based on the best professional judgment of the
individual project managers reviewing the mitigation proposal.
Comparatively, the MCM methodology provides a framework for more
consistent, repeatable, and objective results. The MCM is rapid enough
for the applicant to use and provides the applicant the ability to
estimate their mitigation requirements based on the types of resources
they propose to impact and other factors. Other factors that are
considered include those that are related to the type of impact that is
proposed, such as rarity of the habitat, habitat condition, degree of
hydrologic disturbance, length of time impacts are expected to last,
the type of impact (e.g. clearing, draining, dredging, filling, etc.),
and potential cumulative impacts. Some of the mitigation factors
considered include type of mitigation (re-establishment,
rehabilitation, enhancement, etc.), the type of legal protection the
mitigation site will have, the time it will take to restore lost
functions, and when the mitigation will be performed.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Frank R. Lautenberg
Question. I was pleased to see that the fiscal year 2013 budget
includes $1 million for a study to find a long-term solution to chronic
flooding in the Passaic River Basin. However, it will take at least 3
years for construction to begin on a solution. How can the Corps
expedite this project to ensure that families in the basin have flood
protection as soon as possible?
Answer. The Corps is currently realigning all feasibility studies
to complete the most viable studies within 3 years. This process will
expedite projects that are both likely to be found in the Federal
interest and have strong sponsor support to be recommended for new
start construction. The first phase of the Passaic River Basin study is
designed to provide the non-Federal sponsor with an opportunity to
determine alternative(s) on which to proceed to a Detailed Analysis
Phase.
Question. The budget requests funding for six new Army Corps
studies. However, the budget does not include funding for several
critical ongoing New Jersey studies, including the Rahway River Basin,
the South River-Raritan River Basin, the Millstone River-Stony Brook
and the Peckman River Basin projects.
What criteria did the Army Corps use to determine which projects
were included in the budget request? For all categories of project
activity and budget accounts, please include specific factors as well
as an explanation of how each factor influenced the decisionmaking
process. If there was a benefit to cost-ratio threshold that had to be
met, please indicate what that value was for each category.
Answer. The four New Jersey studies, the Rahway River Basin, the
South River-Raritan River Basin, the Millstone River-Stony Brook, and
the Peckman River Basin are all flood risk management studies. The
primary criteria that the Army used to determine which studies were
included in the budget for the Flood Risk Management business line
were:
--study phase;
--study completion date;
--population at risk which is represented by the number of people
living, working and transient located in the study inundation
area for the design level recommended;
--population affected by flooding which is the number of people
located in floodplain afforded risk reduction by the project at
the design level;
--the flooding risk depth; and
--benefit to cost ratio for preconstruction engineering and design
projects.
The Army also takes other factors into account, including the potential
risk reduction, the environmental benefits to a community, and
leveraging Corps resources to provide the highest return for the
Nation.
Question. What specific factors led to the decision to exclude the
following New Jersey projects from the budget request: Rahway River
Basin, South River-Raritan River Basin and the Stony Brook-Millstone
River and the Peckman River Basin? Please include a detailed
explanation for each project.
Answer. While there are many worthwhile programs, projects, and
activities nationwide, the fiscal year 2013 budget focused on the
highest performing studies nationally. Each study was evaluated based
on its performance, including public safety as well as economic and
environmental benefits. The specific factors that led to the decisions
to exclude the four New Jersey projects from the budget request are:
Rahway River Basin, New Jersey.--The population at risk is
approximately 23,000 people and the population affected by flooding is
approximately 2,000 people. The flooding risk depth is 10 feet. This
feasibility study was not included in the fiscal year 2013 budget due
to low population affected by flooding relative to other competing
needs elsewhere in the Nation.
South River-Raritan River Basin, New Jersey.--The population at
risk is approximately 146,000 people, and the population affected is
approximately 21,000 people. The benefit to cost ratio for this project
is 2.2 to 1. The flooding risk depth is 13 feet. This project was not
included in the fiscal year 2013 budget due to low population affected
by flooding relative to other competing needs elsewhere in the Nation
and the benefit to cost ratio of 2.2 to 1 that would make this project
a lower priority for consideration of future construction funding.
Stony Brook, Millstone River Basin, New Jersey.--The population at
risk is approximately 125,000 people and the population affected by
flooding is approximately 5,000 people. The flooding risk depth is 9
feet. This feasibility study was not included in the fiscal year 2013
budget due to low population affected by flooding relative to other
competing needs elsewhere in the Nation.
Peckman River Basin, New Jersey.--The population at risk is
approximately 265,000 people and the population affected by flooding is
approximately 172,000 people. The flooding risk depth is 7 feet. This
study was not included in the fiscal year 2013 budget due to the low
population affected by flooding relative to other competing needs
elsewhere in the Nation.
Question. What specific factors led to the decision to include in
the budget request only project monitoring funds for the Barnegat Inlet
to Little Egg Harbor Inlet project and to exclude the Townsends Inlet
to Cape May Inlet project? Please include a detailed explanation for
each project.
Answer. Both the Barnegat Inlet to Little Egg Harbor Inlet project
and the Townsend Inlet to Cape May Inlet project were evaluated based
on their performance, including contributions to public safety as well
as economic and environmental benefits of each project. Barnegat Inlet
to Little Egg Harbor Inlet was funded in fiscal year 2013 to continue
project monitoring after construction. Construction funds for the
Townsend Inlet to Cape May Inlet project were not included in the
fiscal year 2013 budget due to the low benefit-cost ratio (BCR) (1.5 @
7 percent) and relative ranking to many other competing needs
throughout the Nation.
Question. I am pleased to see that the Corps has initiated a pilot
program to decrease the time it takes to plan and study projects. What
has the Corps learned to date from this pilot program? What are the
next steps in this review? Can the Corps expand this effort to include
a review of potential options to increase the pace of the complete
lifecycle of projects, from initial study through the completion of
construction?
Answer. The National Pilot Program for Feasibility Studies was
initiated in February 2011 to identify means to shorten the timeframe
for pre-authorization study completion while retaining the quality of
the analyses and decisions. The Pilot Program has affirmed that
increased focus on the scope of each study leads to more effective
decision documents and that early characterization of the risk
associated with each study, and management of that risk, reduces
uncertainty in the iterative planning process. No additional pilot
studies are being proposed at this time as the intent is to now apply
the lessons learned from these pilot studies to all active feasibility
studies by fiscal year 2014. The Corps continues to develop and refine
methodologies and processes for feasibility studies across all business
lines in a manner that will be sustainable, replicable, and will inform
future Civil Works guidance.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Jon Tester
missouri river flood infrastructure recovery
Question. The Corps has been spending down the emergency funding
that was provided last year to rehabilitate damaged flood control
structures following the flood of 2011. Brigadier General McMahon will
want to review the progress of those repairs, the remaining work to be
done, and the funding available. Of particular interest to Montana is
the maintenance to the Fort Peck Dam. The area beneath the spillway was
substantially washed out due to sustained record releases from the dam,
which the Corp will need to address. In addition, of the three channels
for releasing water from Fort Peck (powerhouse, spillway, and bypass
tunnels) for several years, only two have been operable as the ring
gates leading to the two bypass tunnels at Fort Peck have been
inoperative. As the spillway will be out of commission during repairs,
unless the ring gates are brought back online, the powerhouse will be
the only apparatus for releasing water from Fort Peck. Doesn't prudence
require repairs to the ring gates as an adjunct to the spillway
repairs, and shouldn't that necessity allow emergency funds to be used
for both projects?
Answer. The Corps is finalizing design for the spillway repair, and
the current solution allows for flexibility to operate the spillway up
to the levels observed in 2011 (if necessary) during repair activities
without substantial additional damages. As a result, while the ring
gates will require repair in the future, the current repair of the
spillway structure is not dependent upon a fully functional ring gate
system. Since the ring gates were not damaged during the flood of 2011,
repair of the ring gates is not, on its own, eligible for use of
emergency supplemental funding.
yellowstone river corridor study
Question. The Corps is in the process of funding a study of the
cumulative effect of the Yellowstone River, in cooperation with the
Yellowstone River Conservation District Council. The council has
requested funds to complete the study by the end of 2015. This decision
was prompted by members of the Technical Advisory Council who have been
working on the study in some cases well past their retirement, but
whose institutional memory is vital to the project. These members can
not make an unlimited time commitment but have elected to see the
project through to completion given that it does not extend past 2015.
Will the Corps make every attempt to provide sufficient funds to
complete the study by the Council's deadline?
Answer. The Corps is working with the project sponsor, as well as
the State and Federal agencies involved in the study, to define what
can realistically be achieved by the Council's 2015 deadline. The
fiscal year 2013 budget includes $200,000 for this study. This study
will be considered, along with many other worthwhile programs,
projects, and activities for the funding necessary in fiscal year 2014
to complete a high quality study by the Council's 2015 deadline.
missouri river authorized purposes study
Question. For several years, a study has been conducting a
comprehensive re-examination of the economic benefits of the various
authorized purposes of the Missouri River. Recently, flooding on the
Missouri has made the importance of completing this study even more
apparent. However, at the urging of the House, last year's
appropriations bill included a rider prohibiting any use of funds for
Missouri River Authorized Purposes Study (MRAPS). At the same time,
some members from the basin have advocated for legislative changes to
the authorized purposes, even in the absence of the completed study.
The prohibition on funds for the study was, to some degree, academic,
because the Corps has not budgeted to advance the study in either the
fiscal year 2012 or fiscal year 2013 budget request. How will the
Corps, through budgeting and use of discretionary funds, advance the
critical work of re-examining the way the management of the river has
performed, and further inform the Congress as policy changes are
contemplated?
Answer. A limited amount of coordination may continue, as
requested, utilizing unexpended carry over from fiscal year 2010, but
the Corps is not expending any fiscal year 2012 funding to continue
efforts on this study. The Army continues to evaluate each planning and
construction project based on its individual merits, using the criteria
applicable for that type of project and then to fund those projects and
studies with the highest return to the Nation. This activity will
continue to be considered along with many other worthwhile programs,
projects, and activities competing for funds across the Nation.
intake dam rehabilitation
Question. The Army Corps of Engineers is currently in the process
of rehabilitating the irrigation diversion dam near Intake, Montana for
passage of the pallid sturgeon. Since cost estimates for the original
design skyrocketed to more than $100 million, USACE has been re-
evaluating alternatives. It is critically important that whatever
alternative is selected function well to meet the needs of both the
irrigators and the wildlife. The intake to the irrigation canal must
function well despite the absence of the originally modeled rock ramp.
Furthermore, the fish passage must function to facilitate sturgeon
recovery on the river. What has been the Corps's process of engaging
with stakeholders as this project advances, and can they assure the
subcommittee that the selected alternative will serve the needs of the
irrigators and the sturgeon?
Answer. Phase I of this project to construct new headworks with
fish screens is complete and currently operational. The structure will
meet the full needs of irrigators for this irrigation season. The
structure will also prevent annual entrainment of hundreds of thousands
of native fish, including pallid sturgeon, into the irrigation canal.
The existing dam crest, which has historically been maintained by the
irrigation district to provide required flows into the canal, will
continue to require maintenance to the required elevations. The rock
ramp alternative would have required similar adjustment to the dam
crest. Any future fish passage alternatives will continue to
investigate the dam crest elevations within the overall project
objectives to ensure the best opportunity for successful fish passage
to include recovery of the pallid sturgeon.
Reformulation and feasibility evaluation of fish passage
alternatives has been undertaken by a multiagency partnership including
the Corps, Reclamation, Fish and Wildlife Service, Montana Department
of Fish Game and Parks, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the
Lower Yellowstone irrigation district, and others. All of the agencies
that are engaged in the decisionmaking process for this project are
focused on meeting the needs of the irrigation district, the
requirements of the Endangered Species Act as it applies to the pallid
sturgeon, and all other applicable State and Federal regulations.
Regular engagement of the stakeholder agencies has been maintained
throughout the design process via both face-to-face meetings and
periodic teleconferences. A revised Environmental Assessment is
currently under development and will have numerous levels of review to
include Independent External Peer Review (IEPR), State and Federal
agency reviews, and public review. Technical aspects of the project
related to pallid sturgeon recovery are reviewed and approved by a
multiagency Biological Review Team comprising some of the Nation's top
experts on pallid sturgeon. All the above methods are aimed to ensure
that the preferred alternative provides the best chance for successful
pallid sturgeon recovery by utilizing the latest science available.
st. mary rehabilitation
Question. The fiscal year 2010 appropriations bill included report
language requesting that the Bureau of Reclamation combine National
Environmental Policy Act compliance activities and preparation of
design, specifications, and contract documents for the entire St.
Mary's project including the diversion dam, fish passage structure,
drop structures, siphon, and canal be combined as a single activity.
What is the Bureau's timeline for completion of the Environmental
Assessment that is currently being conducted on the St. Mary project?
Answer. The Army is not in a position to provide schedules for the
Bureau of Reclamations' program and recommends that the question be
referred to the Bureau.
levee task force
Question. The fiscal year 2012 Homeland Security Appropriations
bill contained language requiring Army Corps of Engineers' to convene a
task force to develop common standards for Federal Emergency Management
Agency's (FEMA) levee certification studies and the Army Corps of
Engineer's Levee Safety Program, such that the levee inspections
performed by the Army Corps of Engineers may be used to satisfy FEMA's
levee certification requirements. What is the progress of that task
force, and when can the committee expect a report?
Answer. The language in Public Law 112-74 requires FEMA ``to
convene a task force with the Corps to better align NFIP levee
accreditation requirements with levee inspections performed by or for
the Corps such that information and data collected for either purpose
can be used interchangeable to the maximum extent practicable toward
satisfying levee accreditation requirements. FEMA shall provide a
report to the Committee on the progress of this task force within 6
months after the date of the enactment of this act.''
FEMA has convened the task force and, while FEMA continues to have
the lead, the Corps is an active participant on that task force. It is
the intent of the task force to meet the time requirement for the
progress report in the legislation.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Lamar Alexander
Question. General Temple, it is my understanding that the Army
Corps of Engineers (ACOE) owns more than 21,000 MW of power, and that a
report put out by the ACOE indicates potentially enormous energy
savings and a much lower carbon footprint for the U.S. Government if
you modernize your existing hydropower assets.
What is the ACOE doing on this issue?
Answer. The Army is implementing a Hydropower Modernization
Initiative (HMI) to address aging hydropower infrastructure issues for
197 generating units representing 54 power plants that are not directly
funded by the Department of Energy's Bonneville Power Administration.
HMI was established to assess and prioritize investment needs and
opportunities across the Army's hydropower assets, which include
replacing turbines, generators, and other major generating components
with modern equipment that can deliver better efficiency and additional
generating capability. The John H. Kerr power plant modernization was
completed in July 2011 adding 65 MW of additional capacity to the
plant. The Webbers Falls, Ozark and Denison power plants are being
modernized, which will improve operating efficiency and increase energy
production by 57,000 MWh.
Typically, when a hydroelectric power plant's generating unit is
replaced or refurbished, efficiency improvements can range from 3
percent to as high as 10 percent. If the Corps modernizes its top 20
plants as identified in its Hydropower Modernization Initiative,
efficiency gains on average would be 5 to 6 percent. This efficiency
improvement represents a significant amount of additional renewal
energy and avoided greenhouse gas emissions. For example, the initial
assessment of prioritized equipment modernization and improvements in
HMI would result in 830,000 MWh of additional renewable energy being
produced. This amount of energy would avoid 630,000 tons of
CO2 emissions into the atmosphere and serve 87,400
additional American homes.
Question. What would it take for the ACOE to modernize and upgrade
its facilities to result in more clean-energy production?
Answer. HMI study results show that an investment of approximately
$4 billion over 20 years would improve reliability, restore design
level efficiencies, and capture potential opportunities to improve and
upgrade facilities.
olmsted lock and dam
Question. Secretary Darcy, buried within the Administration's
budget request is a legislative proposal to increase the total project
cost of the Olmsted project to roughly $3 billion. That is an increase
of nearly $1 billion since you last reported to this subcommittee.
What has caused this spike in costs?
Answer. The Olmsted cost increase to $2.918 million (October 2011
price levels) is attributed primarily to a low initial estimate, which
increased substantially in light of construction and contractual
complexities associated with the innovative ``in-the-wet'' construction
technique. This method also lengthened the duration of construction
which pushed costs into an unanticipated period of higher than average
inflation associated with building materials utilized for construction.
There are several factors that have contributed to the low initial
cost estimate for the innovative ``in-the-wet'' construction technique.
Unknown factors when the project was authorized include the negative
impacts on productivity due to river conditions (elevation and
velocities) and the complexity of shell fabrication necessitated by the
seismic condition at the site. After constructing and setting the first
set of shells in 2010, the government and contractor realized that the
effort associated with fabrication and setting these large pieces of
precast concrete and filing them with tremie concrete was not like any
work they had previously experienced or previously had estimated. The
construction challenges associated with developing this innovative
method of construction have been overcome, but required a lot more
effort than was originally envisioned. Roughly 77 percent of the
increase in the estimated total cost of the project, in real terms,
(above inflation), is associated with the increase in the cost of
constructing the dam.
Question. Has an outside review of the cost, construction method,
and schedule been performed?
Answer. The Corps conducted an Independent External Peer Review of
the Post Authorization Change Report, which concurred with the revised
cost estimate. The schedule went through and Agency Technical Review
but was not reviewed externally. The project is currently undergoing an
internal review of the methodology of construction for the dam (``in-
the-wet'' versus cofferdams) and the management controls in place for
the cost-reimbursable contract.
Question. How much confidence should we have that this estimate
reflects the ultimate cost of this project?
Answer. The cost estimate was developed using a variety of
estimating methodologies by a diverse team of experienced U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (USACE) cost engineers and Hill International
professional cost engineers and schedulers. A cost and schedule risk
analysis was performed to establish the 80-percent confidence level for
both cost and schedule. Quality control and quality assurance reviews
were performed at various levels of product development. The Corps Cost
Engineering Center of Expertise reviewed and certified the project cost
and schedule estimates on November 9, 2011, confirming that the
estimates and schedules were prepared in accordance with clearly
established professional principles, practices, codes, and criteria.
Question. What is the projected completion of the project?
Answer. The schedule in the Post Authorization Change Report
assumes that the Corps will spend an average of about $150 million per
year on this project, consistent with recent funding levels and
reflecting the level of receipts to the Inland Waterways Trust Fund
(IWTF) under current law. Based on that assumption, the report
estimates that the Olmsted Locks and Dam part of the project will
become operational in fiscal year 2020, based on the minimal project
features required for the dam to hold the pool and pass navigation
through the locks. Physical completion for the dam contract is
projected to be in fiscal year 2021, including contractor de-
mobilization and equipment salvage. The remainder of the work,
including other required facilities, buildings and grounds, river
dikes, demolition of Locks and Dams 52 and 53 and permanent operating
equipment is projected to be finished in fiscal year 2024, thus
completing the project.
Question. What is your confidence in this time and cost estimate?
Answer. The cost estimate was developed using a variety of
estimating methodologies by a diverse team of experienced USACE cost
engineers and Hill International professional cost engineers and
schedulers. A cost and schedule risk analysis was performed to
establish the 80-percent confidence level for both cost and schedule.
Quality control and quality assurance reviews were performed at various
levels of product development. The Corps Cost Engineering Center of
Expertise certified the project cost and schedule estimates on November
9, 2011.
Question. Have you considered changing construction methods to a
more traditional construction method?
Answer. The Corps has assembled a team of experts to consider
alternative construction techniques. The team is developing a concept
level design for ``in-the-dry'' construction to a degree that can be
used to prepare a reliable cost estimate and schedule suitable for
comparison to the ongoing ``in-the-wet'' construction for the navigable
pass portion of the dam. The Corps will evaluate the team's
recommendation based on the concept level design and certified cost
estimate by the summer 2012 to determine the most cost effective way to
complete construction.
Question. Do you believe it might be prudent to consider a pause in
this construction project in order for the Corps to re-evaluate the
plan to complete this project in light of the cost increase?
Answer. The Corps is still evaluating which method to use to
construct a portion of the Olmsted Dam and the timeframe for completing
construction of the overall project.
inland waterways trust fund
Question. Secretary Darcy, as you know I represent a State with an
extensive inland waterway system with several of our aging locks and
dams. I am concerned that the Administration continues to not address
enhancing the revenues of the Inland Waterways Trust Fund (IWTF). Your
announcement of the $1 billion cost increase on Olmsted Locks and Dam
would seem to make finding a solution more urgent than ever.
It is my understanding that the current 20 cent per gallon fuel tax
raises about $75-80 million annually. Is that correct?
Answer. Fuel tax revenues in fiscal year 2010 and fiscal year 2011
were approximately $74 million and $84 million, respectively. The
projected revenues from the existing diesel fuel tax are expected to
increase to approximately $92 million in fiscal year 2012 and $95
million in fiscal year 2013.
Question. With the projected funding needs for Olmsted over this
time period, what else will the Corps likely be able to do to address
the needs of this aging inland waterway system?
Answer. In addition to providing $144 million for Olmsted, the
fiscal year 2013 budget provides for completing major rehabilitation of
Lock and Dam 27 on the Mississippi River and Lockport Lock and Dam on
the Illinois Waterway, and continuing some funding for the Lower
Monongahela River Locks and Dams 2, 3, and 4 project. Based on
projected revenues from the current fuel tax, if Olmsted Locks and Dam
is provided approximately $150 million annually, with $75 million
funded from the IWTF, approximately $40 million to $45 million per year
(depending upon the level of actual IWTF receipts) would be available
annually for other IWTF cost-shared projects for several more years.
One-half of those funds would come from the general fund of the
Treasury; the other one-half would come from the IWTF. This highlights
the importance of enacting a long-term mechanism to increase receipts
to the IWTF.
Question. Would you agree that simply raising the fuel tax, at best
is a band-aid solution to the long-term funding issues of the Inland
Waterways System?
Answer. Yes, we do not favor that approach. The Administration
submitted a vessel user fee proposal in September 2011, which if
enacted in addition to the existing level of revenue from the fuel tax,
as proposed, would raise sufficient revenues to finance needed
construction. To enact an increase in the fuel tax substantial enough
to provide the same level of revenues would require more than doubling
the current fuel tax.
Question. It would seem to me that what we need is an entirely new
way to finance the Trust Fund. Has the Administration given any thought
to an entirely new way to realistically fund this system? For the
Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund every imported item contributes to the
maintenance fund. Wouldn't a similar funding mechanism for inland
waterways provide a more robust funding sources as well as inflation
protection?
Answer. The budget proposes an equitable way to finance the non-
Federal share of this investment, which is the responsibility of the
commercial users of these waterways under current law. In September
2011, as part of the President's Jobs bill proposal, the Administration
submitted a legislative proposal to the Congress to reform the laws
governing the IWTF. The proposal would provide an additional source of
financing for major new investments in the inland waterways to support
economic growth. It includes a new vessel user fee, which, if enacted,
would supplement the revenue collected from the fuel tax, and would
increase the total paid by commercial navigation users sufficiently to
meet their share of the costs of activities financed from the IWTF. The
proposal has a provision to prevent the IWTF from accumulating too much
revenue and from being depleted. It has the potential to raise an
additional $1.1 billion in additional revenue from the users over 10
years.
Question. Has any consideration been given to changing the cost
sharing on Olmsted from the current 50/50 to something else such as 75
percent from the Treasury and 25 percent from the IWTF?
Answer. We do not favor that approach. The Olmsted Locks and Dam
project should continue to be funded as provided in current law, under
which requires construction is to be funded one-half from amounts
appropriated from the general fund of the Treasury and one-half from
amounts appropriated from the IWTF.
Question. Is the legislative proposal the same as proposed last
year in the President's deficit reduction package?
Answer. The legislative proposal to reform the laws governing the
IWTF is the legislative proposal President Obama transmitted to the
Congress in September 2011, as part of his Jobs bill proposal. It would
provide an additional source of financing for major new investments in
the inland waterways to support economic growth.
Question. As I recall that proposal allowed the Assistant Secretary
to raise fees as necessary to provide additional funds as well as
continuing the current diesel tax?
Answer. Correct. The diesel fuel tax would continue to be assessed
at the current rate of $0.20 per gallon, although the diesel fuel tax
would be assessed on the existing 27 inland and intracoastal waterways
as well as an additional 40 waterways that are not subject to the
current tax, and the Secretary of the Army would set the rates for new
vessel user fees on all 67 of the inland and intracoastal waterways.
Question. Do you know what these fees might consist of?
Answer. The legislation would impose a flat annual user fee on each
vessel that transports commercial cargo on the inland waterways of the
United States, which would be paid by the owner of the vessel. The
Secretary of the Army would determine the amount and structure of the
fee each fiscal year, with the goal of ensuring that the balance of
receipts in the IWTF is sufficient to cover the user-financed share of
the costs of inland waterways capital investment.
Question. Why are these additional revenues targeted for deficit
reduction rather than for improving or replacing the aging
infrastructure of the inland waterways system?
Answer. The proposal is not for the purpose of deficit reduction.
The revenues would enable an increase in investments in construction
and rehabilitation of inland waterways infrastructure.
Question. Have you been given any indication that legislation
allowing fee increases is being considered in the House or Senate?
Answer. No, although there are bills that would increase the fuel
tax.
flood control and coastal emergencies
Question. Can you update us on the progress you are making on
repair flood and storm damages from the $1.7 billion that we
appropriated in December?
Answer. The Corps is tracking progress on the Class I, II, and IIIB
repairs. The classes are defined as follows:
--Class I is Urgent and Compelling (Unsafe).--Heavily damaged
projects that have breached or failed where there is a probable
loss of life.
--Class II is Urgent (Potentially Unsafe).--Damaged projects that are
likely to fail where there is a probable loss of life and
economic damage.
--Classes IIIA and IIIB are High Priority, including:
--Class IIIB (Conditionally Unsafe).--Damaged systems that are
likely to fail where there is a potential for economic,
environmental, and an indirect potential for loss of life.
--Class IIIA (High Impact to Navigation).--Damaged systems directly
impacting high use navigation.
--Class IV: Priority (Marginally Safe).--All other damaged systems
not meeting Class I, II, or III above.
The Corps has made significant progress toward completing priority
repairs. The Corps identified 11 Class I (urgent and compelling)
projects and expects to complete interim protection for 10 projects by
March 31, 2012. Full completion is expected (pre-event conditions
restored) by March 31, 2013. There is one Class I project that
anticipates completion by March 31, 2014. Similarly, the Corps
identified 31 Class II (urgent) projects and expects completion of
interim protection for 14 projects by March 31, 2012. Full completion
is expected by March 31, 2013. Fourteen Class II repairs are
anticipated to be complete by March 31, 2014, and three repairs expect
completion after March 31, 2014. The Corps identified 31 Class IIIB
(conditionally unsafe) projects and expects completion of interim
protection for 19 projects by March 31, 2012. Full completion is
expected by March 31, 2013. Twelve Class IIIB repairs are anticipated
to complete by March 31.
Question. Will these funds allow you to make all of the necessary
repairs to return these flood control structures to pre-disaster
conditions?
Answer. A small portion of the costs of damage repairs is not
covered by Presidential declarations and, therefore, not eligible for
disaster relief funding. The funds will allow the Corps to make all
critical repairs in areas that are covered by Presidential
declarations.
Question. If not, are you budgeting for the necessary repairs
through regular appropriations?
Answer. Many of the noncovered repairs from the 2011 floods
successfully competed for fiscal year 2012 or fiscal year 2013 funding.
Only lower priority repairs, which did not compete successfully, have
been deferred and will be considered during formulation of the
President's fiscal year 2014 budget.
Question. Will the flood control infrastructure on the Mississippi
and Missouri Rivers, be able to provide protection from the high-water
events expected this year?
Answer. Yes, Corps-owned infrastructure on the Mississippi and
Missouri Rivers impacted by the 2011 Mississippi and Missouri River
flood is operational at this time and will be able to provide
acceptable level of interim protection from potential high water events
that take place during the upcoming flood season. Along the Mississippi
River interim repairs were initiated in several critical areas
including Birds-Point New Madrid (BP-NM), Presidents Island and
Meriwether-Cherokee to withstand possible high water in 2012. Permanent
repairs in the BP-NM Floodway area are scheduled either complete by the
2013 flood season or to a level sufficient to provide protection from
an event similar to the 2011 flood and are still needed to ensure
future operational safety and reliability. Damage assessments continue
and additional required repairs may be identified.
In the lower Missouri Basin between Omaha and Kansas City
Districts, repairs to the levee systems are in progress. Currently
closure of breaches on 10 of the 13 systems has been accomplished. As
we move into their flood season, traditionally late May through early
July, we anticipate all breaches being closed. Any remaining
vulnerabilities will be addressed through flood fighting, with on-site
contractors available should that need arise.
Work to restore levees to their pre-2011 flood condition continues
and is expected to complete on the Mississippi River Levees within a 3-
year time-frame. Damage assessments continue and additional required
repairs may be identified.
Question. How long do you project that it will take to restore
these flood control structures to pre-flood conditions?
Answer. By March 31, 2014, 96 percent of the highest priority
repairs are scheduled to be restored to pre-flood conditions.
principles and guidelines
Question. In fiscal years 2011 and 2012, the budget request
proposed a new line item to prepare guidance for the revised Principles
and Guidelines (P&G). It was not funded by the Congress in either year
and the Congress directed that the current Principles and Guidelines
should be used for fiscal year 2012. I note that this line is missing
from your request for fiscal year 2013. Are the revisions of the P&G
still going forward?
Answer. Yes. The Council for Environmental Quality (CEQ) leads the
Administration's process of modernizing the 1983 P&G for Water
Resources Planning.
Question. Are you aware of whether the Administration plans to
release the revised P&G in fiscal year 2013?
Answer. The product of the first step in that revision process--
called the Principles and Requirements--is currently under review
within the Administration. Agency guidelines would be developed
following the release of the final Principles and Requirements.
Question. Will the Corps still need new guidance to implement the
revised Principles and Guidelines in fiscal year 2013?
Answer. Yes. CEQ is expected to direct agencies to develop their
own procedures to conform to the interagency procedures (guidelines).
Within the Corps, ER 1105-2-100 (known as the Planning Guidance
Notebook) will need to be updated to incorporate new policies and
procedures to reflect the revised principles and guidelines.
Question. Without this specific line item, how does the Corps plan
to fund the guidance that needs to be prepared?
Answer. The budget includes funding under the Planning Support
Program for updating planning guidance in general, a portion of which
would be used to fund the guidance that needs to be prepared to reflect
the revised principles and guidelines.
regulatory program
Question. The budget request proposes $205 million for the
Regulatory Program. That is an increase of $12 million or nearly 7
percent, over the fiscal year 2012 amount. As I recall, this program
was funded at $189.6 million in fiscal year 2011, which is the last
fiscal year that is completed. How many permits did the Corps issue in
fiscal year 2011?
Answer. In fiscal year 2011, the Corps issued approximately 56,000
permits. In addition, the Corps finalized approximately 26,000 other
regulatory actions in fiscal year 2011 and more than 58,000
Jurisdictional Determinations.
Question. For fiscal year 2012, the Congress provided $193 million
for this program. Are you able to process permits in a timely manner in
fiscal year 2012?
Answer. Yes. Our data indicate that we are able to process the
majority of applications in a timely manner. We have established
national performance goals for processing time for both general permits
and individual permits, based on anticipated funding levels. The fiscal
year 2012 goal for General Permits (GP) is to process 75 percent of all
GP in 60 days or less. The fiscal year 2012 goal for Individual Permits
is to process 50 percent of these actions in 120 days or less. There is
regional variance in performance, although thus far in fiscal year 2012
the Corps is meeting or exceeding these goals on a national basis.
Program performance data over the past 5 years shows a direct
correlation between funding levels and performance: the more funding is
received, the higher the level of performance is achieved. In most
years, most performance targets are met nationally because the goals
are tied to funding levels. Other program funding factors, such as
increasing complexity, increased costs of litigation, and the need for
technology and science to inform decisionmaking are not reflected in
performance goal targets.
The program strives to deliver excellent customer service while
providing legally defensible decisions based in sound science as
expeditiously as possible. An increase is proposed in fiscal year 2013
to provide additional funds to Districts to sustain on-board staff,
which will support increased performance and thereby increase the
number of permit actions and associated program activities (e.g.
mitigation site evaluations, compliance visits) completed by District
staff. For the past years, funding increases have not kept up with
increases in indirect expenses (rent, vehicle costs, etc.). Additional
funds are needed to support existing staffing levels. The same or less
funds will mean a decrease in full-time equivalents (FTEs), affecting
permit review times and the number of jurisdictional determinations,
permit evaluations, mitigation reviews, and compliance visits that can
be completed.
Question. What is the average length of time for the processing of
your permits?
Answer. The length of time to process an application depends on the
type of permit requested and the complexity of the proposed action.
Individual permit involve a public notice and agency coordination, are
generally more complex, and are sometimes more controversial than
activities that may be authorized by GP. In contrast, GP may require
agency coordination but do not require a public notice and may only
authorize projects that result in minimal adverse impacts to aquatic
resources. To date, in fiscal year 2012, the average time to process an
IP was 139 days and 28 days for a GP.
Question. Are you anticipating a significant increase in permitting
activities in fiscal year 2013 or is an increase in staffing driving
this cost increase?
Answer. The Army anticipates an increase in applications/decisions,
jurisdictional determinations, agency coordination, and consultations,
and other complex workload actions in fiscal year 2013. Staffing levels
in fiscal year 2013 are anticipated to remain approximately equal or
slightly decline from the current staffing levels in fiscal year 2012.
Workload complexity is increasing as evidenced by a substantial
increase in the number of projects requiring Environmental Impact
Statements, projects requiring robust interagency coordination to
include a marked increase in Endangered Species Act consultations. A
10-percent increase was noted above fiscal year 2011 levels in the
total number of permit activities evaluated by USACE Districts.
harbor maintenance trust fund
Question. The budget request for fiscal year 2013 anticipates $848
million to be contributed by the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund for
maintaining eligible harbors and waterways. That is a $90 million
increase over what was proposed in the fiscal year 2012 budget. That is
a good trend. Does this meet the needs of all of the eligible ports and
waterways for the required maintenance?
Answer. The budget amount of $848 million for Harbor Maintenance
Trust Fund eligible projects reflects an appropriate amount for
operation and maintenance of the Nation's coastal harbors and channels
for fiscal year 2013.
Question. How much additional funding would be required to maintain
eligible ports and waterways to their authorized requirements?
Answer. The cost to dredge and maintain eligible coastal harbors
and channels to their authorized depths and widths is estimated at
approximately $1.35 billion per year for high and moderate commercial
use projects and an additional $0.5 billion per year for low commercial
use coastal projects.
Question. How many of the ports and waterways that you elected not
to fund have not been proposed for funding in the previous 5 years in
an administration budget?
Answer. A total of 832 coastal navigation projects have not been
proposed for funding in the last six budgets (from fiscal year 2008
through fiscal year 2013).
Question. Were these projects economically justified at the time of
their authorization and construction?
Answer. The majority of them were probably viewed as economically
justified according to the laws and policies at the time of their
authorization and construction, which may have been many decades ago.
Question. Was the maintenance of the projects over their 50-year
economic life factored into that economic analysis?
Answer. Corps navigation studies typically evaluate project
maintenance over a 50-year timeframe.
Question. If these ports are meeting the tonnage projections in the
studies for which they were analyzed and authorized wouldn't it follow
that maintaining them would have a positive net impact on the national
economy?
Answer. Not necessarily. For example, the quality of the analysis
has improved since many of these projects were authorized, and also
varies from project to project. Even for a project that is meeting the
tonnage projections from the project studies, the type of commodities
and use of the project may have changed considerably since project
construction. Operation, maintenance, and rehabilitation costs may also
be higher than projected.
Question. Then how are we not funding these projects?
Answer. The allocation of funds considers the economic and safety
return on investment, in comparison with other potential uses of the
available funds throughout the Corps Civil Works mission areas, as well
as the need to reduce the Federal deficit.
Question. If the Administration has no intention of funding these
in the future due to the economics of the projects, wouldn't it be
appropriate for the Administration to propose that these projects be
deauthorized rather than ignoring this Federal obligation year in and
year out?
Answer. The fiscal year 2013 budget is performance based. The
condition of projects changes over time and projects that do not
compete well in some years may compete better in the future. Projects
with little or no Federal interest can be proposed for deauthorization.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Thad Cochran
Question. The President's fiscal year 2013 budget request shows a
decrease in funding for nearly every important Civil Works account:
Construction, Operation and Maintenance, Mississippi River and
Tributaries, and Investigations. However, there is a funding increase
for the Corps Regulatory Program for operational oversight and
management. It concerns me that the Administration is increasing your
ability to impose regulations but decreasing your ability to perform
vital functions such as maintenance dredging and flood protection. Can
you explain this concerning trend?
Answer. In comparison to the fiscal year 2012 budget, the fiscal
year 2013 budget includes increased funding for operation and
maintenance, Mississippi River and Tributaries, Regulatory, and
Emergency Management. The budget is performance-based and focuses on
those investments that will yield high economic and environmental
returns to the Nation or address a significant risk to public safety
and the environment, as appropriate, within the bounds of our statutory
authorities.
Question. I understand that the reimbursement from the Harbor
Maintenance Trust Fund (HMTF) needs to be around $1.3 to $1.6 billion
annually to meet the basic maintenance dredging needs in the Corps'
maintenance inventory. What percentage of Harbor Maintenance Trust
revenue is actually allocated towards harbor operation and maintenance
costs each year?
Answer. Approximately 50 percent to 60 percent of HMTF receipts
have been allocated toward harbor operation and maintenance costs since
fiscal year 2007. The fiscal year 2013 budget increased funding for
harbor maintenance and related work by $90 million, which is almost 12-
percent above the level proposed in the fiscal year 2012 budget.
Question. Are the Administration and the Corps of Engineers
considering ways to maximize use of the HMTF to address the critical
needs of ports that must be dredged and deepened in preparation for the
Panama Canal expansion?
Answer. The fiscal year 2013 budget allocated Civil Works funding
based on performance. For activities funded from the HMTF the Corps
uses performance criteria that focus on the economic and safety return
from the investment in harbor maintenance and related work. In
addition, the fiscal year 2013 budget gives priority to funding studies
or preconstruction engineering and design for several proposed projects
that would enable a port to accommodate larger vessels, which could
transit the deepened Panama Canal, such as Boston Harbor, Brazos Island
Harbor, Charleston Harbor, Houston Ship Chanel, Jacksonville Harbor,
Savannah Harbor, and Wilmington Harbor; and also funds construction of
ports such as New York and New Jersey.
Question. There has been discussion of the needs of ports located
on the east and west coasts. Is the Corps fully cognizant of the needs
and the significance of our Nation's ports located in the Gulf of
Mexico as they relate to the Panama Canal expansion?
Answer. The Army is aware of the significance and needs of the gulf
coast ports. The budget includes funding for deepening studies for both
Brazos Island Harbor and the Houston Ship Channel.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Susan Collins
Question. Assistant Secretary Darcy, for any direct impacts to
jurisdictional wetlands, the Corps' New England District has published
``guidelines'' for compensatory mitigation. In the case of permanent
preservation, those guidelines call for a mitigation ratio of at least
15:1. For some projects, this ratio is increased to 20:1, or even 25:1,
based upon the discretionary application of the permit writers
valuation of functions and values. Under the State of Maine's law, the
mitigation ratio for preservation is 10:1.
Under the Corps ``guidelines,'' if one acre of wetland area is
impacted for a project, the Corps has required up to 25 acres to be
permanently protected. This adds significant costs to potential
projects that are key to our economic recovery.
For one project in Western Maine, a constituent sought to reduce
the wetland impact for a project that had been previously approved by
the Corps under its prior mitigation ratios. However, due to the new
higher mitigation ratios, and the requirement of both preservation and
in-lieu fees, the project has not gone forward. It is my understanding
that the wetland impacts would have actually been reduced, but that
still the Corps was asking for greater mitigation.
Does the Corps plan to review and revise its wetland mitigation
guidelines, particularly in the New England District, so that well-
designed and appropriately sited projects that would reduce wetland
impacts are encouraged?
Answer. As a general requirement, in accordance with section 404 of
the Clean Water Act (CWA), an activity's impacts to waters of the
United States must be first avoided, then minimized, and lastly
compensated. Therefore, by nature of the law, projects that would
reduce wetland impacts are already encouraged.
The New England District's guidance has, for many years,
recommended a 15:1 ratio for preservation, although this ratio may be
lower or higher, depending on the functions of the wetland being
impacted as well as the ecological value of the proposed preservation.
The guidance is not binding and may be updated as necessary in the
future based upon new policy, guidance, or science. The New England
District works with applicants to avoid and minimize impacts to waters
of the United States, consistent with the requirements in the Corps
regulations. When projects result in less impact to aquatic resources,
mitigation requirements may be substantially reduced.
Question. Assistant Secretary Darcy, there remains a great need in
my State and others around the Nation when it comes to the dredging and
maintenance needs at our small ports and harbors. Without the ability
to direct funding to such activity, I believe we need to pay careful
attention to ensure the water infrastructure needs of all States are
met.
I am pleased to see $13 million included in the budget request for
the dredging of Portland Harbor. Portland Harbor is the largest
commercial port in Maine and it is one of the largest in New England.
In 2009, the direct economic impact of Portland Harbor was estimated to
be 3,668 jobs, $101 million in wages, and $209 million to the Gross
State Product. An additional $142 million of economic impact extended
beyond the immediate confines the harbor. This economic impact makes
the maintenance dredging of the Federal Navigation Channel critically
important.
I would also like to highlight the $30 million for operations and
maintenance projects at ``small, remote, or subsistence navigation''
harbors and waterways that was included in the fiscal year 2012 enacted
bill. This funding made a small project in Wells Harbor, Maine,
possible, but many others in my State are still in need of funding.
What funding is proposed under the fiscal year 2013 budget request
to meet the dredging and maintenance needs of the Nation's small ports
and harbors? How do you respond to concerns that the Nation's smaller
ports and harbors may be disadvantaged under the current Corps' cost-
benefit metrics?
Answer. The President's fiscal year 2013 budget includes $40
million for low commercial use coastal ports and harbors. The Army
focuses first on funding those projects that provide the greatest
economic and safety return on investment to the Nation. For ports and
harbors with a low level of commercial use, the Army also considers a
range of factors such as whether the harbor is a critical harbor of
refuge or a subsistence harbor, or supports public transportation, U.S.
Coast Guard search and rescue operations, the national defense, or
other Federal agency use; the reliance on marine transportation for
energy generation or home heating oil deliveries, and the level of
commercial use (albeit less than a medium level of commercial use).
______
Questions Submitted to Hon. Michael L. Connor
Questions Submitted by Senator Dianne Feinstein
water banking
Question. Does Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) need additional
flexibility on water banking to better manage water resources in the
West?
Answer. BOR has authority for participation in water banks pursuant
to section 101(d) of the Reclamation States Emergency Drought Relief
Act of 1991 (Public Law 102-250, as amended). However, that authority
is contingent upon Governors of the affected State or on a reservation
making a request for temporary drought assistance and the Secretary of
the Interior determining that assistance is merited, or upon the
approval of a drought contingency plan. BOR was given additional
specific authority to participate in water banks in the 2012
Consolidated Appropriations Act in the State of California. This
authority enhanced water management flexibility. In particular, the act
allows BOR to buy interests in water bank facilities and to pay water
banking fees with Central Valley Project (CVP) water. BOR and the State
of California are satisfied with the authorization, but note that it
expires with the act at the end of the fiscal year. Our Lower Colorado
(LC) Region has existing authority to participate in existing State
water banking programs, and has issued its own regulations to
correspond with water banking agreements among its States. It is
unclear at this point if the same authority would be useful in other
BOR regions or States.
Question. Is additional legislation needed to provide this
flexibility?
Answer. It is unclear what additional authority might be needed
across BOR and would depend on the extent of activity desired of BOR by
the Congress in relation to water banks. The Mid-Pacific (MP) Region
expects to use the authority enacted in 2012 for California and further
legislation would be needed to extend it. Further determinations are
needed to understand what authority exists, and therefore, what more
authority would be needed, in the regions other than MP and LC. Our
preliminary research indicates that BOR may lack authority to buy
interests in water banks in other States.
Question. What impact does tiered pricing have on the agricultural
water service contractors?
Answer. Depending on how a tiered pricing program's rates are
structured, tiered pricing may provide an incentive to use water more
efficiently, i.e., to use less water for crop practices that provide a
lower net return compared to those crops and practices with a higher
net return. This incentive is based on the concept that a direct
relationship exists between the amount of irrigation water delivered to
the farm and the amount the farmer pays for that water. The primary
determinant of the effectiveness of tiered pricing is the change in the
amount demanded relative to a change in the price (or price elasticity
of demand). A rate structure that encourages conservation must
effectively communicate the price of water at different levels of use
to users. However, if changes in price do not result in corresponding
changes to demand, a tiered pricing program will have a relatively
small impact on conservation. There are a number of factors and
conditions that may influence a tiered pricing program's impact on
irrigators. Some of these include:
--the actual structure of the tiered pricing program;
--the efficiencies of existing water management practices;
--the cost of adopting new water technologies;
--the quantity of available water supplies versus the quantity
demanded based on existing (and projected) cropping patterns;
and
--the value of irrigated crops produced, as well as the potential for
dryland crop production.
In the CVP, tiered pricing provisions of the Central Valley Project
Improvement Act (CVPIA) are triggered when a water service contractor
takes more than 80 percent of its total contract entitlement. Thus, in
dry years when allocations are below 80 percent, CVPIA tiered pricing
provisions do not apply. In addition, contracting actions for
settlement contractors, interim contracts, and section 215 water,
(which is considered to be outside of the contractor's own water
allocation) is not subject to tiered pricing. Consequently, contractors
that have the ability to receive additional water through transfers may
be able to circumvent any potential conservation intended through the
implementation of CVPIA tiered pricing.
One potential means of estimating the impact of CVPIA tiered
pricing provisions to CVP water service contractors is to examine the
amount of revenues collected through the application of tiered pricing
provisions. BOR prepares and submits an annual financial report to the
Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, the Senate Committee
on Appropriations, the House Committee on Natural Resources, and the
House Committee on Appropriations describing CVP Restoration Fund
revenues (receipts) and expenditures (uses). Revenues received from
CVPIA tiered pricing provisions amounted to $327,067 in fiscal year
2010. This was less than 3 percent of nondiscretionary CVP Restoration
Fund revenues ($11,132,008) and less than 0.7 percent of total CVP
Restoration Fund revenues ($47,968,797) received in fiscal year 2010.
The fact that the application of tiered pricing results in such a small
percentage of total CVP Restoration Fund revenues suggests that CVPIA
tiered pricing provisions likely have a relatively small financial
impact on water users. However, determining whether tiered pricing
encouraged or discouraged water conservation efforts in fiscal year
2010 is less clear.
Question. Do you believe that tiered pricing encourages or
discourages conservation among contractors?
Answer. In general, charging higher rates for additional water
tends to encourage conservation practices by water users (assuming
water can legally be treated as a commodity and deliveries can be
measured). However, irrigator response to a tiered pricing program is
dependent on the factors listed above--with the primary determinant
being how the tiers are structured.
CVP contractors located south of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta
receive, on average, about 66 percent of their contractual amounts. As
a result, the tiered pricing provisions of CVPIA generally have limited
impact on these contractors in terms of conserving water.
Question. What about in dry years?
Answer. Generally, we would expect the effects of a tiered pricing
program, in and of itself, to have less of an effect in encouraging
conservation among irrigators during short-term, intermittent periods
of water shortages, primarily because the higher priced tiers would not
be triggered with a reduced water supply. However, as indicated above,
additional factors might cause irrigators to respond in unanticipated
ways.
As indicated above, the tiered pricing provisions of CVPIA do not
take effect until contractors take more than 80 percent of their total
contract entitlement. Thus, in dry years the higher tiered prices of
CVPIA will not apply.
central valley project and state water project
Question. How can BOR and the State Water Project (SWP) in
California better improve their coordination so as to improve water
supply reliability for both systems?
Answer. The CVP operators and the SWP operators are co-located and
closely coordinate the operations of both projects. The Delta Mendota
Canal (Federal)--California Aqueduct (State) Intertie will be
operational this summer to improve water supply reliability.
sierra nevadas
Question. Do you believe there could be potential water salvage
benefits from better forest management practices in the forests of the
Sierra Nevadas?
Answer. Potential water salvage through restoration activities that
improve water quality and quantity varies due to the distribution along
the Sierra Nevada Mountains of precipitation, forest types, land
designations, multiple-use management arrangements, and laws,
regulations, and policies. In general, restoration activities on Sierra
Nevada National Forest Service (NFS) forests and wet meadows improve
water quality, water quantity, and streamflow regimens with the overall
effect of improving California's water supplies. Restoration activities
on these lands can protect water sources from degradation, as well as
improve the capacity of our NFS lands to retain, filter, and release
water during low-flow periods when it is needed the most.
Question. Do you have any suggestions as to how to determine if
this could result in significant water savings?
Answer. In December 2009, six Federal agencies, including the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA), issued an Interim Federal Action Plan
for the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (Bay-Delta),
describing a variety of Federal actions and investments the
Administration has been undertaking or will take to help address
California's water supply and ecological crises. Multiple agencies
within USDA contribute to implement practices that have a high impact
on water resources in targeted landscapes. In 2010, USDA identified
landscapes of national importance including national forests and
private working lands in and around the California Bay-Delta, and
updated the contribution each agency will make to the high impact on
water resources goal, in the immediate future. The Forest Service is
working with Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and the Farm
Service Agency (FSA) to develop outcome-based measures for 2012 and
subsequent years.
The Forest Service manages resources on NFS forests land to ensure
that they are sustainable and productive for water, wildlife,
rangelands, timber, and the multitude of other resources found on
national forests and grasslands.
The NRCS has been developing interagency and nongovernmental
organizations (NGOs) partnerships to improve and protect the health of
the Bay-Delta headwaters by restoring forest lands and wet meadows.
USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack and Forest Service Chief Tidwell have
made clear the Forest Service's important role in water and watershed
management. Chief Tidwell has said that the Forest Service understands
the need to manage for water rather than mitigate for water. Managing
resources on NFS lands often involves striking a delicate balance. What
one may perceive as less than desirable practices might actually be
needed for restoration. Consequently, ``better'' forest management does
not mean the same thing to everyone.
calfed
Question. Your funding for CALFED is down nearly $4 million from
fiscal year 2012. What is the primary reason for this decrease? Is this
the start of a downward trend?
Answer. In the fiscal year 2012 enacted budget, BOR allocated an
additional $2.5 million to support actions in the Interim Federal
Action Plan from the additional $6 million in funds provided by the
Congress under the Water Conservation and Delivery Studies, Projects
and Activities Category that was not included in the President's
request.
The fiscal year 2013 request accounts for increases from fiscal
year 2012 and does not represent the beginning of a downward trend as
the California Bay-Delta Restoration appropriation provides critical
Federal support toward the co-equal goals of improved water supply
reliability and an improved Bay-Delta eco-system.
klamath settlement
Question. Where are we on the Klamath settlement? Are we going to
see significant increased budget requests for BOR when this settlement
is resolved?
Answer. The Department of the Interior has not signed the Klamath
Basin Restoration Agreement (KBRA) and the Congress has not acted on
legislation introduced in the House and Senate to authorize a
secretarial determination under the terms of the Klamath Hydroelectric
Settlement Agreement (KHSA). However under existing law, the Department
has the authority to provide water and power benefits as well as
addresses our tribal trust and Endangered Species Act (ESA)
obligations.
If the legislation is enacted, budget increases would be
anticipated as the KBRA legislation would likely require specified
levels of funding over the succeeding 15 years.
south dakota projects
Question. I note that your budget request for rural water funding
is increased. Will this funding level allow these projects to keep pace
with inflation? My fear is that with these funding levels, these
projects will never get completed. I am gratified to see that one of
the projects in South Dakota is scheduled for completion in fiscal year
2013, but where are we on the others? Will they be completed on any
sort of a reasonable timeline?
Answer. BOR is making progress on completing rural water projects
throughout North and South Dakota, Montana, and New Mexico. The Mid-
Dakota rural water project was completed in fiscal year 2006; numerous
features within the Garrison Diversion Unit in North Dakota have been
completed; and the Mni Wiconi Rural Water System is scheduled to be
completed in 2013. Approximately $232 million in American Reinvestment
and Recovery Act (ARRA) funds were provided to rural water to further
construction on these projects. Due to the additional ARRA funding,
Perkins County Rural Water Project received enough funding to complete
construction based on the authorized appropriations ceiling.
The budget request for rural water is a 7-percent increase from the
fiscal year 2012 enacted amount and an 11-percent increase from the
fiscal year 2011 enacted amount.
The total Federal cost to complete the construction of ongoing
projects in BOR is approximately $1.3 billion. The fiscal year 2013
President's request balances several priorities, including funding for
constructing authorized rural water projects. Given the need to work
within the framework of today's budget realities, as well as the need
to be attentive to priorities associated with existing water and power
infrastructure throughout the West, BOR is unable to fund all of the
ongoing rural water projects at their full-capability levels.
We will continue to evaluate each project using the revised interim
criteria and concentrate on finishing projects with the funding made
available through appropriations.
The first priority for funding rural water projects is the required
Operations and Maintenance (O&M) component, which is $18 million for
fiscal year 2013. The rural water request for construction was
developed using revised interim criteria (BOR used the same approach to
allocate additional fiscal year 2012 funds). These revised interim
criteria address BOR's program goals and objectives by incorporating
factors such as time and financial resources committed, regional
watershed perspective, urgent and compelling need, tribal members
served, economic impacts, and water use efficiency. BOR allocated the
funds based on each project's ability to use those funds to complete
distinct construction segments which would significantly advance the
provision of potable water to people.
Since 1980, the Congress has directed BOR to develop 13 individual
rural water supply projects at a combined cost of more than $2.3
billion. Projects have been authorized with non-Federal contribution
requirements ranging between 0 percent and 25 percent.
With a large backlog of rural water projects waiting to be
constructed and limited funding available, BOR developed the revised
interim criteria in order to apply a consistent and fair method for
allocating funds.
san joaquin restoration fund
Question. It is my understanding that the Friant surcharges that
used to go into the CVP Restoration Fund now go into the San Joaquin
Restoration Fund. However, where BOR used to appropriate those funds in
the CVP Restoration Fund, that they are being treated differently in
the San Joaquin Restoration Fund. Is it true that these funds are being
collected but are not being appropriated as a part of the budget
request?
Answer. No, BOR has requested discretionary appropriations to use
funds deposited into the San Joaquin River Restoration Fund (SJRRF) in
both the fiscal year 2012 and fiscal year 2013 budget requests. As
described in section 10009 of Public Law 111-11, funds deposited into
the SJRRF include the following:
--the Friant Division Surcharge;
--the construction cost component of payments made by the Friant
Division, Hidden Unit and Buchanan Unit long-term contractors;
--proceeds from the sale of water or land pursuant to the Settlement;
and
--any non-Federal funds contributed for implementation of the
Settlement.
The request made for discretionary appropriations to use funds
deposited into the SJRRF in fiscal year 2012 and fiscal year 2013
reflects the funding needs of the restoration program.
california drought
Question. What are the drought projections for this year?
Answer. Water supply conditions have improved significantly in
March and April, but we still may be looking at seasonal runoff indices
falling below historical average, especially in the San Joaquin Valley.
The water supply in the southern part of California has not shown as
much improvement due to less precipitation relative to Northern
California and the difficulty of moving CVP water through the Delta.
The U.S. Seasonal Drought Outlook released by National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) on May 17, 2012, is attached.
Question. What are the CVP Reservoirs (capacity) current storage as
of May 18, 2012?
Answer. Shasta Reservoir (4,552,000 acre-feet) now 4,436,000 acre-
feet; Trinity Reservoir (2,448,000 acre-feet) now 2,350,000 acre-feet;
Folsom (977,000 acre-feet) now 908,000 acre-feet; New Melones
(2,420,000 acre-feet) now 1,891,000 acre-feet; Millerton (520,000 acre-
feet) now 430,000 acre-feet.
Question. What is the latest projection on water deliveries from
BOR projects in California?
Answer. CVP is currently at 100 percent for the Sacramento River
water rights settlement contractors, 100 percent for San Joaquin water
rights exchange contractors, 100 percent of level 2 wildlife refuge
supply, 100 percent for Agriculture and Municipal and Industrial (M&I)
users north of the Delta, 75 percent of historical use for M&I users
south of the Delta, and 40 percent for agricultural users south of the
Delta.
bay-delta conservation plan
Question. Commissioner Connor, a lot of concern has been expressed
to me about the Bay-Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) process. Can you
tell us what your plans are for thoroughly studying all conveyance
alternatives for moving water past the Delta, not just the large,
isolated conveyance facility that has been identified?
Answer. While the current BDCP effects analysis evaluates a 15,000
cubic foot/second (cfs) facility, the BDCP Environmental Impact Report/
Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS) is evaluating a wide range of
alternatives. There are 15 action alternatives and 1 no-action
alternative which will be described in the BDCP EIR/EIS. The BDCP EIR/
EIS is analyzing various combinations of water conveyance
configurations including capacities ranging from 3,000 to 15,000 cfs,
different operating scenarios, habitat restoration, and the effects on
biological resources and water supply. In addition to conveyance, the
alternatives include a variety of conveyance alignments and other
specifications resulting from public scoping sessions conducted in 2008
and 2009 and the California Water Reform Act of 2009.
Question. How will studies of through-Delta conveyance figure into
the overall BDCP process?
Answer. The information resulting from the EIR/EIS studies
(including the through-Delta conveyance) being conducted will be used
for the selection of the proposed project submitted by the State of
California as part of ESA section 10 application process.
Question. After all diversion and nondiversion conveyance
alternatives have been identified, it is essential that a thorough
benefit-cost analysis be conducted for each. Can you tell us how you
plan to go about that?
Answer. As part of the overall BDCP process, several analyses are
being completed that address costs and benefits. First, the current
BDCP draft documents include initial cost estimates for construction
and implementation of a preliminary project. Secondly, the State of
California is conducting an economic analysis of the benefits
associated with BDCP alternatives. Lastly, the BDCP environmental
documentation will include an analysis of the socioeconomic impacts
associated with alternatives. This information will be used to
determine the proposed project to be included in the ESA section 10
permit application.
delta and delta counties
Question. Will the benefit-cost analyses you undertake include all
foreseeable direct and indirect economic impacts of the Delta and Delta
Counties, including the impacts of any new water infrastructure and
habitat conservation projects? If not, why not?
Answer. Yes, the cost and benefits analysis identified above will
assist in identifying the direct and indirect economic impacts of any
new conveyance facility in the Delta.
bay-delta conservation plan
Question. It is essential that all decisions made through the Bay-
Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) process be based on the best possible
science. What steps are taking to ensure that all BDCP proposals are
given an independent review that involves all stakeholders, including
the Delta Counties?
Answer. BOR continues to reaffirm the Federal commitment to work in
close partnership with the State and key stakeholders including the
Delta Counties to pursue the development of the BDCP. BOR is fully
committed to a sound and credible scientific basis for BDCP. This
commitment has been unwavering and has been frequently reiterated.
Credible science is essential for the BDCP to meet regulatory approval
standards and to garner broad stakeholder support. The science issues
underlying BDCP are long standing, complex, and, in certain cases,
contentious. Federal agencies have engaged independent science review
under the Delta Stewardship Council's Delta Science Program and are in
partnership with the State, working towards a sound and credible
scientific basis for the BDCP.
Question. Does the BDCP process include establishing through-Delta
flow standards, consistent with California's water rights priority
system and statutory protections of area of origin prior to the
adoption of BDCP? If so, please describe that process.
Answer. The BDCP process is not establishing new through-Delta flow
standards. However, any BDCP proposed project must comply with State
water rights, including State Water Resources Control Board flow
requirements.
Question. Does the BDCP process include a science-based peer-
reviewed analysis of water amounts and flows needed for use, under
current law, in the Delta for determining available surplus water
supply, and does the BDCP restrict the exporting of water from the
Delta to only surplus water?
Answer. Yes, any water conveyed as part of BDCP must meet
beneficial use standards as required by State law. No, the working
assumption of BDCP does not include any reliance on surplus water.
title xvi water reclamation and reuse
Question. In your fiscal year 2013 budget request, you identify
water conservation as one of BOR's priority goals. Can you tell us what
role the title XVI Water Reclamation and Reuse program has played and
will continue to play in your efforts to achieve that goal?
Answer. BOR's Priority Goal for Water Conservation is to enable
capability to increase available water supply by 730,000 acre-feet of
water by the end of fiscal year 2013. As a result of fiscal year 2010
and fiscal year 2011 funding, the title XVI program has contributed
more than 25,000 acre-feet to the priority goal. Title XVI projects are
a key part of BOR's efforts to address water supply sustainability and
will continue to make an important contribution toward this priority
goal. Fiscal years 2012 and 2013 funding for title XVI projects will
result in additional contributions to the goal.
Question. The subcommittee is aware of the priority that BOR places
on title XVI projects that seek to address water supply needs on a
watershed basis. Does BOR agree that there is an opportunity to enhance
the program's effectiveness through the advancement of regional-scale
projects that include multiple jurisdictions and generate environmental
as well as water supply benefits?
Answer. In 2010, BOR established funding criteria for the title XVI
program after incorporating comments from title XVI project sponsors,
members of the public, and others (including one Member of Congress).
The criteria are intended to meet a number of important program goals,
such as increasing water supply and reducing the need to develop new
water supplies, addressing environmental concerns, and exploring the
use of renewable energy as part of water reuse, among others. As you
point out, the criteria also address the extent to which a project
incorporates a watershed-based approach. In fact, the criteria provide
significant consideration of the extent to which a project implements a
regional planning effort or includes collaborative partnerships among
multiple entities to meet the needs of a region or watershed. BOR
agrees that regional scale projects that include multiple partners and
generate significant environmental benefits are important, and we are
confident that BOR's existing funding criteria provide ample
opportunity for sponsors of those projects to receive additional
consideration based on those benefits. At the same time, BOR plans to
review this year's process prior to development of next year's funding
opportunity to ensure that title XVI program funding is allocated as
effectively as possible.
Question. These regional projects can require longer planning and
construction timeframes than other more narrowly focused projects. What
steps has BOR taken within the overall title XVI program to advance
regional-scale water reclamation and reuse projects?
Answer. In fiscal year 2011, BOR used a Funding Opportunity
Announcement (FOA) for the first time in the title XVI program to
allocate available appropriations. This year, BOR made significant
revisions to the FOA to address feedback and to ensure that the program
works, as well as possible and in a way that minimizes the burden on
project sponsors. For example, under the revised FOA, sponsors of large
projects may request up to $4 million each year as planning, design,
and construction activities continue, without being asked to divide
those large projects into smaller phases. Again, prior to development
of funding opportunities for fiscal year 2013, BOR plans to assess this
year's process and will consider additional revisions, if necessary.
anadromous fish screens
Question. To date, Federal funding provided through the CVP
Restoration Fund's Anadromous Fish Screen Program (AFSP) has
contributed to the completion of 29 projects resulting in screening of
more than 4,833 cubic feet per second of unscreened diversions. Do you
agree that this program has been contributed greatly to the goals of
the CVPIA?
Answer. Since CVPIA's enactment in 1992, AFSP has partnered with
numerous water districts, the State of California, and other non-
Federal entities in the screening of both large and small intake
diversions on the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers. Through fiscal
year 2011, 33 projects screening 5,054 cfs have been completed. The
screening of these facilities has certainly reduced the entrainment of
endangered fish species (winter-run Chinook salmon, Central Valley
steelhead, etc.) and has contributed towards achieving the CVPIA's
goals. The AFSP is funding studies and monitoring activities to help
quantify fish screening benefits to Anadromous fish.
Question. For fiscal year 2012, BOR received a total of $10,349,000
for AFSP. Can you tell how those funds will be spent?
Answer. The AFSP's budget for fiscal year 2012 is broken down as
follows:
--Agency Staff Labor = $1.072 million.
--Studies and Monitoring = $0.765 million.
--Planning (design, environmental compliance, permitting, etc.) =
$0.165 million.
--Construction = $8.347 million (available for the construction of
the Natomas (Phase 2a), Meridian (Phase 2), and Reclamation
District (RD) 2035 fish screen projects, depending on the
availability of the non-Federal cost share. To date, no
district has provided a non-Federal funding commitment).
Question. Can you provide us with a status report, including
funding needs for fiscal years 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015, for each of
the projects currently under construction or planned for construction
under AFSP?
Answer. The response for fiscal year 2012 was provided above. For
fiscal years 2013, 2014, and 2015, all three projects expect to begin
construction, depending on whether or not all funding sources are
secured. For the Natomas (Phase 2b and 3), RD 2035, and Meridian (Phase
2) fish screen projects, the approximate Federal share is estimated to
be $9 million, $18 million, and $9.5 million, respectively.
Construction periods for the Natomas, RD 2035, and Meridian projects
are 3 years, 3 years, and 2 years, respectively. All Federal funding
requires the district to secure a non-Federal funding match.
In addition to the three fish screen projects mentioned above,
another proposed project is the West Stanislaus Irrigation District's
(WSID) fish screen project on the San Joaquin River. This project is in
the early planning stage; therefore, its construction costs are not
well defined at this time. Construction of WSID's project could begin
as early as 2015, pending completion of all planning, environmental
compliance, design, and permitting activities.
Question. Is BOR committed to providing the 50 percent Federal
share of the cost of construction of the fish screen projects for RD
2035, the Meridian Farms Water Company, and the Natomas Mutual Water
Company?
Answer. Subject to sufficient Federal appropriations, BOR is
committed to providing up to a maximum of 50 percent of these fish
screen projects' costs. However, this commitment is dependent on there
being a secured non-Federal funding match.
title xvi--watersmart
Question. While Tennessee is not a Reclamation State, the work that
BOR does in the West has an impact nationwide. While water reclamation
and reuse is not currently a concern in Tennessee, it could have an
impact in the future, and I am interested in the program that
reclamation undertakes. How are the choices made for the projects that
are funded under the WaterSMART grant program? Note: The question
refers to water reclamation and reuse; therefore, these proposed
responses focus on title XVI instead of WaterSMART.
Answer. The extent to which each project will reduce demands on
existing water supplies by making recycled water available; whether the
project will make water available to address a specific local water
supply concern and whether recycled water will continue to be available
during periods of drought; the extent to which additional funding will
bring a project close to completion; the extent to which the project is
ready to proceed, including completion of necessary environmental
compliance; the extent to which the project will improve water quality
or provide water for endangered species; the extent to which the
project incorporates renewable energy and addresses energy efficiency;
the cost per acre-foot of water expected to be delivered by the project
as compared to alternatives; the extent to which the project would help
to meet the Federal Government's legal requirements such as providing
water for water rights settlements or river restoration; the extent to
which a rural or economically disadvantaged community would be served
by the project; and the extent to which the project incorporates a
watershed perspective, including use of regional planning efforts
across geographically dispersed localities and collaboration among
multiple entities.
Funding criteria for WaterSMART Water and Energy Efficiency Grant
proposals include the following:
--The extent to which the project is expected to result in
quantifiable water savings or would otherwise improve water
management;
--The reasonableness of costs for the improvements proposed;
--The extent to which the project would increase the use of renewable
energy in the management of water or otherwise would result in
increased energy efficiency;
--The extent to which the project is expected to benefit endangered
species;
--The extent to which the project proposes water marketing elements,
such as establishment of a new water market or would contribute
water toward an existing market;
--Other contributions to water supply sustainability, including
addressing specific local concerns, promoting collaboration
among parties, or helping to expedite future on-farm irrigation
improvements;
--Project planning and readiness to proceed;
--The applicant's description of performance measures that will be
used to quantify actual project benefits; and
--Connection to BOR project activities.
Sponsors of authorized title XVI projects and applicants for
WaterSMART Grant funding are asked to apply for funding by responding
to a Funding Opportunity Announcement posted for the public. A team of
BOR employees applies criteria to the applications received to rank
proposals and projects are prioritized accordingly.
Question. What is the maximum amount of the grants made under this
program?
Answer. Each of the 53 congressionally authorized projects includes
an appropriations ceiling for the project--typically $20 million,
although some authorized projects have a smaller or larger ceiling.
This year, BOR's Funding Opportunity Announcement informed applicants
that no more than $4 million in fiscal year 2012 appropriations would
be made available to any particular project, up to the amount remaining
under the appropriations ceiling for that project.
Question. Is there any allowance made for providing larger grants
to regional projects?
Answer. To allocate the limited funding available under the title
XVI program (approximately $19 million in fiscal year 2012 for title
XVI funding opportunities) among a number of project sponsors seeking
funding, grants in excess of $4 million were not possible this year.
Project sponsors may apply for additional funding in fiscal year 2013
as construction on projects continues.
As BOR prepares a funding opportunity for fiscal year 2013, we will
evaluate this year's process--including that funding level of $4
million per project--and make revisions if necessary to ensure that the
program works as effectively as possible for project sponsors.
indian water rights settlements
Question. We provided about $51 million last year for Indian Water
Rights Settlements. Has all of that funding been obligated to the
various tribes for which it was specified?
Answer. BOR will obligate the entire $51 million appropriated to
BOR in fiscal year 2012 by the end of the year. The following
represents the funding status of each of the acts within the Claims
Resolution Act.
Navajo Gallup Water Supply Project.--For fiscal year 2012, the
enacted amount was $24.5 million of which, $17.7 million has
been obligated to date. Through construction contracts and
three financial assistance agreements (to provide funding to
entities for design and construction portions of the project)
we anticipate that all funds will be obligated by the end of
fiscal year 2012.
Taos Pueblo Indian Water Rights Settlement Act.--In fiscal year
2012, $4 million of the $51 million enacted was appropriated
for the Taos Pueblo Indian Water Rights Settlement Act. This
settlement requires $36 million to be deposited into the non-
interest bearing Taos Pueblo Water Development Fund in the U.S.
Treasury. This funding will be made available after the
settlement enforcement date of March 31, 2017, to provide
grants to plan, permit, design, engineer, and construct the
Mutual Benefits Projects. All appropriated dollars will be
deposited into the Taos Pueblo Water Development Fund by the
end of the fiscal year.
Aamodt Litigation Settlement Act.--In fiscal year 2012, $9.3
million of the $51 million enacted was appropriated for the
Aamodt Litigation Settlement Act. As of May 1, 2012, $302,688
of this funding has been obligated. The majority of the $9.3
million is expected to be obligated by September 30, 2012, for
planning and engineering design data collection efforts and a
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) support services
contract for the Pojoaque Basin Regional Water System.
Crow Tribe Rights Settlement Act.--BOR and the Crow Tribe
executed a Public Law 93-638 construction contract under
section 405 on September 13, 2011. Under this contract, BOR has
obligated the entire fiscal year 2012 appropriated amount of
$8.2 million.
White Mountain Apache Tribe (WMAT) Water Rights Quantification
Act.--In September 2011, the $3.2 million discretionary funding
received for the WMAT was obligated. To date, the $4.8 million
discretionary funding received in fiscal year 2012 has not been
obligated, however, is expected to be fully obligated by the
end of the fiscal year.
Question. Some of this Settlement funding was to be used for water
systems on the reservations. Can you give us an update on the progress
of these water systems?
Answer. The following represents the status of each of the water
systems within the Claims Resolution Act.
Navajo Gallup Water Supply Project.--The authorizing legislation
identified eight pre-construction activities that were required
to be completed prior to commencing construction of the
Project. All of those activities have now been completed and
the corresponding agreements and contracts have been executed.
Pre-construction work, including design, Right of Way
acquisition, and environmental and cultural resource compliance
activities continue in fiscal year 2012 for reaches that will
be constructed in the future. The pre-construction land
clearances and designs have also been completed to allow for
the initial construction to begin in fiscal year 2012. In
addition to the pre-construction activities discussed above,
construction is scheduled to begin in several areas of the
project in fiscal year 2012.
Taos Pueblo Indian Water Rights Settlement Act.--BOR has
requested $4 million to be deposited into the Taos Pueblo Water
Development Fund. All of the $20 million in discretionary
appropriations authorized by Public Law 111-291 (of which the
$4 million is a part) must be appropriated and deposited in the
Fund by the settlement enforcement date of March 31, 2017. None
of the funds are intended to be used on water systems located
on reservation lands. The funds are for the Mutual-Benefit
Projects, which are intended to minimize impacts on the
Pueblos' water resources by moving non-Indian ground water
pumping away from the Pueblos' lands.
A contract has been executed with the Pueblo of Taos for their
share of San Juan-Chama Project (SJCP) water. The Taos
Agreement should be ready for execution later this year. SJCP
contracts have been negotiated with the Town of Taos and El
Prado. Appraisal level designs and cost estimates are being
prepared for some of the mutual benefits projects. This work
has been accomplished with Native American Affairs Program
funding.
Aamodt Litigation Settlement Act.--Using fiscal year 2012
appropriations, BOR has developed project management plans,
begun engineering design data collection in coordination with
the project stakeholders, and has initiated Government-to-
Government consultations with the Pueblos of Nambe, Pojoaque,
Tesuque, and San Ildefonso. BOR expects to award a contract for
NEPA compliance support services in July and anticipates
awarding contracts for geotechnical investigations in
September.
Crow Tribe Rights Settlement Act.--For the Crow Irrigation
Project within the contract initiated under Public Law 93-638,
BOR reviewed and provided comments on plans and specifications
to the tribe for Lodge Grass #1 and #2 diversion structures,
and the tribe prepared final plans and specifications, based on
BOR's review. Procurement of materials for these facilities is
starting this spring and the tribe plans to construct these
facilities in the fall of 2012 after the irrigation season
concludes.
White Mountain Apache Tribe (WMAT) Water Rights Quantification
Act.--The WMAT is currently in the process of soliciting for
and awarding design contracts to complete the design work of
the Miner Flat Project to the 30 percent stage to enable
completion of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The WMAT
is also currently in the process of soliciting and awarding a
contract for environmental services for EIS development.
central utah project completion act
Question. You have proposed reintegrating the Central Utah Project
back into BOR's budget as opposed to it being separate as it has been
for the last 20 years. Why is this being proposed for fiscal year 2013?
Answer. This consolidation fits in with broader Administration
efforts to implement good Government solutions and consolidate and
streamline activities where possible. The Central Utah Project
Completion Act (CUPCA) is the only major water project within the
Department of the Interior (DOI) not managed by BOR. The proposed
consolidation is intended to ensure that all major water projects
within DOI receive equal and consistent consideration and treatment.
Question. Will this improve the management of the Central Utah
Project?
Answer. The proposed consolidation will leave the management of
completing construction of the CUPCA with the Central Utah Water
Conservancy District. Oversight and administrative responsibilities
will move from the Department's Assistant Secretary for Water and
Science to BOR. Consolidation of the CUPCA Office into BOR will enhance
local responsiveness and program access to the functions within BOR
that currently provide administrative support for implementation.
Question. Are there any cost savings by making this change to the
Central Utah Project?
Answer. The consolidation will likely have very little impact on
costs. No significant cost savings or increase in costs is anticipated.
Question. What happens to the personnel that are currently
responsible for the Central Utah Project, are they shifted to BOR's
payroll?
Answer. We anticipate that personnel in the CUPCA Office would be
shifted to BOR; however, the details of the consolidation have not been
finalized.
Question. Will this change affect the responsibilities of the non-
Federal partners on the Central Utah Project?
Answer. The consolidation will not impact the non-Federal partners
involved with the completing CUPCA. All non-Federal responsibilities
and authority as described in the original CUPCA legislation would
remain unchanged.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Patty Murray
odessa subarea special study
Question. Commissioner Connor, as you know the Odessa Subarea
Special Study is nearing the end of a 5\1/2\-year effort to develop
alternatives to maintain the economy and jobs base of the Columbia
Basin region by substituting Columbia Basin Project water supplies for
groundwater irrigation. The groundwater aquifer is being rapidly
depleted which threatens not only continued agricultural production but
domestic and municipal water supplies for the region's cities.
I am concerned that the Study is being conducted using the rigid
``Principles & Guidelines'' study methodology that often does not take
into account real world realities and that BOR applies overly cautious
construction contingency margins that are out of line with current
construction experience.
Is BOR committed to timely completion of the Study and to playing a
significant role in finding solutions to the water supply problem of
the Columbia Basin Project area?
Answer. Yes, BOR is committed to the timely completion of the
Odessa Subarea Special Study and is in the process of completing the
Final Environmental Impact Statement and planning documents by summer
2012.
The Preferred Alternative is being developed in consultation with
our Study partners in response to public comment on the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement. This alternative will provide a good
opportunity for public private partnerships and maximizes the use of
the existing Columbia Basin Project infrastructure.
Question. The State of Washington has already invested millions of
dollars in the Study and other Columbia Basin Project capital projects.
What are BOR's plans for integrating funding for project elements in
the Administration's budget request, starting in fiscal year 2014?
Answer. BOR's cost is shared with the State of Washington on this
Study as well as other Columbia Basin Project capital projects.
Implementation of the project is dependent on completion of
environmental compliance which is our focus in the near term.
As stated above, BOR is committed to completion of the Study;
however, future budget requests are contingent upon the completion and
outcome of the Study.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Lamar Alexander
hydropower
Question. Commissioner Connor, given the Bureau of Reclamation's
(BOR) ownership of thousands of megawatts of hydropower facilities, and
the March 31, 2011, Department of the Interior report on the potential
to create clean energy at BOR facilities, what is the Bureau doing on
this issue?
Answer. BOR is focusing its efforts on creating new clean energy on
two fronts. The first is by updating and improving the efficiencies of
its existing hydropower generators and the second is by encouraging
development of new hydropower on dams and canals where hydropower is
currently unavailable.
BOR currently owns and operates 53 hydroelectric powerplants with
an installed capacity of 14,803 megawatts of installed capacity. While
BOR has a long history of increasing the capacity and efficiency of its
hydrogenerators, this initiative could be expanded. By replacing its
older hydrogenerator turbines with more efficient turbines, rewinding
generators to increase capacity and optimizing operation of existing
generators, clean hydropower generation could be increased by an
estimated 2 to 3 percent.
To encourage new non-Federal development on BOR dams and canals,
BOR has performed two hydropower resource assessments. The first
identified 268 megawatts of additional hydroelectric capacity which
could be developed primarily at 191 Reclamation dams. The second
assessment identified 104 megawatts of hydroelectric capacity which
could be developed on BOR canals and conduits. Together these studies
identified 1,565 million megawatt-hours of new renewable energy which
is enough to power 130,000 homes.
BOR is also revising its process for development of power at BOR
facilities through lease of power privilege which is currently under
review. This effort will help make the process clear to developers.
Due to these efforts, there are 20 new non-Federal hydropower
plants being developed on BOR facilities.
Question. What would it take for the BOR to modernize and upgrade
its facilities to result in more clean-energy production?
Answer. BOR could increase its clean hydropower generation by 2 to
3 percent through hydrogenerator turbine replacements, rewinds and
optimization projects. Within BOR, 22 percent of hydroelectric
generator windings and 30 percent of our turbines are 40 years old or
older and have not been refurbished. Using a risk and condition based
approach of prioritizing rehabilitations, BOR continues to work with
its Federal power customers to better identify and schedule these
opportunities.
Senator Feinstein. Okay. Just so everybody here knows the
impact of this, California, I should say, America's largest
agriculture State is California.
In 2009 when we had a similar situation, you had 45 percent
unemployment. You had farmers in bread lines. It was really a
terrible, terrible situation. So what we're trying to do is
essentially make certain adjustments that could provide at
least a flow of water necessary to have a somewhat positive
farming experience without throwing people into unemployment.
It's a huge, huge industry. You've been wonderful, and we
appreciate it. Please keep going because 150 to 200 acre-feet
isn't going to do it.
CONCLUSION OF HEARINGS
Senator Feinstein. Everybody, I think that completes our
hearing. Thank you very much, General, two Secretaries, Mike,
thank you very much. The hearing is adjourned.
Ms. Darcy. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Connor. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 4:30 p.m., Wednesday, March 28, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
the Chair.]
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013
----------
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES
[Clerk's note.--The subcommittee was unable to hold
hearings on nondepartmental witnesses. The statements and
letters of those submitting written testimony are as follows:]
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL
Department of the Army
Corps of Engineers--Civil
Prepared Statement of the American Society of Civil Engineers
Madam Chair and members of the subcommittee: The American Society
of Civil Engineers (ASCE) is pleased to provide this statement for the
record on the proposed budgets of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE) and the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) for fiscal year 2013.
u.s. army corps of engineers
The fiscal year 2013 budget provides $4.7 billion, a decrease of
more than 5 percent from the fiscal year 2012 enacted level of $5
billion. The President's budget for fiscal year 2013 is inadequate to
meet the needs of an aging waterways infrastructure and must be
increased. The Congress must expand funding for fiscal year 2013.
The fiscal year 2013 budget plan released by the House Budget
Committee last week would further erode the Nation's ability to rebuild
its aging water resources infrastructure by reducing total outlays in
fiscal year 2013 by $94 billion.
Under the Budget Control Act of 2011, the Congress has $1.047
trillion in new discretionary budget authority for fiscal year 2013,
with $686 billion set aside for security programs (defense,
intelligence, and homeland security) and $361 billion for all domestic
discretionary spending.
ASCE recommends a minimum appropriation of $5.2 billion for USACE
in fiscal year 2013 to account for inflation and to halt the decline in
budget authority to ensure safe infrastructure and a sound economy.
The administration proposal for fiscal year 2013 would reduce
construction funding from $1.694 billion to $1.471 billion, a reduction
of 13 percent. Operations and maintenance funding would be down
slightly from $2.412 billion to $2.398 billion. The Mississippi River
and Tributaries account would decline from $252 million to $234 million
or 7 percent. Investigations--the money used to complete project
feasibility studies--would go from $125 million to $102 million, a
decline of 18 percent. In all, the Civil Works program budget for
fiscal year 2013 would be cut from $5.002 billion in fiscal year 2012
to $4.731 billion in fiscal year 2013, an overall reduction of 5.4
percent.
In 2005, Hurricane Katrina vividly demonstrated the perils of
relying upon poorly funded infrastructure to protect lives and
property. An ASCE investigation (conducted on behalf of USACE) reported
in 2007 that chronic under funding was one of the principal causes of
the levee failures after Katrina.
``Because of the congressional budgeting process, the stream of
funding for the New Orleans hurricane protection system was irregular
at best. If a project was not sufficiently funded, the USACE was often
required to delay implementation or to scale back the project.
This push-pull mechanism for the funding of critical life-safety
structures such as the New Orleans hurricane protection system is
essentially flawed. The process creates a disconnect between those
responsible for design and construction decisions and those responsible
for managing the purse-strings. Inevitably, the pressure for tradeoffs
and low-cost solutions compromised quality, safety, and reliability.
The project-by-project approach--in which projects are built over
time based on the availability of funding--resulted in the hurricane
protection system being constructed piecemeal with an overall lack of
attention to `system' issues. The project-by-project approach appears
to be associated with congressional limitations. The USACE was forced
into a `reductionist's' way of thinking: reduce the problem into one
that can be solved within the given authority and budget. Focus only on
the primary problem to be solved, inevitably making the issues of risk,
redundancy, and resilience a lower priority.''
American Society of Civil Engineers, The New Orleans Hurricane
Protection System 71-72 (2007).
With this proposed budget, USACE would continue to suffer from
under investment in essential infrastructure systems. If allowed to
continue, this trend likely will result in ever greater system failures
and the consequent expenditure of tens of billions of dollars to
rebuild what could have been built more economically in the first
instance.
In the face of USACE's aging infrastructure needs, the President's
budget for the Civil Works program in fiscal year 2013 reduces Federal
investments in vital national civil works systems. Moreover, the
negative budgeting trend is not likely to improve in future years.
USACE estimates that its budget proposals will continue to decline
through fiscal year 2015. USACE expects that inflation will reduce
actual spending on key infrastructure programs by a further $3 billion
over the next 5 years. ASCE believes that these levels of spending are
inadequate to meet the Nation's security, economic, and environmental
demands in the 21st century.
the harbor maintenance trust fund
The Harbor Maintenance Revenue Act authorizes expenditures from the
Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund (HMTF) to finance up to 100 percent of
eligible USACE harbor operation and maintenance costs, including the
operation and maintenance of Great Lakes navigation projects.
The fund fully finances eligible operation and maintenance costs of
the Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation. The Water Resources
Development Act of 1996 authorizes the fund to pay the Federal share of
the costs for the construction of dredged material disposal facilities
that are necessary for the operation and maintenance of coastal or
inland harbors, the dredging and disposal of contaminated sediments
that are in or affect the operation and maintenance of Federal
navigation channels, the mitigation of impacts resulting from Federal
navigation operation and maintenance activities, and the operation and
maintenance of dredged material disposal facilities.
The dredging of the Nation's ports and harbors has suffered from
years of under investment in a system that is critical to America's
ability to compete in the global marketplace. For fiscal year 2013 the
administration has requested $839 million be appropriated from the
HMTF--only 50 percent of total estimated revenues. Total revenues are
now estimated at $1.659 billion for fiscal year 2013. The busiest U.S.
harbors are presently under maintained. USACE estimates that full
channel dimensions at the Nation's busiest 59 ports are available less
than 35 percent of the time. This situation can increase the cost of
shipping as vessels carry less cargo in order to reduce their draft or
wait for high tide before transiting a harbor. It could also increase
the risk of a ship grounding or collision.
The fiscal year 2013 budget request does not come close to meeting
the requirements of the Nation's ports and harbors, which have an
annual need for maintenance dredging of between $1.3 and $1.6 billion,
according to USACE.
This trend toward reduced investments in our ports and harbors has
led to ever greater balances in the HMTF, and the unexpended balance in
the Trust Fund is growing with a bookkeeping balance of more than $8
billion by September 30, 2013, according to the Office of Management
and Budget.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ We recognize that none of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers'
funding for ports and harbors is appropriated directly from the HMTF.
The money is appropriated from the General Fund of the Treasury. The
HMTF then reimburses the General Treasury for the actual dollars
expended on projects that are eligible to receive funding through the
HMTF.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a result, the great majority of our Nation's harbors--including
8 of the top 10 largest ports--are not being maintained to their fully
authorized width and depth. Ships carrying U.S. goods must ``light-
load'', thus increasing the costs of the goods and decreasing American
competitiveness in the global economy.
This subcommittee should appropriate $1.6 billion from the HMTF in
fiscal year 2013.
bureau of reclamation
The fiscal year 2013 budget request for BOR is $994 million. The
Water and Related Resources, BOR's principal operating account, is
budgeted at $818.6 million, a decrease of 8 percent.
The request includes a total of for water and energy, land, and
fish and wildlife resource management and development activities.
Funding in these activities provides for planning, construction, water
conservation activities, management of BOR lands, including recreation,
and actions to address the impacts of BOR projects on fish and
wildlife.
The Congress needs to maintain appropriate and vital levels of
funding for the BOR's Water and Related Resources account to support
construction and rehabilitation of critical western water projects.
Population growth, climate change, drought, under financing and
environmental protection needs have tightened water supplies in the
West, and made BOR's infrastructure more important than ever for
providing essential water supplies to rural and urban communities as
well as agriculture economies throughout the West.
While we recognize the urgent need to address the national deficit,
we ask for your support for maintaining at least $1 billion in fiscal
year 2013 for BOR. In particular, maintaining this level of funding
will help address BOR's unfunded project backlog and create beneficial
construction jobs throughout the West. Most significantly, the back log
for congressionally authorized BOR water projects now stands at several
billion dollars.
We strongly encourage you to recognize through the appropriations
process that the infrastructure built and maintained by the Bureau and
local governments help power the economic productivity--and tax
revenue--on which the U.S. Government depends. Job creation, efficient
agricultural production, and reliable drinking water supplies are just
a few of the benefits of these investments to the national economy.
ASCE recommends an appropriation of $1 billion for BOR in fiscal
year 2013.
______
Prepared Statement of the Board of Levee Commissioners for the Yazoo-
Mississippi Delta
There are investments, and then there are investments, just as
there are priorities, and then there are priorities.
Since its inception, the United States Congress has allocated
approximately $14 billion to the Mississippi River and Tributaries
(MR&T) project. According to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE),
last year alone, throughout the Great Flood of 2011, the largest this
Nation has ever known, the MR&T prevented $110 billion in flood damages
to the Nation's heartland.
That's a good investment.
But such Acts of God as was that flood invariably produce
consequences for man. More water than any living human being has ever
witnessed was contained--in some instances, barely contained--by one of
the greatest engineering and construction feats ever, the mainline
Mississippi levee system. But that much water inflicts damages; that
much water takes a toll.
COE says that it will take approximately $2 billion to repair and
strengthen the levee system that just saved the country $110 billion
worth of damage. That's a benefit to cost ratio of 54-1. While less
than one-half of an emergency allocation did go to the MR&T, not only
is that inadequate, it is a dangerous gamble. Surely, we can adequately
restore the levees that just saved us.
That should be a high priority.
We ask that the Congress provide $375 million in fiscal 2013
funding for the MR&T--so that we might at least begin the process of
getting ready for the next great flood that as always is a matter of
when, not if.
All of us, of course, are aware of the Congress's self-imposed
moratorium on earmarks. And we can certainly understand such from a
fiscal responsibility standpoint. But that said, we also think there is
a fundamental flaw in that reasoning, a serious misunderstanding
inherent in the very definition of the word, ``earmark''.
When the men and women of this country think of earmarks, they
think of pork-laden legislation which specifically benefits large
political campaign contributors. They think of unnecessary public works
projects that never seem to end or stay within budgets. They think of
bridges that lead to nowhere.
And ladies and gentlemen, that is not what we are talking about
here today. Flood control is not a boondoggle. Flood control is a
necessity for life as we know it within the greater Mississippi Valley.
Public dollars for flood control projects are investments in the
national infrastructure. Tax dollars for flood control can literally be
thought of as premiums for flood insurance--not for flood damage, but
for flood prevention.
Beneath the umbrella of the MR&T, of course, are many component
projects, and we would be remiss in our obligation to the citizens of
our levee district not to point out the injustice related to one of
them. The Upper Yazoo Projects (UYP) represents the virtual ideal of
what any flood control project should be. It works--where it has been
completed, that is--and absolutely no one, including the environmental
community, in any way opposes it.
The UYP has provided documented localized flooding relief to
thousands at its southern stretches, while thousands more at the
projects' northern end still suffer due only to a lack of funding. In
last year's event, the town of Sledge and a heavily traveled State
highway were under water, while those to the south of the same
tributary were dry. And that is simply wrong.
COE says it has the capability to do $16.5 million toward
completion of the projects in 2013. Please give them at least some of
the funding needed to continue.
As always, we ask that the Congress also provide needed maintenance
funding for Mississippi's four flood control reservoirs and also for
the Delta Headwater Project which helps alleviate the stress on those
structures and our interior steams by slowing runoffs from the hills to
our east. COE's capabilities for those needed efforts are attached.
But most critically, we feel, is that the Congress rejects the
demonstrably false and potentially disastrous notion that flood control
is optional or some luxury that can be discarded when money gets tight.
Not only would lives and livelihoods be lost, but the Nation's economy
would be wrecked should America's heartland be inundated by
floodwaters.
Flood control is literally a pay me now or pay me later
proposition. We can pay to prevent the kind of disasters that last
year's epic flood very nearly represented, or we can pay much, much
more to try to restore that which is left in the wake of such an event.
Thank you very much for allowing us the opportunity to testify on
this matter that is so critical to the future of our Nation.
______
Prepared Statement of the Board of Mississippi Levee Commissioners
Madam Chair and members of the subcommittee: This statement is
prepared by Peter Nimrod, Chief Engineer for the Board of Mississippi
Levee Commissioners, Greenville, Mississippi, and submitted on behalf
of the Board and the citizens of the Mississippi Levee District. The
Board of Mississippi Levee Commissioners is comprised of seven elected
commissioners representing the counties of Bolivar, Issaquena, Sharkey,
Washington, and parts of Humphreys and Warren counties in the Lower
Yazoo Basin in Mississippi. The Board of Mississippi Levee
Commissioners is charged with the responsibility of providing
protection to the Mississippi Delta from flooding of the Mississippi
River and maintaining major drainage outlets for removing the flood
waters from the area. These responsibilities are carried out by
providing the local sponsor requirements for the congressionally
authorized projects in the Mississippi Levee District. The Mississippi
Levee Board and the Mississippi Valley Flood Control Association
support an appropriation of $375 million for fiscal year 2013 for the
Mississippi River and Tributaries (MR&T) project. This is the minimum
amount that we consider necessary to allow for an orderly completion of
the remaining work in the Valley and to provide for the operation and
maintenance, as required, to prevent further deterioration of the
completed flood control and navigation work.
It is apparent that the administration loses sight of the fact that
the MR&T project provides protection to the Lower Mississippi Valley
from waters generated across 41 percent of the continental United
States. These waters flow from 31 States and 2 provinces of Canada and
must pass through the Lower Mississippi Valley on its way to the Gulf
of Mexico. We will remind you that the MR&T project is one of, if not
the most cost-effective project ever undertaken by the United States
Government. The foresight of the Congress in their authorization of the
many features of this project is exemplary.
The many projects that are part of the MR&T project not only
provide protection from flooding in the area, but the award of
construction contracts throughout the Valley provides assistance to the
overall economy of this area. The employment of the local workforce and
purchases from local vendors by the contractors help stabilize the
economy in one of the most impoverished areas of our country.
In 2011, the MR&T project successfully passed the greatest flood on
the Mississippi River. Every feature of the MR&T project including
levees, floodways, and reservoirs were utilized. Not one acre of land
was flooded that was not designed to flood. Not one life was lost. The
MR&T system prevented $108 billion in damages in 2011 alone. All
together since 1928, the Congress has invested $13.9 billion in the
MR&T project, and it has prevented $478.3 billion in damages. This is a
34:1 benefit to cost ratio. The flow carried by the Mississippi River
in 1927 was 66 percent of a Project Design Flood. The flow carried by
the Mississippi River in 2011 was 85 percent of a Project Design Flood.
There is a larger flood on the horizon. In fact, stages will be 8-foot
higher when we have the Project Design Flood than we just experienced
in 2011. The MR&T project is only 89-percent complete. The Congress
must be proactive and fully fund the MR&T project until it is
completed. If not, the MR&T project will not pass the Project Design
Flood.
Even though the MR&T project worked, it suffered a lot of damage
and many weaknesses were discovered during the 2011 Epic Flood. The
Mississippi Levee Board would like to commend the Congress for
appropriating $802 million for repairing the MR&T system following the
historic 2011 Flood. This money will help reset and rebuild the MR&T
system so that we can pass the next major flood event. Money spent on
the MR&T project is money well spent that returns much more money in
prevented damages.
We are concerned about the ``earmark moratorium'' that the Congress
has adopted. The Congress has essentially given up their right to
appropriate money. They have relinquished this right to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB). OMB always provides a budget that
undercuts our projects in the MR&T project because they know that the
Congress will provide ``congressional adds''. Unfortunately people
think that the ``congressional adds'' for the MR&T project are
``earmarks''. ``Earmarks'' account for less than 1 percent of the
entire Federal budget, but it is these ``earmarks'' that provide money
for much needed and essential projects and provide jobs for the
economy. The stimulus money spent the past few years created jobs,
built projects, and stimulated the economy. This ban on ``earmarks''
will cause many projects to be stopped and jobs will be lost. The
Congress needs to define what an ``earmark'' is and they need to be
able to do ``congressional adds'' for our projects.
Thanks to the additional funding provided by the Congress over the
last several years over and above the administration's budget, work on
the Mainline Mississippi River Levee Enlargement Project is continuing.
Of the original 69 miles of deficient levees in the Mississippi Levee
District, 32 miles of work have been completed and 8.1 miles are
currently under contract. We are requesting $58.687 million for
construction on the Mainline Mississippi River Levees in the Lower
Mississippi Valley Division which will allow the Vicksburg and Memphis
districts to keep existing contracts on schedule and award contracts to
avoid any future unnecessary delays in completing this vital project.
The President's fiscal year 2013 budget did not include funding for
any construction projects within the Yazoo Basin. This action is
especially difficult to understand during a time when our Nation needs
an economic boost. These are all projects authorized and funded so
wisely by the Congress. All of these projects are encompassed in the
footprint of the Delta Regional Authority, an area recognized by the
Congress as requiring special economic assistance to keep pace with the
rest of our great Nation. We can not lose sight of the fact that all of
these projects are required to return more than a $1 in benefits for
each $1 spent.
The recommended plan for the Yazoo Backwater Project included a
pump that will lower the 100-year flood event by 4.5 feet thereby
reducing urban and rural structural damages, providing benefits to the
remaining agricultural lands, and reducing the frequency and duration
of floods. The plan also includes reforestation easements to be
purchased on up to 55,600 of existing agricultural land which will
provide benefits in every environmental category--wetlands,
terrestrial, aquatics, and waterfowl resources as well as vastly
improving water quality. This was a model project that should be the
standard for future public works projects in the United States. However
on August 31, 2008, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) used it's
authority under section 404(c) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) to veto the
Yazoo Backwater Project even though it is exempt by section 404(r) of
the CWA. The Mississippi Levee Board sued EPA in a lawsuit against EPA
asking the Federal Court to determine if this project is indeed exempt
from an EPA 404(c) veto by the exemption in section 404(r) of the CWA.
The Federal court has ruled in favor of EPA. Unfortunately this model
project is now completely stopped. If the Yazoo Backwater Project were
in place in 2008, 2009, and 2011, the $220 million project would have
prevented $257.5 million in damages. The Congress promised flood
protection for the Mississippi South Delta back in 1941 when the Eudora
Floodway was removed from the MR&T project. Arkansas and Louisiana have
both benefitted from this floodway removal while Mississippi continues
to be flooded. We urge the Congress to take up this backwater flooding
problem again and find a solution for the Mississippi South Delta.
We are requesting $4.575 million for the Yazoo Backwater less Rocky
Bayou Project. This money will be used to start the Environmental
Impact Statement for the Yazoo Backwater Levee Enlargement Project.
This levee is designed to overtop during a project design flood, but it
needs to be raised 5.8 feet to get to the required elevation. This
backwater levee is supposed to overtop when we are within 2 feet of a
Project Design Flood. In 2011 the Mississippi River was 8 feet below a
Project Design Flood and the Yazoo Backwater Levee came within 4 inches
of overtopping. We need this backwater levee raised immediately.
Work on the Big Sunflower (Upper Steele Bayou) project has proved
to be very beneficial. The Steele Bayou Sedimentation Reduction project
has installed drop-pipe structures at headcut locations all along
Steele Bayou. These control structures stop the movement of sediment
into Steele Bayou. Sediment is bad for flood control and water quality.
We are requesting $1.7 million to keep this project moving forward.
Work on the Delta Headwaters project has proven effective in
reducing sediments to downstream channels. To discontinue this project
will only diminish water quality by increasing sediment, reducing the
level of flood protection to the citizens of the Delta and increasing
required maintenance. We are requesting $13 million to continue this
project.
Maintenance of completed works can not be overlooked. The four
flood control reservoirs overlooking the Delta have been in place for
50 years and have functioned as designed. Required maintenance must be
performed to avoid any possibility of failure during a flood event. We
are asking for $7.7 million for Arkabutla Lake, $7.245 million for Enid
Lake, $7.346 million for Grenada Lake, and $11.397 million for Sardis
Lake.
We are requesting $12.754 million for Maintenance of the Mainline
Mississippi River Levees in the Lower Mississippi Valley Division which
will provide for repair of levee slides, slope repair, and repair of
the gravel maintenance roadway which is so vital to access during high
water.
The Mississippi River and our Ports and Harbors need money for
maintenance dredging. The Mississippi River carries tons of sediment
every second. This sediment falls out in slack water areas such as
entrances to our ports and harbors. The Greenville Port needs $1
million and the Vicksburg Port needs $750,000 to perform annual
maintenance dredging. This dredging is vital to keep these ports open
during the low-water season when much of the farm harvest is ready to
be transported.
We are requesting $2.58 million for the Lower Mississippi Valley
Division for Collection of Basic Data under General Investigations.
This money is used to monitor and collect water-quality samples at
gaging stations located throughout the Mississippi Delta. With the
emphasis on water quality, water quantity, and total maximum daily
loads (TMDLs), we must be able to continue to collect good data on
water quality so we can get a baseline established to be able to
monitor and improve water quality in the Mississippi Delta.
Improvements in water quality in the Mississippi Delta will translate
into improved water quality in the Gulf of Mexico and help the Gulf
Hypoxia issue.
EPA has been given too much power under section 404(c) of CWA which
allows EPA to veto congressionally authorized projects. During the
early 1990s, due to abuse of the 404(c) power by EPA, the Congress
considered removing this authority from EPA. EPA has again invoked this
veto power on the Yazoo Backwater Project. EPA is saying that you can't
lower the water level with a flood control project. By killing this
project with 404(c) veto authority, EPA is drawing a line in the sand
over the future of flood control in our great Nation. EPA has vetoed
the Yazoo Backwater Project even though it was approved, authorized,
and funded by the Congress and exempt from a 404(c) veto by 404(r). It
is now time to again take up this issue and remove the 404(c) veto
power from EPA before they kill another flood control project that has
been authorized by the Congress.
The Council of Environmental Quality (CEQ) draft proposal of
changes to the Principals and Guidelines (P&G) for Federal agencies
fails to establish a clear, concise, and workable framework to guide
development of water resources projects. It elevates environment
considerations over economic benefits, social well-being, and public
safety. Because of these critical and extensive failings, we recommend
that this effort be put aside and restarted from the beginning.
As Members of the Congress representing the citizens of our Nation
who live with the Mississippi River everyday, you clearly understand
both the benefits provided by this resource and the destructive force
that must be controlled during a flood. On behalf of the Mississippi
Levee Board, I can not express enough our appreciation for your efforts
in providing adequate funding over the last several years that has
allowed construction to continue on our much needed projects and thank
you in advance for your kind consideration of our requests for fiscal
year 2013.
______
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 $45,187,000 contained in the proposed
budget for fiscal year 2013, to the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers' (COE)
capability of $58,687,000.
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, (sections 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 $234 million allocated for the entire
Mississippi River and Tributaries (MR&T) project. We request that be
increased to COE's capabilities of $375 million.
Since the MR&T project was established, $13 billion has been
invested and more than 475 billion of flood damages have been
prevented. This investment provides benefits far beyond their actual
cost to the taxpayer by offering protection to more than 4 million
citizens and allows people to live and work throughout a 35,000 square
mile area in seven States.
With the help of the 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 the Congress to increase funding to
COE in fiscal year 2013, to insure that COE 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.
______
Prepared Statement of the Izaak Walton League of America
I am Scott Kovarovics and the Conservation Director of the Izaak
Walton League of America. The Izaak Walton League of America
appreciates the opportunity to submit testimony concerning
appropriations for fiscal year 2013 for programs under the jurisdiction
of the subcommittee. The League is a national, nonprofit organization
founded in 1922 with more than 39,000 members and 250 local chapters
nationwide. Our members are committed to advancing common sense
policies that safeguard wildlife and habitat, support community-based
conservation, and address pressing environmental issues. The following
pertains to programs administered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(COE).
corps of engineers, operations and maintenance, missouri river
The League joins other groups in urging the subcommittee to
appropriate $90 million in fiscal year 2013, as requested by the
President, for the Missouri River Recovery Program. With this funding,
COE, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), States, and other partners
can continue important ecosystem restoration efforts that are producing
long-term ecological and economic benefits.
The Missouri River basin encompasses land in 10 States covering
one-sixth of the continental United States. The Missouri is one of the
most altered ecosystems on Earth. Although recovery and restoration
efforts are on-going, they need to continue and expand.
COE, FWS, and many State agencies have been restoring habitat for
fish and wildlife along the river. This work is critical for the
Interior Least Tern and Pallid Sturgeon, listed as endangered, and the
Piping Plover, listed as threatened, under the Endangered Species Act.
The restoration efforts also benefit many other species of fish and
wildlife throughout the region. These habitat restoration projects are
working with the river--not against it.
These projects also generate additional economic activity in
communities along the river. Anglers, hunters, boaters, birdwatchers,
and others have been using these areas proving the old adage ``if you
build it, they will come.'' The Missouri Department of Conservation and
the Nebraska Game and Parks Commission found recreational spending
provides $68 million in annual economic impact to communities along the
Missouri River from Yankton, South Dakota to St. Louis, Missouri. A
South Dakota Game, Fish, and Parks study shows that recreational
benefits from angling on the Missouri River account for more than $107
million in annual economic activity in the Dakotas and Montana. These
projects are bringing more people to the river throughout the Missouri
basin.
In addition to the economic boost from tourism, restoration
projects support job creation throughout the entire region. COE
contracts with local construction companies, creating jobs, and
injecting dollars into local economies through purchases of materials,
fuel, food, and lodging. With the funding requested, COE could readily
implement more of these important economic and river restoration
projects.
Missouri River Ecosystem Restoration Plan.--The League urges the
subcommittee not to include any provision in its fiscal year 2013 bill
limiting funding for the Missouri River Ecosystem Restoration Plan
(MRERP). This long-term ecosystem study will lead to a comprehensive
plan that Federal agencies, States, tribes, and communities along the
river will be able to implement for a healthier Missouri River. A great
deal of time and effort has already gone into development of MRERP.
Funding must be allowed for this important effort to get back on track
before the information already gathered loses relevance and will cost
U.S. taxpayers more to gather again.
Missouri River Authorized Purposes Study.--The League urges the
subcommittee to provide funds to complete the Missouri River Authorized
Purposes Study (MRAPS). The League strongly opposes the funding
prohibition contained in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2012.
It does not provide taxpayers with meaningful savings in the near-term
and jeopardizes real-future savings. Delaying this analysis deprives
the country of Missouri River management geared toward future needs
rather than those identified during World War II.
MRAPS for the first time will review the eight authorized Missouri
River purposes established by the Flood Control Act of 1944. This
thorough analysis of the purposes will determine the best management
for the American taxpayer, all the residents of the basin, and fish and
wildlife, taking in account today's economic values and priorities,
rather than those imagined nearly 70 years ago.
Full funding of MRAPS is a wise investment. A comprehensive review
and accompanying changes will streamline future COE operational
expenses saving tax dollars and bringing Missouri River management into
the 21st century. MRAPS needs to be re-started in fiscal year 2013.
corps of engineers, operations and maintenance, upper mississippi river
The League is an active and long-time proponent of restoring the
Upper Mississippi River (UMR) ecosystem. We have supported the Upper
Mississippi River Restoration (UMRR) program (also known as the
Environmental Management Program) since its inception and continue to
support this vital restoration initiative. We urge the subcommittee to
provide $33.2 million for UMRR in fiscal year 2013 as authorized by the
Water Resources Development Act (WRDA). Although we are encouraged by
the President's request for fiscal year 2013, pressing restoration
needs on-the-ground require the full amount authorized for UMRR.
The League has also strongly expressed its opinion that the large-
scale navigation modifications included in the Recommended Plan for the
Upper Mississippi Navigation and Ecosystem Sustainability Program
(NESP), as authorized by the Water Resources Development Act of 2007,
have not been justified by COE and should not be pursued. Previous
reviews by the National Academy of Sciences and the Assistant Secretary
of the Army, Civil Works found that the navigation construction
component of NESP was not economically justifiable. A report released
in 2010 by the Nicollet Island Coalition, of which the League is a
member, provides additional evidence that proposed locks and dams in
this region are not a good investment for American taxpayers. With this
in mind, the League supports the administration's decision not to
request funding for NESP in fiscal year 2013.
While the lock and dam expansion authorized by NESP is not a good
investment, the League recognizes the need for the Congress to invest
in inland navigation to maintain the transportation infrastructure on
the rivers. The Inland Waterways Trust Fund (IWTF) provides 50-percent
cost-share for construction and rehabilitation on navigation
infrastructure. The League agrees with the administration that the IWTF
needs to be reformed because not enough revenue is generated by the
$0.20 per gallon fuel tax on navigation to fund the multibillion dollar
backlog of projects. The League supports the President's proposal to
implement a user fee at the locks, while maintaining the 50-percent
cost-share model on all inland waterway construction and navigation
projects. The League strongly opposes including any provision in the
subcommittee's fiscal year 2013 bill that increases the cost-share
portion from the taxpayer funded general appropriation, as proposed by
the Inland Marine Transportation System Capital Investment Strategy
Team. Such a proposal will increase the national deficit and allow
environmentally damaging and economically questionable projects to move
forward.
The UMR is one of the most complex ecosystems on Earth. It provides
habitat for 50 species of mammals, 45 species of reptiles and
amphibians, 37 species of mussels, and 241 species of fish. The need
for ecosystem restoration is unquestionable. As COE correctly stated in
its study of navigation expansion, this ecosystem is ``significantly
altered, is currently degraded, and is expected to get worse.''
Researchers from the National Academy of Sciences have determined that
river habitat is disappearing faster than it can be replaced through
existing programs such as UMRR, which was authorized at $33.2 million
annually by the Congress in 1999, but has never received full
appropriations. As habitat vanishes, scientists warn that many species
will decline and some will disappear.
Our Nation relies on a healthy Mississippi River for commerce,
recreation, drinking water, food, and power. More than 12 million
people annually recreate on and along the UMR spending $1.2 billion and
supporting 18,000 jobs. More people recreate on the Upper Mississippi
than visit Yellowstone National Park while barge traffic has remained
static on the river for more than 2 decades.
In assembling the UMR-IWW navigation study, COE recognized the
critical need for ecosystem restoration and encouraged the Congress to
invest approximately $130 million annually in UMR habitat restoration
efforts. With this need in mind, the League strongly encourages the
subcommittee to prioritize investment in ecosystem restoration by
appropriating $33.2 million for the UMRR in fiscal year 2013.
Additional funding for restoration will support economic development
and job creation in communities along the UMR and provide long-term
conservation and economic benefits for the region and the Nation.
clean water act guidance and rulemaking
This year, the American people will be celebrating the 40th
anniversary of passage of the Clean Water Act. With this in mind, the
League strongly urges the subcommittee not to include or accept any
provision in its fiscal year 2013 bill barring COE from finalizing and
implementing Clean Water Act guidance or proceeding with the formal
rulemaking process to revise its clean water regulations. We appreciate
the subcommittee's leadership last year on this critical issue.
Since proposing draft guidance last spring, COE has conducted a
nearly unprecedented public engagement process for agency guidance.
During this process, COE and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
held a 90-day public comment period. The agencies received nearly
230,000 comments and have publicly described the overwhelming majority
as supporting the proposal. In mid-February 2012, COE and EPA submitted
revised guidance to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for
another round of inter-agency review. This process also allows
nongovernmental organizations to meet with OMB to share their
perspectives on the policy.
Guidance proposed by COE is based on sound science and clearly
complies with the Supreme Court decisions in SWANCC and Rapanos.
Allowing COE to proceed with guidance will partially restore
protections for streams flowing to public drinking water supplies for
117 million Americans. It will also begin--but only begin--to restore
protections for some wetlands. Healthy wetlands are essential to
waterfowl, fish, and other wildlife, provide cost-effective flood
protection, and improve water quality. They also support hunting,
angling, and wildlife watching, which together inject $122 billion
annually into our economy. Finalizing the guidance will also provide
more clarity and certainty about Clean Water Act implementation to
landowners, developers, agency personnel, and State and local
governments.
Once again, we urge the subcommittee not to include or accept any
provision in its fiscal year 2013 bill limiting COE's ability to
finalize and implement Clean Water Act guidance or initiate formal
rulemaking concerning clean water regulations.
We appreciate the opportunity to submit this testimony.
______
Prepared Statement of The Little River Drainage District
My name is Sam M. Hunter, DVM. I am a veterinarian, landowner, and
farmer, and I reside in Sikeston, in southeast Missouri.
I am the president of the Board of Supervisors of The Little River
Drainage District, the largest such entity in the Nation. Our district
serves as a drainage outlet and provides flood control to parts of
seven counties in southeast Missouri. We also provide flood protection
to a sizable portion of northeast Arkansas. Our district is funded
solely by the annual assessment of benefits of more than 3,500
landowners.
My remarks will address the Mississippi River and Tributaries
(MR&T) project and specifically the St. Francis River Basin line item
of the MR&T. These funds are investments yielding a return of
substantial benefit to the Nation. They provide funding for flood
control that protects numerous cities, farms, and industries. Funding
through the MR&T also provides needed repairs and upgrades to locks and
dams, modernization of hydroelectric plants, and environmental
restoration. This project was authorized by the Congress in 1928 and
remains incomplete, yet yields a return of $34 in damage reduction for
every $1 spent. I know of no better investment of taxpayer dollars.
We fully understand the financial constraints on our Government and
the need to do more with less in order to reduce the national debt,
balance the budget, and create jobs. Programs and projects have been
eliminated or downsized; however, the MR&T is so critical to the Nation
that it cannot withstand deep cuts without jeopardizing the safety of
our citizens and our economy. The Mississippi River flood of 2011 would
have been catastrophic without the MR&T. It is estimated that more than
$112 billion in flood damages were prevented by the project. The system
did suffer damage as a result of the flooding and the Congress did
respond to that and appropriated additional emergency funds to restore
and repair the system, and for that we are grateful. But the work to
maintain and complete the project must continue.
In the fiscal year 2013 budget submitted by the President the MR&T
appropriation was $210 million. That amount is identical to the fiscal
year 2012 request. It appears that the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) has again chosen to ignore the infrastructure needs of the
Mississippi Valley. That amount will possibly keep the lights on, but
does not allow for much needed maintenance. To allow the project to
crumble away is inexcusable. The navigation element alone, which
includes the necessary maintenance of locks, dams, and harbors, is
vital to this Nation's economy. Moving products on the Mississippi
River is the most economical and environmentally friendly method of
transportation. It is dramatically more fuel efficient than truck or
rail. It allows our commodity producers to compete in a global market.
Continued underfunding of the MR&T is a dangerous course of action. The
failure of just one lock and/or dam could have an impact on the entire
Nation's economy, yet this fact appears to have been left to chance by
OMB.
Fortunately the power of the purse remains with the Congress. Even
with an earmark moratorium, the Congress still retains the power to
increase the President's budget request, as it has done annually since
the administration of President Jimmy Carter. We believe that a minimum
of $375 million is necessary to continue to keep the MR&T viable. The
Corps of Engineers' (COE) stated capability for the MR&T is $375
million due to the supplemental appropriations for flood repairs.
Within the MR&T budget request is a line item for the St. Francis
River and Tributaries that directly impacts our District. The
President's budget request for fiscal year 2013 is slightly more than
$5.9 million for maintenance, but COE's stated capabilities for the St.
Francis Basin is $18.4 million. We maintain that a minimum of $15
million is necessary for maintenance of the St. Francis Basin. This is
not for new project construction but for maintenance at a minimum level
of functionality.
I can tell you that the 2012 Disaster Relief Act will assist our
District by funding the cleanout of our floodway ditches, for which COE
is responsible, at a cost of $7.9 million, and the Diversion Channel
Stabilization at a cost of $3.5 million. We appreciate this help in
recovering from the infamous Flood of 2011.
Another program providing help for flood recovery is the Emergency
Watershed Protection Program which is administered through the Natural
Resource Conservation Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
This program is designed to assist districts such as ours restore
drainage facilities that are non-Federal through a local cost share
agreement, of which we provide 25 percent. Past experience with this
program has been impressive. It allows local control of the project,
offers quick approval of projects, and addresses our needs immediately.
This year's program is laid out on a very short-completion deadline for
the extraordinary amount of recovery work that needs to be done. We
intend to request that the completion dates be extended past the
current deadline of end of fiscal year 2012 and ask this committee to
join in that request.
In closing, I would like to thank each member of the subcommittee,
their staff, and the Committee staff for taking the time to review the
above-written testimony. We are appreciative of anything the Energy and
Water Development Subcommittee can do to improve our environment and
our livelihoods, and to ensure the safety of our communities. Your work
is very important to our country and we feel it is important for us to
thank you for your service, and for giving us the opportunity to share
our viewpoints.
______
Prepared Statement of the Mississippi Valley Flood Control Association
The Mississippi Valley Flood Control Association respectfully
requests that the sum of $375,000,000 be appropriated in fiscal year
2013 for the Mississippi River and Tributaries (MR&T) project.
The Flood Control Association 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
delegation 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 Federal Government. This group of dedicated
citizens was without success 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 head of livestock and large numbers of many species of wildlife.
Some 7 percent of all the productive land on this planet was under
water for a period of almost one-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 then disbanded, acting under the
erroneous assumption that the United States Government would provide
whatever was needed to prevent flooding in the valley. In 1935, it
became apparent that additional legislation was required and the
Association, under the leadership of Senator John Overton from
Louisiana, was re-organized. It has been in continuous and active
existence since for some 77 years.
We have been fortunate since 1935 to have as our president and two
vice presidents Members of the United States Congress with Senator
Roger Wicker from the State of Mississippi serving as our president,
Congressman Blaine Luetkemeyer from Missouri and Congressman Rodney
Alexander from Louisiana serving as our vice presidents.
We are a nonprofit agency made up of levee boards, drainage
districts, harbor and port commissions, States, cities, and towns,
including many other agencies and individuals that have an interest in
the protection and betterment of the people and property in the
Mississippi River Watershed, the third largest in the world. But we
feel it is the greatest, because of its size coupled with its essential
usefulness to the Nation. In a few words we are an agency through which
the local people may speak and act jointly on all flood control, bank
stabilization, navigation, and major drainage problems.
Never before have we seen our Nation faced with such huge public
debts and budget deficits as we do today. In our daily life we are made
aware of the gut-wrenching sadness of seeing homes foreclosed and jobs
disappear. We know all those things, but we also know that the country
that is and has been for generations the bright light of freedom and
prosperity, must not and cannot let its infrastructure deteriorate and
fall into ruin; neither can we allow one of our vital forms of
transportation become underutilized or useless due to the lack of
proper and necessary maintenance.
Unfortunately, today as usual you are considering a budget request
from the executive department that has insufficient funding to prevent
either of the cases just outlined. The only recourse we have is to
request the Congress do, as you have always done, add the necessary
supplemental funds to protect the lives, property, and livelihoods of
the citizens of the river basin.
Earlier in this statement, it was said that the Mississippi River
Watershed that provides drainage for 41 percent of the Nation, moves
almost 1 billion tons of commodities--60 percent of our grain, 25
percent of our petroleum products, 20 percent of the coal to fire our
power plants--was the greatest watershed on the planet because of size
coupled with its usefulness. Useful because the river has been
controlled and improved beginning with the first levee for flood
protection built in New Orleans, Louisiana in 1717. Levees came early
because ``without flood control, nothing else matters''. Over the
years, the Congress, the Corps of Engineers (COE), and the local people
have worked together to make the Mississippi River Watershed,
stretching from New York on the east to Montana on the west and from
the Canadian border to the Gulf of Mexico, the greatest and the envy of
the developed world.
Our great country has always been a maritime Nation, almost totally
dependent during the earliest years on the oceans and unimproved
waterways to move our commerce including, at that time in history, our
people. Westward expansion used the rivers whenever possible and many
of the earliest construction projects in the new country were the
building of canals connecting commercial waterways. Our national
security and economic well-being has always, now more than ever,
depended on the seas, lakes, and inland waterways that give us
accessibility to every corner of our great Nation.
All improvements, great or small, sooner or later, require
maintenance. We have been too lax in this great country with
maintaining and improving our basic forms of transportation. We have
not built new airports to keep up with the demand of a growing
population nor have we improved and properly maintained those that we
have. Our system of railroads is in such bad shape that we no longer
even attempt to move human cargo by train except for a very few small,
densely populated areas of the country. The interstate highway system
that we constructed more than 50 years ago was a great source of pride,
but we failed again to properly maintain it. Now we are paying a
tremendous price to keep it functioning. A great majority of our
waterway improvements, including our locks and dams and our flood
control facilities, are well past their design life. Soon we will find
ourselves in emergency mode of repairing and replacing failures. This
will be very expensive, an economic disaster. Farmers will be
especially hard hit with no efficient and economical way to transport
their crops to the international market.
Our principal, but certainly not our only concern, is with the
funding of the MR&T project. This is a very unique project that was
conceived and developed with consideration for the functional relation
between all its parts and the whole. It is a project that covers all
the aspects of development in the Mississippi River Valley below the
vicinity of Cape Girardeau, Missouri, from flood control to navigation
to environmental protection and enhancement. The MR&T project is well-
planned, well-organized, well-engineered, well-constructed and until
recently, well-maintained. Unfortunately, it is not yet completed and
adequate funding from the Congress is imperative if it is to be
completed and properly maintained. If, because of inadequate funding
and uncalled for delays due to countless and repetitive studies and
misguided lawsuits by the misnamed and misled environmentalists, the
lower reaches of the Mississippi River are not usable by commercial
boats and barges and sea-going ships, then no amount of improvement on
the upper reaches of the Mississippi River can have any favorable
effect. ``Without flood control nothing else matters.''
One of the major opportunities that we have to increase the wealth
of our Nation is to continue the improvement and development of our
major river systems. As noted the major system is the Mississippi River
Watershed. For that reason, we request that the Congress do what it has
done since 1928. That is, to appropriate sufficient supplemental funds,
allowing COE to continue what the Congress has directed them to do. We
are not talking about ``earmarks'' or pork barrel politics. We are
talking about funds to keep our navigation channels open and to provide
necessary dredging in order that our smaller but no less critical ports
may continue to function; funds to continue the on-going work to bring
some miles of levee sections that are deficient in either grade or
section up to the design required to protect our citizens against the
``greatest possible flood''; funds to bring our bank stabilization
program to completion in the most efficient manner, both economically
and environmentally.
The Executive Committee of the Mississippi Valley Flood Control
Association has carefully examined the President's budget request for
fiscal year 2013. We have arrived at the unanimous conclusion that the
required appropriation for the MR&T project is $375 million, just to be
reasonably assured that the goals of navigation, flood control, levee
improvement and bank stabilization are met; nothing more, nothing less.
In a special message to the Congress on flood control in the
Mississippi Basin, dated July 16, 1947, President Harry S Truman began
with the following in his opening sentence: ``the major opportunity of
our generation to increase the wealth of the nation lies in the
development of our great river systems''. Later on in his message
President Truman used these words: ``we must never forget that the
conservation of our natural resources and their wise use are essential
to our very existence as a nation. The choice is ours. We can sit idly
by, or almost as bad, resort to the false economy of feeble and
inadequate measures, while these precious assets waste away. On the
other hand, we can, if we act in time put into effect a realistic and
practical plan which will preserve these basic essentials of our
national economy and make this a better and a richer land''. Mr. Truman
was speaking about the MR&T project in this last quote. These words are
still true today. On July 31, 1947, President Truman approved
appropriations bills, including supplemental provisions for flood
control on the MR&T project in fiscal year 1948 of $250 million. And
that was in 1948 dollars.
We have attached a breakdown of the requested funds of $375 million
for the Mississippi River and Tributaries Project for fiscal year 2013.
MISSISSIPPI VALLEY FLOOD CONTROL ASSOCIATION
FISCAL YEAR 2013 CIVIL WORKS REQUESTED BUDGET
MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES APPROPRIATIONS
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project/Study
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2013 request................................... 375,000
============
MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES INVESTIGATIONS
Collection and study of basic data......................... 500
Memphis Metro Storm Water Management, Tennessee (FEAS)..... 100
------------
Total investigations................................. 600
============
MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES CONSTRUCTION
Atchafalaya Basin, Louisiana............................... 9,000
Atchafalaya Basin Floodway System, Louisiana............... 4,000
Channel Improvement, Arkansas, Illinois, Kentucky, 71,000
Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, and Tennessee...........
Mississippi River Levees, Arkansas, Illinois, Kentucky, 69,490
Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, and Tennessee...........
Yazoo Basin, Upper Yazoo Projects.......................... 5,000
------------
Total construction................................... 158,490
============
MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES MAINTENANCE
Atchafalaya Basin, Louisiana............................... 12,865
Atchafalaya Basin Floodway System, Louisiana............... 2,295
Baton Rouge Harbor, Devils Swamp, Louisiana................ 80
Bayou Cocodrie and Tributaries, Louisiana.................. 50
Bonnet Carre, Louisiana.................................... 55,029
Channel improvement, Arkansas, Illinois, Kentucky, 62,615
Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, and Tennessee--TOT......
Channel improvement--dredging.............................. 18,785
Channel improvement--revetments and dikes.................. 43,830
Greenville Harbor, Mississippi............................. 30
Helena Harbor, Arkansas.................................... 210
Inspection of completed works.............................. 1,918
Lower Arkansas River, North Bank, Arkansas................. 375
Lower Arkansas River, South Bank, Arkansas................. 255
Lower Red River--South Bank Levees......................... 565
Mapping.................................................... 1,063
Memphis Harbor McKellar Lake, Tennessee.................... 1,935
Mississippi Delta Region--Caernarvon, Louisiana............ 625
Mississippi River Levees, Arkansas, Illinois, Kentucky, 8,645
Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, and Tennessee...........
Old River Control Structure, Louisiana..................... 10,625
St. Francis River and Tributaries, Arkansas and Missouri... 7,800
Tensas Basin, Boeuf and Tensas Rivers, Arkansas and 2,450
Louisiana.................................................
Tensas Basin, Red River Backwater, Louisiana............... 3,185
Vicksburg Harbor, Mississippi.............................. 55
Wappapello Lake, Missouri.................................. 5,360
White River Backwater, Arkansas............................ 1,510
Yazoo Basin, Arkabutla Lake, Mississippi................... 7,200
Yazoo Basin, Big Sunflower (Bogue Phalia), Mississippi..... 300
Yazoo Basin, Enid Lake, Mississippi........................ 6,795
Yazoo Basin, Greenwood, Mississippi........................ 1,000
Yazoo Basin, Grenada Lake, Mississippi..................... 7,200
Yazoo Basin, Main Stem, Missouri........................... 2,275
Yazoo Basin, Sardis Lake, Mississippi...................... 8,500
Yazoo Basin, Tributaries, Mississippi...................... 1,000
Yazoo Basin, Will M. Whittington Auxiliary Channel, 575
Mississippi...............................................
Yazoo Basin, Yazoo Backwater, Mississippi.................. 700
Yazoo Basin, Yazoo City, Mississippi....................... 1,000
------------
Total maintenance.................................... 215,910
------------
Total Mississippi River and Tributaries.............. 375,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
______
Prepared Statement of The Nature Conservancy
Madam Chair and members of the subcommittee: My name is Robert
Bendick and I am the Director of U.S. Government Relations. Thank you
for the opportunity to present The Nature Conservancy's testimony on
the fiscal year 2013 appropriations for the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (COE) and Bureau of Reclamation. The Nature Conservancy is
dedicated to saving the lands and waters on which all life depends. Our
on-the-ground conservation work is carried out in all 50 States and
more than 30 foreign countries and is supported by approximately 1
million members.
We recognize the challenges of working in a constrained fiscal
environment. But we also recognize the critical importance of our water
resources and the benefits these resources provide to virtually every
sector of the economy, the quality of life in our communities, and the
health of our people. Our focus is on supporting the programs and
investments needed to ensure these benefits are enhanced today and made
sustainable for tomorrow.
The Nature Conservancy supports building sustainability into the
management of our Nation's water infrastructure, including the
ecosystem restoration projects essential to ensuring that
sustainability. These ecosystem restoration projects pay dividends
through natural flood control, higher quality water, sustaining
commercial fisheries, and supporting recreation and tourism. With
impacts stretching out for decades to come, the projects and proposals
that follow reap high returns on investment.
sustainable rivers project
The Sustainable Rivers Project (SRP) is an initiative launched by
COE in partnership with the Conservancy to update decades-old water
management practices to meet society's needs today and in the coming
decades. By managing dams in coordination with downstream flood-prone
lands, the SRP is developing and demonstrating innovative approaches to
maintain and enhance water supply, flood protection, hydropower
generation, and recreation while restoring critical ecosystems and the
economically valuable services they provide.
This approach was recently studied by COE, The Nature Conservancy,
and University of California--Davis in two river basins--Georgia's and
South Carolina's Savannah and California's Mokelumne. The Savannah
River study found that small changes in floodplain management enable
the use of up to 50 percent of the existing flood storage capacity for
hydropower and recreation, producing a net benefit of more than $12
million per year, without increasing flood risk and with additional
benefits for water supply and the environment. The Mokelumne River
study found similarly modest shifts in floodplain management frees up
25 percent to 50 percent of flood storage for public water supply--
enough additional water for nearly 450,000 people--while maintaining
flood protection and increasing hydropower generation and improving
habitat for declining salmon. COE's budget includes three specific
initiatives that support SRP efforts; the Conservancy supports all
three at the levels provided by COE:
Reducing Civil Works Vulnerability.--The Conservancy supports $8
million.
Response to Climate Change.--The Conservancy supports $5 million.
National Portfolio Assessment for Reallocations.--The Conservancy
supports $571,000.
u.s. army corps of engineers construction priorities
Hamilton City Flood Damage Reduction and Ecosystem Restoration.--
The fact that COE again selected Hamilton City for its construction
budget in fiscal year 2013 is a testament to the innovative dual nature
of the project: increasing flood protection for Hamilton City while
restoring approximately 1,500 acres of riparian habitat. Appropriations
for the first phase will initiate construction of approximately 2 miles
of levee, removal of one-half of the existing levee, and completion of
roughly one-third of the habitat restoration. The Conservancy strongly
supports the $7.5 million proposed in fiscal year 2013 to complete the
first phase of construction.
Chesapeake Bay Oyster Recovery.--This project will build on recent
progress and continue to increase the scale of oyster restoration in
the Chesapeake Bay. Scientists in Maryland have estimated that oysters
in just one Chesapeake tributary--the Choptank River--remove pollution
that would otherwise cost waste water treatment systems $300,000/year
to remove. The $5 million proposed for the fiscal year 2013 budget and
supported by the Conservancy will allow COE to conduct additional
habitat restoration in the Choptank River, as well as new restoration/
enhancement work in the Great Wicomico, Lynnhaven and Piankatank Rivers
in Virginia.
South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Program.--In recent years, the
Federal Government has made substantial progress on Everglades
projects, and we encourage continued funding for the three authorized
Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) projects. We also
support inclusion of language to allow COE to carry over credit between
studies and projects for which cost-share agreements have been executed
with the South Florida Water Management District; such language would
enable COE to more efficiently manage projects like the Kissimmee River
Restoration Project (KRRP), a high priority for the restoration of the
Everglades. The project is currently projected to be complete by 2015.
The Conservancy supports the $153,324,000 proposed for the South
Florida Ecosystem Restoration Program in fiscal year 2013.
Upper Mississippi River Environmental Management Program.--
Authorized in 1986, this program supports coordinated habitat
rehabilitation and enhancement projects in the Upper Mississippi River
system. Over the 25 years of the program, COE has completed more than
54 projects, benefiting more than 100,000 acres of aquatic and
floodplain habitat. Currently, 35 projects in the program are in
planning, design, or under construction. Completion of these projects
will benefit an additional 75,000 acres of aquatic and floodplain
habitat. The Conservancy supports the $17,880,000 proposed for
Environmental Management Program in fiscal year 2013.
Missouri River Fish and Wildlife Recovery Program.--Record upper
basin precipitation in 2011 brought historic flooding to the Missouri
River. The Recovery Program is expending funds to compile information
on the impacts of the floods to native species and various Recovery
projects while conducting a study on how Recovery Program actions could
reduce impacts from future floods. The Conservancy supports restoration
of funding for the Missouri River Ecosystem Restoration Plan (MRERP) as
part of the $90 million proposed for Missouri River Recovery Program
(MRRP) in fiscal year 2013.
Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal Dispersal Barrier.--Invasive
plants, invertebrates, and fish pose serious threats to the
biodiversity and fisheries of the Great Lakes and Mississippi River
basins, which are home to nearly 50 percent of our Nation's freshwater
fish species and support sport and commercial fisheries worth billions
of dollars. This project seeks to prevent the immediate invasion of the
Great Lakes by Asian carp by completing three electronic barriers in
the Construction phase. The Nature Conservancy supports the budget
request of $24.5 million.
general investigation priorities
Puget Sound Nearshore Marine Habitat Restoration.--This study, when
completed, will identify restoration and protection needs and
opportunities in the nearshore regions of Puget Sound. The Sound
supports the second largest U.S. port (combined Ports of Seattle and
Tacoma) for container traffic that has accounted for more than $70
billion in foreign trade; it is an economic priority to ensure that
Puget Sound maintains the ecological resiliency to sustain vital
services for both people and nature. The Conservancy supports the
proposed $850,000 in fiscal year 2013 to carry out this investigation.
Great Lakes and Mississippi River Interbasin Study.--The
Conservancy encourages the Congress to instruct COE to deliver
recommendations in a much shorter timeframe--2 years--to address the
urgent problem of invasive species in the Chicago Area Waterway System
(CAWS), and to focus their attention and resources on the CAWS alone,
as it is the most urgent and significant invasion threat, the only
continuous connection, and only pathway with a proven invasion history.
The Conservancy requests no less than $3 million for Great Lakes and
Mississippi River Interbasin Study.
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 the Illinois Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program and
Environmental Management Program of the Upper Mississippi, yet is
unique in its basin-wide approach to restoration. The Conservancy
supports the $400,000 funding proposed for this program in fiscal year
2013.
Lower Mississippi River Resource Assessment.--Flood control and
drainage systems have accelerated erosion and habitat loss along the
Lower Mississippi River and its tributaries. Working with the
Department of the Interior, COE will evaluate river management,
habitat, and public access to recommend actions for addressing current
and future needs. The Conservancy supports the $571,000 included for
this program in fiscal year 2013.
Willamette River Floodplain Restoration Study.--COE and the
Conservancy are working together to identify ecological flow
requirements downstream of Corps dams on the Willamette River and
incorporate those flows into dam operations to improve fish and
wildlife habitat and community flood protection. Additionally, this
study will assess the potential for floodplain restoration in the
Middle Fork and Coast Fork tributaries of the Willamette River to
reduce flood damage while restoring natural wetlands and promoting
ecosystem restoration. The Conservancy supports the $380,000 proposed
in fiscal year 2013 to continue this study.
Yellowstone River Corridor Comprehensive Study.--Funding these
ongoing economic, 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 uses of its
waters. The study will help determine the significance of the
cumulative effects of water use on aquatic species and riparian
hardwood forests, while guiding the establishment of beneficial
management practices. The Conservancy supports the proposed $200,000
for fiscal year 2013.
continuing authorities program
Section 1135, Project Modifications for Improvement of the
Environment and Section 206, Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration.--Adequate
funding for the Continuing Authorities Programs (CAPs) will ensure
support for a section 1135 project at Spunky Bottoms and a section 206
project at Emiquon East, both located in Illinois and both serving as
model floodplain restoration and reconnection projects. Demand for
these valuable programs continues to outstrip funding, which is why the
Conservancy urges the subcommittee to match the fiscal year 2012
funding level of $7,909,000 each for the 1135 and 206 CAPs in fiscal
year 2013.
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 by implementing a range of basin-
wide strategies, including improved management of Federal dams, river
and floodplain habitat improvement, stocking of endangered fish, and
management of non-native fish species. The Conservancy supports the
proposed $8,387,000 in fiscal year 2013 for the two programs and the
extension of their full base funding through 2019.
Platte River Recovery Implementation Program.--The program helps
restore the four endangered or threatened species in the basin--
whooping crane, interior least tern, piping plover, and pallid
sturgeon--while enabling existing water projects in the basin to
continue operations. Specifically, the program is working to increase
stream flows in the central Platte River at ecologically and
economically important times; enhance, restore and protect lands for
target bird species; and offset post-1997 depletions. The Conservancy
supports the proposed $8 million for this recovery effort in fiscal
year 2013.
Basin Studies and WaterSMART.--We support the request for the basin
study programs and WaterSMART grant programs. These programs support
sustainable water use and management by focusing on water conservation,
reuse and recycling, and on environmental protection and restoration.
We also support the proposed funding for the Bureau's environmental
restoration work, including the programs in the California Bay Delta
and Colorado River.
discretionary funds
We support the approach that the Congress took in the fiscal year
2012 budget to provide additional funds so that many important on-going
projects could continue toward completion. Our Connecticut River
Planning Study will be finalized in fiscal year 2013 and would benefit
from such flexibility.
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 study identifies dam management
modifications for environmental benefits while maintaining beneficial
human uses. After more than $1 million in investments by the Federal
Government, this study is entering its final year, ahead of schedule
and under budget. We respectfully request $300,000 to complete the
critical final phase of this study, enabling the use of study products
in a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission relicensing of five dams what
influence flow on a 175-mile reach of the river.
The Conservancy would like to thank the subcommittee for supporting
the restoration of large scale restoration programs over the last
decade. These programs have been essential to restoring and maintaining
some of America's most precious and imperiled ecosystems. We are also
appreciative of past support for smaller-scale projects that provide
cumulative benefits and serve as powerful demonstrations of effective
restoration.
______
Prepared Statement of The Red River Valley Association
Madam Chair and members of the subcommittee: I am Dan York, Red
River Valley Association (RRVA) President, and pleased to represent the
Red River Valley Association, 629 Spring Street, 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 87th Annual Meeting in Shreveport, Louisiana, on February
23, 2012, 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 2013 budget included $4.731 billion for
the Civil Works programs. This is $269 million less than what the
Congress appropriated in fiscal year 2012. The administration fails to
recognize Corps of Engineers' (COE) 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 $4.731 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 2013. 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 construction 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.
We want to point out that we appreciate the funding the Congress
enacted in the fiscal year 2012 Consolidated Appropriation Act and
fiscal year 2012 supplemental. We encourage the Congress to increase
the ``water'' share of the total Energy and Water Bill closer to the $6
billion Corps capability.
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 the Congress in a
Water Resources Development Act (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 operations and maintenance (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, Office of Management and
Budget or the Congress. We hope the Congress takes back their
responsibility to set civil works priorities and to determine how its
citizens' 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
IWTF. 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 more than 2.5 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.
We have a serious issue for the J. Bennett Johnston Waterway O&M in
the President's budget. The administration allocated $8,434,000 for
fiscal year 2013, $2,566,000 less than what is required for 24/7 lock
operations and dredging. 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 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.
The administration is introducing a new metric to determine lock
operations. The hours of operations for each lock would be determined
by the number of commercial lockages per year. Reducing the hours of
operations will discourage industry from using the Waterway; therefore,
further reducing the number of lockages sending the Waterway into a
lower-use status. Instead of finding ways to close down waterways the
administration should be promoting initiatives to increase waterborne
transportation. The Congress must stop these destructive actions.
Red River Navigation Into Southwest Arkansas Feasibility Study.--
This region of Southwest Arkansas and Northeast Texas continues to
suffer major unemployment and this navigation project, although not the
total solution 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. To date the local sponsor, Arkansas Red
River Commission, has invested more than $4 million to cost share in
this study. Since no funding has been appropriated for this study the
Commission will fully fund a private company to conduct a full
investigation to insure all benefits have been identified. This
feasibility study has been ongoing for more than 10 years and the
Commission is making every effort to bring it to a successful
conclusion. The administration and the Congress needs to make the
Federal contribution and the same commitment the local sponsor and
State of Arkansas has made.
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 line item, ``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. Out of 11 levee sections, 5 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.
Bank Stabilization.--One of the most important, continuing
programs, on the Red River is bank stabilization in Southwest Arkansas
and North Louisiana under the authorized project; Red River Emergency
Bank Protection. 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
levees, 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 COE to be the areas of highest priority.
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 Chloride Control 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.
The western areas of Texas and Oklahoma are water deprived and sorely
need the Chloride Control Project. The need for water quality and
quantity will increase over time and this project will address those
needs, as long as Federal funding is appropriated to keep the project
moving ahead.
Project Funding Requests.--Included in this testimony are tables
displaying the Civil Works projects in the Red River Valley and the
appropriation needs for fiscal year 2013.
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 2 previous fiscal years.
RED RIVER VALLEY ASSOCIATION OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE PROJECTS
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Red River
Valley President's
Project Fiscal year 2012 Association fiscal year
appropriations fiscal year 2013 budget
2013 request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DE Queen Lake, Arkansas..................................... 1,654 3,393 1,870
Dierks Lake, Arkansas....................................... 1,393 2,213 1,567
Gillham Lake, Arkansas...................................... 1,319 1,437 1,463
Millwood Lake, Arkansas..................................... 2,507 6,690 2,680
Bayou Bodcau Reservoir, Louisiana........................... 2,016 1,891 1,041
Bayou Pierre, Louisiana..................................... 23 36 24
Caddo Lake, Louisiana....................................... 215 522 216
Wallace Lake, Louisiana..................................... 234 997 232
J. Bennett Johnston Waterway, Louisiana..................... 11,165 25,633 8,434
Basic Annual Operation and Maintenance.................. 7,565 12,230 ...............
(w/Suppl 3,600)
Backlog Maintenance..................................... ................ 13,403 ...............
Old River, Louisiana (MR&T)................................. ................ 21,647 8,050
Broken Bow Lake, Oklahoma................................... 2,017 7,025 2,425
Hugo Lake, Oklahoma......................................... 1,519 1,716 1,716
Pine Creek Lake, Oklahoma................................... 1,229 1,053 1,053
Sardis Lake, Oklahoma....................................... 982 3,801 3,801
Waurika Lake, Oklahoma...................................... 1,507 1,616 1,616
Chloride Control, Area VIII, Texas.......................... 1,562 1,529 1,529
Denison Dam and Lake Texoma, Texas.......................... 6,803 13,837 7,137
Basic Annual Operation and Maintenance.................. ................ 6,393 ...............
Backlog Maintenance..................................... ................ 7,444 ...............
Estelline Springs, Texas.................................... 43 42 42
Lake Kemp, Texas--Total Need................................ 179 241 241
Basic Annual Operation and Maintenance.................. ................ 214 ...............
Reallocation Study...................................... ................ 27 ...............
Pat Mayse Lake, Texas....................................... 1,187 2,421 1,148
Jim Chapman Lake, Texas..................................... 1,555 4,553 1,736
Lake of the Pines, Texas.................................... 3,393 8,848 3,529
Wright Patman Dam and Lake, Texas........................... 3,771 12,888 3,513
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RED RIVER GENERAL INVESTIGATION AND CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PROJECTS
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Red River
Valley President's
Fiscal year 2012 Association fiscal year
appropriations fiscal year 2013 budget
2013 request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Studies (GI)
Navigation into Southwest Arkansas: Feasibility............. ................ 302 ...............
Red River Waterway, Louisiana--12' Channel, Recon........... ................ 100 ...............
Bossier Parish, Louisiana................................... ................ 270 ...............
Cross Lake, Louisiana Water Supply Supplement............... ................ ............... ...............
Southeast Oklahoma Water Resource Study: Feasibility........ ................ 500 ...............
Washita River Basin, Oklahoma............................... ................ 500 ...............
Southwest Arkansas Ecosystem Restoration: Recon Study....... ................ 47 ...............
Cypress Valley Watershed, Texas............................. ................ 175 ...............
Sulphur River Basin, Texas.................................. ................ 1,000 ...............
Wichita River Basin above Lake Kemp, Texas: Recon........... ................ 100 ...............
Red River Above Denison Dam, Texas and Oklahoma: Recon...... ................ 100 ...............
Red River Waterway, Index, Arkansas to Denison Dam.......... ................ 100 ...............
Mountain Fork River Watershed, Oklahoma and Arkansas, Recon ................ ............... ...............
Walnut Bayou, Little River, Arkansas....................... ................ 100 ...............
Little River County/Ogden Levee, Arkansas, Recon............ ................ 100 ...............
Red River Waterway, Index to Denison, Bendway............... ................ ............... ............... Construction General (CG)Red River Waterway: J.B. Johnston Waterway, Louisiana....... 1,000 22,000 2,000
Chloride Control Project, Texas and Oklahoma................ ................ 8,500 ...............
Texas--7,500/Oklahoma--800.............................. \1\ 7,200 \2\ 1,300 ...............
Red River Below Denison Dam; Arkansas and Louisiana......... 90 18,000 ...............
Bowie County Levee, Texas............................... ................ ............... ...............
Red River Emergency Bank Protection......................... ................ 20,000 ...............
McKinney Bayou, Arkansas, PED............................... ................ ............... ............... Continuing Authority Program (CAP)Big Cypress Valley Watershed, Texas: Section 1135........... ................ ............... ...............
Palo Duro Creek, Canyon, Texas: Section 205................. ................ 100 ...............
Millwood, Grassy Lake, Arkansas: Section 1135............... ................ 100 ...............
Miller County Levee, Arkansas: Section 1135................. ................ ............... ...............
Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Planning: Section 22........... ................ 500 ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Texas
\2\ Oklahoma
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Prepared Statement of the American Council for an Energy-Efficient
Economy
Dear Chairwoman Feinstein and Ranking Member Alexander: We write
today to encourage the subcommittee to continue funding for the
Department of Energy's (DOE) Combined Heat and Power (CHP) activities
within the Advanced Manufacturing Office of the Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy Office. CHP has been funded at the $25 million level
for several years, and we encourage that level of funding to continue
in fiscal year 2013 for development and deployment activities. This is
the only CHP funding in the entire Federal Government.
CHP--sometimes called cogeneration--is an integrated application of
technologies for the simultaneous, on-site production of electricity
and heat. It represents a cost-effective, near-term opportunity to
improve our Nation's energy, environmental, and economic future.
Currently, two-thirds of U.S. power generation fuel energy is simply
thrown away as waste heat. CHP can be deployed in all 50 States, is
fuel flexible, comes in many sizes, and for many applications;
therefore, some CHP technologies are ready-for-market transformation
activities while others are still in the development stages. In total,
according to an Oak Ridge National Laboratory Report, these
technologies can save 5.3 gigawatts of energy by the year 2030, the
equivalent of one-half of all residential energy use in the United
States today.
Secretary Chu described DOE as ``bullish on CHP'' in his February
16 testimony to the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. He
talked about his recent visit to the new CHP system at the Texas
Medical Center in Houston, which, like many medical centers,
universities, and cities is served by a district energy system. With
DOE's support, a highly efficient CHP system producing steam and
chilled water was recently installed at the medical center that saved
customers more than $9 million in the first year. In the fiscal year
2013 budget request, DOE has significantly changed both the focus and
the presentation of their budget. What was ``Industrial Technologies
Program'' has now become ``Advanced Manufacturing Office'' and the
structure provides maximum flexibility for funding. The budget
justifications, therefore, contain no mention of continued work on CHP.
We believe this is an oversight and urge continued funding for this
important program to address development, demonstration, and market
transformation activities in CHP. Given the efficiency, environmental
and grid reliability benefits of CHP and district energy, it is
important that DOE programs specifically address development,
deployment, and market barriers related to these systems.
Thank you for your attention to this request.
National Organizations
Alliance for Industrial Efficiency
American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy
American Gas Association
Energy Solutions Center
International District Energy Association
Mechanical Contractors Association of America (MCAA)
Sheet Metal and Air Conditioning Contractor's National Association
(SMACNA)
U.S. Clean Heat and Power Association
Alaska
University of Alaska, Fairbanks
Arizona
Affiliated Engineers, Inc.
NRG Energy Center Phoenix
NRG Energy Center Tucson
California
Affiliated Engineers, Inc.
Capstone Turbine Corporation
Chem-Aqua, Inc.
Goss Engineering, Inc.
Leva Energy
NRG Energy Center San Diego
NRG Energy Center San Francisco
Solar Turbines Incorporated
Syska Hennessy Group, Inc.
University of California, San Francisco
Vanderweil Engineers
Veolia Energy
Colorado
Colorado State University
Connecticut
COWI North America Energy
Fibrelite
The Hartford Steam Company
Delaware
ICETEC Energy Services
NRG Energy Center Dover
Florida
Affiliated Engineers, Inc.
Chem-Aqua, Inc.
ONICON Incorporated
Syska Hennessy Group, Inc.
TMEnergyLLC
Georgia
Chem-Aqua, Inc.
RMF Engineering, Inc.
Syska Hennessy Group, Inc.
Iowa
Statistics & Control, Inc.
Illinois
Affiliated Engineers, Inc.
Caterpillar
Eastern Illinois University
Energy Resources Center, University of Illinois at Chicago IL
Energy Solutions Center
Gas Technology Institute
Recycled Energy Development
Stoneham Consulting
Syska Hennessy Group, Inc.
Indiana
Applied Engineering Services
Chem-Aqua, Inc.
Citizens Energy Group
Massachusetts
Syska Hennessy Group, Inc.
UMass Medical School
Vanderweil Engineers
Veolia Energy
Maryland
Affiliated Engineers, Inc.
CPF Underground Utilities, Inc.
Evapco, Inc.
Piping & Corrosion Specialties, Inc.
RMF Engineering, Inc.
Veolia Energy
Michigan
Detroit Thermal
Veolia Energy
Minnesota
Cummins Power Generation
District Energy St. Paul
Ever-Green Energy
FVB Energy, Inc.
Kattner Associates LLC
NRG Energy Center Minneapolis
Uponor
Missouri
Burns & McDonnell Engineering Company, Inc.
Veolia Energy
North Carolina
Affiliated Engineers, Inc.
RMF Engineering, Inc.
SPX Flow Technology Systems
Syska Hennessy Group, Inc.
Nebraska
Energy Systems Company
New Hampshire
TVC Systems
Waldron Engineering & Construction, Inc.
New Jersey
Blue Sky Power
Chem-Aqua, Inc.
Concord Engineering
DCO Energy LLC
Energenic-US LLC
Integrated CHP Systems
Joseph Technology Corporation
Kessler Ellis Products
NRG Energy Center Princeton
Syska Hennessy Group, Inc.
Thermo Systems LLC
Veolia Energy
Nevada
Chem-Aqua, Inc.
Southwest Gas Corporation
Vanderweil Engineers
New York
Alstrom Energy Group
Cool Systems
GI Endurant LLC
Hudson Technologies
Tricon Piping Systems, Inc.
Vanderweil Engineers
Veolia Energy
Waldron Engineering of NY, P.C.
Ohio
Bahnfleth Group Advisors, LLC
The Medical Center Company
Youngstown Thermal
Oklahoma
Oklahoma Natural Gas Company
Veolia Energy
Oregon
Veolia Energy
Pennsylvania
Center for Building Performance & Diagnostics, Carnegie Mellon
University
Elliott Group
NRG Energy Center Harrisburg
NRG Energy Center Pittsburgh
Philadelphia Gas Works
The Pennsylvania State University
Vanderweil Engineers
Veolia Energy
South Carolina
RMF Engineering, Inc.
Texas
Affiliated Engineers, Inc.
Chem-Aqua, Inc.
Siemens Energy, Inc.
Syska Hennessy Group, Inc.
Thermal Energy Corporation
Utah
Aquatherm, Inc
Virginia
APPA: Leadership in Educational Facilities
Resource Dynamics Corporation
Syska Hennessy Group, Inc.
Vanderweil Engineers
Washington
Affiliated Engineers, Inc.
Cascade Power Group
Infinia Corporation
VA:W
Washington, DC
Environmental and Energy Study Institute
Syska Hennessy Group, Inc.
Wisconsin
Affiliated Engineers, Inc.
Syska Hennessy Group, Inc.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Geosciences Institute
To the Chairwoman and members of the subcommittee: Thank you for
this opportunity to provide the American Geosciences Institute's (AGI)
perspective on fiscal year 2013 appropriations for geoscience programs
within the subcommittee's jurisdiction. The President's budget request
for the Department of Energy (DOE) research programs provides important
and modest investments in research and development (R&D) that will help
sustain energy resources for economic growth of resilient communities.
AGI strongly supports the wise investments in the Office of Science ($5
billion) and Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy ($2.3 billion). AGI
requests at least $5 million in additional funding for the Science
Graduate Fellowship Program within the Office of Science's Workforce
Development for Teachers and Scientists ($14.5 million fiscal year 2013
request) which are zeroed out in the President's proposal.
AGI is concerned about the limited investments in oil and natural
gas R&D within the Office of Fossil Energy. Oil and natural gas supply
62 percent of our Nation's energy (2010 consumption from Energy
Information Administration) and will continue to play a major role in
the future. These investments will drive innovation to support and
improve safe and effective domestic development of cleaner fossil
fuels. The bulk of DOE's oil and gas R&D investments go to institutions
of higher education for training and research. The United States has a
substantial workforce and significant investments in oil and natural
gas research, development, exploration, and production. Steady, but
modest Federal investments in fossil energy R&D with a longer-term
strategic plan would benefit the academic, private, and public sectors.
The Office of Fossil Energy suffers from an unbalanced portfolio
that focuses primarily on coal, faces uncertainty about direction and
investments, and receives inconsistent funding. We ask for the
subcommittee's support for oil and gas, unconventional natural gas,
methane hydrates, and carbon sequestration R&D so the Nation can
develop a diverse portfolio of energy resources while enhancing carbon
mitigation strategies to secure clean, affordable, and secure energy
supplies for now and the future.
AGI is a nonprofit federation of 50 geoscientific and professional
societies representing more than 250,000 geologists, geophysicists, and
other Earth scientists. Founded in 1948, AGI provides information
services to geoscientists, serves as a voice for shared interests in
our profession, plays a major role in strengthening geoscience
education, and strives to increase public awareness of the vital role
the geosciences play in society's use of resources, resilience to
hazards, and the health of the environment.
department of energy's office of science
The DOE Office of Science is the single largest supporter of basic
research in the physical sciences in the United States, providing more
than 40 percent of total funding for this vital area of national
importance. The Office of Science manages fundamental research programs
in basic energy sciences, biological and environmental sciences, and
computational science and, under the budget request, would receive $5
billion in fiscal year 2013. AGI asks that you support this funding
level.
The President's request would provide $14.5 million for Workforce
Development for Teachers and Scientists, a program to ensure that DOE
and the Nation have a sustained pipeline of highly skilled and diverse
science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) workers. AGI
strongly supports investments in geoscience education, training and
workforce development within DOE and other Federal agencies. We are
concerned that the request is $5 million less than fiscal year 2012
enacted and that DOE proposes no funding for the Science Graduate
Fellowship program. We would encourage support for graduate student
fellowships through DOE to allow students to complete advanced training
and to ensure a skilled workforce in energy-related sciences.
department of energy's energy efficiency and renewable energy
Within Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, the President's
fiscal year 2013 budget request would increase investments for R&D for
many renewable energy resources. AGI applauds the $65 million requested
for geothermal R&D and greatly appreciates previous support from the
Congress for this key alternative energy resource. The geothermal
research program within the Renewable Energy account, which funds
Earth-science research in materials, geofluids, geochemistry,
geophysics, rock properties, reservoir modeling, and seismic mapping,
will provide the Nation with the best research to build a successful
and competitive geothermal industry. AGI supports the Energy Innovation
Hub focused on critical materials and hope this hub will consider ways
to improve exploration, extraction and processing of necessary raw
materials as well as replacement materials.
department of energy's fossil energy research and development
AGI urges the subcommittee to provide more balanced support for the
Fossil Energy R&D portfolio in the fiscal year 2013 Energy and Water
Development appropriations bill. Many Members of Congress have strongly
emphasized the need for a responsible, diversified, and comprehensive
energy policy for the Nation. The growing global competition for fossil
fuels has led to a repeated and concerted request by the Congress to
ensure the Nation's energy security. The President's proposal, which
provides no funding for oil R&D or for unconventional fossil energy, is
short sighted and inconsistent with congressional and public concerns.
No funding for oil and unconventional fossil energy R&D will hinder our
ability to achieve energy stability and security.
The research dollars invested in petroleum R&D go primarily to
universities, State geological surveys, and research consortia to
address critical issues like enhanced recovery from known fields and
unconventional sources that are the future of our natural gas supply.
This money does not go into corporate coffers, but it helps American
businesses remain competitive by giving them a technological edge over
foreign companies. All major advances in oil and gas production can be
tied to research and technology. AGI strongly encourages the
subcommittee to ensure a balanced and diversified energy research
portfolio that does not ignore the Nation's primary sources of energy
for the near future, fossil fuels.
Thank you for the opportunity to present this testimony to the
subcommittee.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Public Power Association
The American Public Power Association (APPA) respectfully requests
funding for the Renewable Energy Production Incentive, Power Marketing
Administrations, storage for high-level nuclear waste, the Nuclear Loan
Guarantee Program, the Department of Energy Water Power Program, energy
conservation, weatherization, clean coal, fuel cells, fuel and powering
systems, the Navajo Electrification and Demonstration Program, and the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
APPA is the national service organization representing the
interests of more than 2,000 municipal and other State and locally
owned electric utilities in 49 States (all but Hawaii). Collectively,
public power utilities deliver electricity to 1 of every 7 electric
consumers (approximately 46 million people), serving some of the
Nation's largest cities. However, the vast majority of APPA's members
serve communities with populations of 10,000 people or less.
We understand that the Congress is operating in a tight fiscal
environment. APPA's priority is to support programmatic requests that
bring down costs, conserve resources, or benefit our public power
customers in other ways. We appreciate the opportunity to submit this
statement outlining our fiscal year 2013 funding priorities within the
jurisdiction of the Energy and Water Development, and Related Agencies
subcommittee.
Renewable Energy Production Incentive.--APPA is disappointed that
the administration and the Congress have decided to stop funding the
Renewable Energy Production Incentive (REPI). REPI was the first
attempt by the Congress to provide comparable renewable incentives to
the nonprofit electric utility industry, and we continue to seek
comparability to this day. The elimination of funding for the REPI
program was a step backward in this process. Defunding not only
decreases incentives for new production, but utilities who had been
receiving the funding are stranded mid-program. Five million dollars
would restore funding to the program for fiscal year 2013, but any
funding would help restore payments to those already approved for the
incentive.
power marketing administrations
Power Marketing Administration Proposals.--The President's National
Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform proposed a measure for
all four Power Marketing Administrations (PMAs) that would have had the
effect of raising the rates for PMA customers. We appreciate that the
fiscal year 2013 request did not include this type of proposal.
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 2013, which are as follows:
--$243 million for Western Area Power Administration (WAPA);
--$88 million for Southeastern Power Administration (SEPA); and
--$41 million for Southwestern Power Administration (SWPA).
Construction.--We urge the subcommittee to authorize appropriate
levels of funding for the construction budgets of WAPA, SEPA, and SWPA.
These budgets have continued to decrease over the years; however, this
funding remains critical to the operation and maintenance of the PMAs.
Storage for High-Level Nuclear Waste.--APPA is disappointed that
the administration has provided little funding for nuclear waste
disposal or storage in the budget request. We support the work and the
findings of the Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future and
hope that the administration and the Congress start working to
implement the recommendations.
Nuclear Loan Guarantees.--APPA is disappointed with the
administration's cancellation of the Nuclear Loan Guarantee program and
requests that the Committee restore funding to this important program.
Department of Energy Waterpower Program.--APPA was extremely
disappointed that funding for water power was decreased to $20 million
(from $59 million in fiscal year 2012) while most other renewable
resources were increased in the administration's fiscal year 2013
request. APPA believes there should be parity among renewable resource
funding. APPA requests $100 million for fiscal year 2013 for the DOE's
Water Power Program. At a time when utilities around our country must
focus on finding carbon-free sources of energy because of pending State
and Environmental Protection Agency regulations, 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 2013 are as follows:
--Building technologies: $310 million;
--Advanced manufacturing: $290 million;
--Federal Energy Management Program: $32 million; and
--Vehicle technologies: $420 million.
We urge the subcommittee to maintain these funding levels. While
these requests are all lower than the President's fiscal year 2012
requests, they still represent increases over current funding levels.
Weatherization and Intergovernmental Activities.--We are pleased
that the administration has requested $139 million for the
Weatherization program in fiscal year 2013, a significant increase from
fiscal year 2012, and we encourage the subcommittee to maintain that
level of funding.
Clean Coal Power Initiative and FutureGen.--APPA is disappointed
that the budget did not include funding for large scale commercial
applications of carbon capture and sequestration technology. We
encourage the subcommittee to include funding for Clean Coal Power
Initiative (CCPI) and FutureGen. APPA strongly believes that, as the
need for clean energy increases, the FutureGen project, or something
similar, 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 and CCPI.
Fuel Cells.--APPA was disappointed that the administration
requested zero funding for fuel cell related research and development.
We urge the subcommittee to allocate additional funding for this
program for fiscal year 2013.
Fuels and Power Systems.--We recommend these funding levels for the
following programs:
--Innovations for existing plants: $84 million;
--Advanced integrated gasification combined cycle: $80 million;
--Turbines: $45 million;
--Carbon sequestration: $150 million;
--Fuels: $25 million; and
--Advanced research: $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 2013
budget requests $305 million for FERC, the same level as current
funding. APPA supports this funding level.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Society for Microbiology
The American Society for Microbiology (ASM) is pleased to submit
the following statement on the fiscal year 2013 appropriation for
science programs at the Department of Energy (DOE). ASM is the largest
single life science organization in the world with more than 38,000
members.
The administration's fiscal year 2013 budget request of $5 billion
for DOE's Office of Science (SC) is a minimal 2.4-percent increase more
than the fiscal year 2012 enacted level. We urge the Congress to
approve increased resources for the research and development (R&D)
managed by the SC, one of three Federal agencies identified as crucial
to the future of our Nation's global competitiveness in science and
technology. The SC sponsors research by multidisciplinary teams from
various government institutions, academia, and the private sector. It
leads the Nation in energy and environmental research and is the
largest Federal sponsor of basic research in the physical sciences. DOE
SC contributes to sectors of the U.S. economy, such as biotechnology,
alternative energy, and environmental sciences. DOE-funded researchers
and programs discover innovative technologies, methods, and commercial
products that serve national priorities like climate change,
environment cleanup, and renewable energy.
DOE research initiatives are producing results not possible in
other research settings. Two examples are the 46 Energy Frontier
Research Centers established by the SC in 2009 at universities,
national laboratories, and other U.S. institutions to advance basic
energy related research and the three Bioenergy Research Centers
created in 2007 to focus on next-generation biofuels. DOE facilities
also provide non-DOE researchers with invaluable tools that might
otherwise be inaccessible like the advanced xray beam sources currently
being used by industry to study the enzyme RNA polymerase II, a project
based on Nobel prize winning DOE research with potential for stopping
RNA viruses causing polio, hepatitis, and other infectious diseases.
SC oversees high-impact projects divided among R&D programs focused
on advancing physics, computing, biology, chemistry, environmental
sciences and other disciplines. It manages 10 DOE national laboratories
and promotes education programs to encourage future scientists and
engineers. Extramural SC funding supports about 25,000 researchers at
nearly 300 U.S. universities and colleges. In fiscal year 2013, an
estimated 26,500 researchers from industry, national laboratories,
universities, and other nations are expected to use SC lab facilities,
accessing one-of-a-kind instruments for their own research.
In addition, DOE technology transfer efforts yield exemplary
successes of commercial products arising from federally funded
inventions. DOE announced in February that eight of its national
laboratories will participate in a pilot program expediting the
transfer of DOE intellectual property rights to private companies. The
newly designed Agreements for Commercializing Technology will make it
easier for companies to partner with the laboratories and are expected
to help U.S. businesses create new products and jobs in the science and
technology sector.
department of energy funding stimulates novel approaches to biology
based research
The Biological and Environmental Research (BER) program within the
SC is a source of groundbreaking research in genomics, climate change,
greenhouse gas emissions, biofuels, contaminants in the environment and
the interfaces between physical and biological sciences. Under the
current DOE Strategic Plan, BER is tasked with delivering new renewable
energy technologies, utilizing basic biological research to create
efficient biofuels processes. BER also is expected to add significantly
to our understanding of the role of microbes in geochemical cycling of
carbon, nitrogen, sulfur and metals, processes that are critical to
understanding climate and environmental processes.
The BER program receives about $625 million in the fiscal year 2013
request, a small 2.6-percent increase over fiscal year 2012. We urge
the Congress to approve the administration's DOE budget that includes
the resources for essential BER research. The budget increase is marked
for developing synthetic biology tools and technologies, analyzing
experimental data sets, and conducting climate studies in the Arctic.
In fiscal year 2013, 65 percent of the BER budget will support research
projects, while the remaining 35 percent will fund scientific user
facilities that include the Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM)
Climate Research Facility, the William R. Wiley Environmental Molecular
Sciences Laboratory (EMSL), and the Joint Genome Institute (JGI).
The fiscal year 2013 budget would support the diverse R&D
portfolios of BER's two divisions: the Biological Systems Science
Division and the Climate and Environmental Sciences Division, allocated
about $310 million and $316 million, respectively. In fiscal year 2013,
resources will be increased for research on climate change in arctic
and tropical regions, as well as for a shift in emphasis from global
climate modeling to smaller, regional models. The funding on systems
sciences will increase investments in the development of synthetic
biology tools, computational analyses of genomic datasets and biodesign
technologies.
BER contributions include the Human Genome Project initiated in the
1980s and some of the Nation's earliest climate change models. BER has
significantly shaped our understanding of technical fields like
genomics and natural phenomena like microbial communities and their
interactions with the environment. BER-funded projects also have
elucidated the biogeochemical processes at work under the Earth's
surface that are critical to advances in both energy and environmental
research.
department of energy funding advances research in genome sciences,
biofuels, and biotechnology
The BER programs biological systems sciences have a diverse R&D
portfolio, focused on applying advances in systems biology research in
support of DOE strategies in energy, climate, and the environment. BER
supports the DOE Bioenergy Research Centers, which clearly are
succeeding as innovation incubators for genetics based R&D and
alternative energy development. The overarching goal of these research
programs is a complete scientific portrait from the molecular to the
community level of plants and microbes with potential to solve societal
challenges like clean energy and pollutant decontamination. Another
optimal outcome would be sufficiently detailed knowledge to develop
predictive, computational models of these living systems necessary to
enable synthetic biology approaches for biofuels production and
understand roles of microbes in environmental and climate processes.
Funding for BER research effectively combines interdisciplinary
science with powerful new tools like bioinformatics and imaging
technologies developed through past DOE appropriations. Microorganisms
are frequently integral components in BER-funded projects that have
implications for preserving healthy environments. One example is the
DOE Joint Genome Institute project that recently identified previously
unknown methane producing microbes in permafrost soils, which could
become a major problem through their release of greenhouse gases as
climate change thaws the Earth's arctic regions. Arctic permafrost,
where these microbes are abundant, sequesters an estimated 1.6 trillion
metric tons of carbon. BER-supported systems biology knowledgebase,
which is community driven cyberinfrastructure for sharing and
integrating data and analytical tools to accelerate predictive biology.
Ongoing DOE research is aggressively seeking new biomass sources
for biofuel production, to reduce demand on corn and other food plants
considered too valuable for non-food purposes.
In 2011, microbiology related results reported by DOE investigators
included the following examples supported by BER genome science
programs:
--BER-funded researchers sequenced many fungal genomes, which contain
enzymes that break down cellulose and lignin, the two most
abundant biopolymers on Earth, in order to harness these
capabilities for industrial applications such as biofuels
production. Another application is biopulping for the paper
industry, which requires that the lignin be degraded while
leaving the cellulose untouched. Forest products such as pulp
and paper account for 5 percent of the Nation's gross domestic
product.
--BER supported researchers have developed technologies that could be
used to rewrite the genetic code of a living cell. Such
technology could enable scientists to design cells that build
proteins not found in nature, or engineer bacteria that are
useful for bioenergy and environmental cleanups.
--Researchers completed an advanced metabolic model of the alga
Chlamydomonas reinhardtii that should expedite development of
algae as a viable source of renewable bioenergy.
--Genetically engineered E. coli have been manipulated to improve the
bacteria's synthesis of terpene, a precursor of several
biofuels, by 120 percent. Other scientists have modified E.
coli and yeasts to produce the terpene called bisabolane as a
promising biofuel precursor, one found to be relatively
nontoxic to the microbes; unlike other biofuels like ethanol
that can limit commercially viable biofuel production.
Alternatively, scientists also have inserted a novel fatty acid
synthesis enzyme into E. coli, a first step in biodiesel
production from fatty acids.
--BER-funded researchers, using integrated genomics technologies,
discovered that microorganisms play crucial roles in regulating
soil carbon dynamics through several microbially mediated
feedback mechanisms. This demonstrated the importance of
microbial communities in projecting future climate warming.
Such studies are fundamental to understanding ecosystem
responses to climate change and provides a mechanistic basis
for carbon climate modeling.
department of energy funding supports innovative studies of the
environment
BER also sponsors research that ranges widely from molecular to
field scale studies of various threats to our environment. BER manages
two scientific user facilities (ARM and EMSL) and supports three
strategic research areas in environmental sciences: atmospheric
systems, climate and earth system modeling, and environmental system
science. BER-funded researchers investigate environmental challenges
like increased levels of greenhouse gases and heavy metal soil
contaminants.
Several currently active CESD projects illustrate the division's
unique expertise using microbial systems to protect and improve our
environment:
--BER-funded researchers found that the films from some bacteria and
pilin nanofilaments from bacteria have electronic
conductivities, which are comparable to those of synthetic
metallic nanostructures. They can also conduct over distances
on the centimetre scale. The property of allowing electron
transport across long distances could revolutionize
nanotechnology and bioelectronics.
--Using EMSL equipment, a DOE university team was the first to
describe the molecular structure of proteins in Shewanella
oneidensis that allow the bacterium to transfer an electrical
charge. The proteins exist within small ``nanowires''
constructed by the bacteria that extend through their cell
walls and trap minerals. The discovery is a step toward
potentially using microbes as a source of electricity, perhaps
as microbial fuel cells. The results also have possible
relevance to microbial cleanup of environmental contaminants.
--BER supported researchers found that the dual role of dissolved
organic matter in mercury reduction and complexation in anoxic
environments where both bacterial methylation and DOM reduction
occur. Such studies, provide mechanistic insights into the
factors controlling mercury species transformation, geochemical
cycling and especially toxic methylmercury production, which
are critical to mercury remediation in groundwater.
conclusion
ASM recommends that the Congress approve the proposed fiscal year
2013 budget, in support of the DOE's SC. DOE science programs routinely
generate discoveries of economic and societal impact that serve the DOE
mission, often by collaborating with non-DOE partners or sponsoring
multidisciplinary research teams. SC also maintains unique lab
facilities and institutes with robust capabilities to solve difficult,
large scale problems. We ask the Congress to recognize these invaluable
contributors to the economy, environment and public health by
supporting increased funding for the fiscal year 2013 DOE budget.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science
Society of America, and the Soil Science Society of America
Dear Chairwoman Feinstein, Ranking Member Alexander, and members of
the subcommittee: The American Society of Agronomy (ASA), Crop Science
Society of America (CSSA), and the Soil Science Society of America
(SSSA), are pleased to submit comments in strong support of enhanced
public investment in the Department of Energy's (DOE) Office of Science
for fiscal year 2013. Specifically, ASA, CSSA, and SSSA urge the
subcommittee to support DOE's Office of Science at a level of $5
billion for fiscal year 2013, as requested in the President's proposed
budget (a 2.6-percent increase over the fiscal year 2012 level). A
strong level of funding will enable the Office of Science to continue
to deliver the scientific discoveries and major scientific tools that
transform our understanding of nature and advance the energy, economic,
and national security of the United States.
ASA, CSSA, and SSSA represent more than 18,000 members in academia,
industry, and government, as well as 13,000 Certified Crop Advisers.
The largest coalition of professionals dedicated to the agronomic,
crop, and soil science disciplines in the United States, ASA, CSSA, and
SSSA are dedicated to utilizing science in order to meet our growing
food, feed, fiber, and fuel needs. With an ever-expanding global
population and increasing food demands, investment in food and
agriculture research is essential to maintaining our Nation's food,
economic and national security.
department of energy's office of science
ASA, CSSA, and SSSA understand the challenges the Senate Energy and
Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee faces with the tight
budget for fiscal year 2013. We also recognize that the Energy and
Water Development Appropriations bill has many valuable and necessary
components, and we applaud the subcommittee for the support provided to
the DOE Office of Science. For fiscal year 2013, ASA, CSSA, and SSSA
recommend a funding level of $5 billion.
The Congress approved the America Creating Opportunities to
Meaningfully Promote Excellence in Technology, Education, and Science
(America COMPETES) Reauthorization Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-358),
recognizing that an investment in basic (discovery) scientific research
is essential to providing America with the brainpower necessary to
maintain a competitive advantage in the global economy and keep U.S.
jobs from moving overseas. Such an investment is necessary 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 the Office of Science's research funding goes to
more than 300 colleges and universities nationwide. The Office of
Science also reaches out to America's youth in grades K-12 to help
improve student's knowledge of science, mathematics, and understanding
of global energy and environmental challenges. The recommended funding
level of $5 billion is critical to ensuring our energy self-sufficiency
and addressing major environmental challenges. In addition, a funding
level of $5 billion will allow the Office of Science to:
--maintain and strengthen DOE's core research programs at both the
DOE national laboratories and universities;
--provide support for Ph.D.'s, postdoctoral associates, and graduate
students;
--ensure maximum utilization of DOE research facilities; and
--allow the Office of Science to develop and construct the next-
generation facilities necessary to maintain U.S. leadership in
scientific research.
basic energy sciences
Within the DOE 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. The research
disciplines that the BES program supports include condensed matter and
materials physics, chemistry, soil, mineralogical, and geosciences.
These subjects influence virtually every aspect of energy production,
conversion, transmission, storage, efficiency, and waste mitigation.
ASA, CSSA, and ASSA support funding the subprogram of Chemical
Sciences, Geosciences, and Biosciences within the BES at a level of
$349.4 million in fiscal year 2013. The Geosciences Research program
supports research focused on developing an understanding of fundamental
Earth processes that are a foundation for improved advanced energy and
environmental technologies. Specifically, we support the Geosciences
program to expand geochemical research and computational analysis of
complex subsurface fluids and solids.
biological and environmental research
Also within the DOE Office of Science, the Biological and
Environmental Research (BER) program has advanced environmental and
biological knowledge that supports national security through improved
energy production, international scientific leadership, and research
that improves the quality-of-life for all Americans. BER supports these
vital missions through competitive and peer-reviewed research at
national laboratories, universities, and private institutions. ASA,
CSSA, and SSSA support the funding of BER at the President's requested
level of $625.3 million for fiscal year 2013. A variety of programs
within BER are essential to continued biological systems science
fundamental research, geochemical observations, and determining
environmental sustainability of our energy production systems. A few of
these programs are further highlighted below:
--ASA, CSSA, and SSSA support funding the Office of Climate and
Environmental Sciences within BER at a level of $315.6 million.
This funding will support essential subsurface biogeochemical
research and basic research on the fate and transport of
contaminants in the subsurface.
--ASA, CSSA, and SSSA support the increase included in the
President's budget for the Genomic Science Program at a level
of $188.1 million for fiscal year 2013. The Joint Genome
Institute (JGI) is an essential lab where synthetic molecular
toolkits are developed to predict, construct, and test new
biological systems for clean-energy solutions. It also uses
plant and microbial systems biology to pursue breakthroughs
needed to develop cellulosic biofuels.
Thank you for your consideration of our requests.
______
Prepared Statement of 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 $4.992 billion for the Department of Energy (DOE) Office of
Science for fiscal year 2013. The testimony highlights the importance
of biology--particularly plant biology--as the Nation seeks to address
energy security and other vital issues.
ASPB recognizes the difficult fiscal environment our Nation faces
but believes investments in scientific research will be a critical step
toward economic recovery. We would also like to thank the subcommittee
for its consideration of this testimony and for its support for the
basic research mission of the DOE Office of Science.
ASPB is an organization of approximately 5,000 professional plant
biology researchers, educators, graduate students, and postdoctoral
scientists with members in all 50 States and throughout the world. A
strong voice for the global plant science community, our mission--
achieved through work in the realms of research, education, and public
policy--is to promote the growth and development of plant biology, to
encourage and communicate research in plant biology, and to promote the
interests and growth of plant scientists in general.
fuel, food, environment, 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 the primary producers on which
all life depends. Indeed, plant biology research is making many
fundamental contributions in the areas of domestic fuel security and
environmental stewardship; the continued and sustainable development of
better foods, fabrics, pharmaceuticals, and building materials; and in
the understanding of basic biological principles that underpin
improvements in the health and nutrition of all Americans.
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 fundamental
and applied 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 has become essential to our understanding of complex
biological systems, ranging from single cells to entire ecosystems.
Despite the fact that foundational plant biology research--the kind
of research funded by agencies such as the DOE--underpins vital
advances in practical applications in energy, agriculture, health, and
the environment, the amount of money invested in understanding the
basic function and mechanisms of plants is relatively small. This is
especially true considering the significant positive impact crop plants
have on the Nation's economy and in addressing some of our most urgent
challenges like energy and food security.
Understanding the importance of these areas and to address future
challenges, ASPB organized the Plant Science Research Summit in
September 2011. With support and funding from the National Science
Foundation, U.S. Department of Agriculture, DOE, and the Howard Hughes
Medical Institute, the Summit brought together representatives from
across the full spectrum of plant science research to identify critical
gaps in our understanding of plant biology that must be filled over the
next 10 years or more to address the grand challenges facing our Nation
and our planet. The grand challenges identified at the Summit include:
--To fuel the Nation's future with clean energy, improvements are
needed in current biofuels technologies, including breeding,
crop-production methods, and processing.
--To feed everyone well, now and in the future, advances in plant
science research will be needed for higher yielding, more
nutritious varieties able to withstand a variable climate.
--Innovations leading to improvements in water use, nutrient use, and
disease and pest resistance that will reduce the burden on the
environment are needed to allow for increases in ecosystem
services such as clean air, clean water, fertile soil, and
biodiversity benefits like pest suppression and pollination.
--For all the benefits that advances in plant science bestow--in food
and fiber production, ecosystem and landscape health, and
energy subsistence--to have lasting, permanent benefit they
must be economically, socially, and environmentally
sustainable.
In spring 2012, a report from the Plant Science Research Summit
will be published. This report will further detail priorities and needs
to address the grand challenges.
recommendations
Because of our membership's extensive expertise and participation
in the academic, industry, and government sectors, 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 DOE's Office
of Science.
Within the Office of Science, the programs in Biological and
Environmental Research (BER) and Basic Energy Sciences (BES) are
crucial to understanding how basic biological processes work. For this
reason ASPB is supportive of the fiscal year 2013 request to fund BER
at $625.3 million and BES at $1.8 billion. Sustained funding for these
programs is vital as the discoveries made in these areas will
ultimately be the foundation for the next fuels and technologies we use
in our daily lives.
In addition:
--We commend the DOE Office of Science, through their programs in BES
and BER for funding the Bioenergy Research Centers and the
Energy Frontier Research Centers. These centers provide a model
for collective science innovation that complements DOE's
essential investment in individual investigator and small group
science. ASPB strongly encourages funding for the DOE Office of
Science that would be specifically targeted to the funding of
individual or small group grants for 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 funding for fundamental
studies of photosynthesis, which is the primary source of
chemical energy on the planet. 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 the Office of
Science to expand its research portfolio in the area of
photosynthesis and carbon capture.
--Considerable research interest is now focused on the processing of
plant biomass for energy production. If biomass crops,
including woody plants, are to be used to their full potential,
extensive effort must be expended to improve our understanding
of their basic biology and development, as well as their
agronomic performance. Therefore, ASPB calls for DOE to support
research targeted at efforts to increase the utility and
agronomic performance of bioenergy feedstocks.
Thank you for your consideration of our testimony on behalf of the
American Society of Plant Biologists.
______
Prepared Statement of ASME
Madam Chairwoman, ranking member, and members of the subcommittee:
The Energy Committee (EnComm) of ASME's Technical Communities is
pleased to provide this testimony on the fiscal year 2013 budget
request for research and development (R&D) programs in the Department
of Energy (DOE).
introduction
ASME is a more than 120,000-member 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, many of which
have become de facto global technical standards. The Energy Committee
of ASME's Technical Communities comprises 64 members from 10 ASME
Divisions, 2 Institutes and Codes & Standards, representing
approximately 40,000 of ASME's members.
ASME has long advocated a balanced portfolio 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.
fossil energy
The fiscal year 2013 budget request of $650.7 million for fossil
energy represents a $86.3 million, or 15.3 percent, increase compared
to the fiscal year 2012 appropriation. Fossil Energy (FE) research and
development (R&D) would rise by 21.3 percent, or $73.8 million to
$420.6 million. After 3 years of substantial budget cuts for FE, the
EnComm is pleased to see that the administration is seeking to finally
build upon the $3.4 billion that was devoted to FE R&D as part of the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA).
After proposing the elimination of funding for Natural Gas
Technologies in last year's budget request, this year the
administration has requested a $2 million, or 13.4 percent increase for
the program that would bring it to $17 million in fiscal year 2013.
Unconventional Fossil Energy Technologies would again be targeted for
elimination by the administration in fiscal year 2013, after receiving
less than $5 million in funding for fiscal year 2012, and no funding in
fiscal year 2011. The United States has access to significant
unconventional gas resources with the potential to provide abundant,
affordable, clean low-carbon energy source for years to come. Prior FE
R&D has contributed to making this possible. However, this potential
will not be realized unless this resource can be produced reliably,
economically, safely, and with minimal environmental impact.
Accomplishing this task and keeping the United States in the forefront
of unconventional fossil energy technology will require an investment
in basic research, technology development, and investments in advances
in low-impact environmental technologies that will not be undertaken by
industry in the current economic climate. The budget for these efforts
should be maintained at least at the fiscal year 2010 level.
The EnComm encourages a restoration of funding for coal research
programs to at least the levels appropriated for fiscal year 2010. The
EnComm is very disturbed by the lack of research in basic coal
combustion and in research that is needed to support the next
generation of coal-fired plants. The use of coal today and in the
future is vital to providing for a sustainable energy future. The
current funding levels significantly hinder the ability to keep the
United States in the forefront of coal technology. Coal is and will
remain a critical resource for our Nation and its economy; and we must
continue to invest in technological advancements that will reduce
environmental impacts 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
The EnComm supports the $325 million budget request for the
Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E), a $50 million or
27.5 percent increase over the fiscal year 2012 appropriated amount.
ARPA-E received its first funding as part of ARRA, but has stood out
quickly among its fellow DOE programs. ARPA-E represents a significant
opportunity for the United States to cultivate technological
breakthroughs related to energy sources, and uses. A steady commitment
to ARPA-E has begun to encourage new energy technology innovation, and
the EnComm believes that this is a worthwhile endeavor for the DOE as
we seek to accomplish technological breakthroughs in energy technology
research.
nuclear energy
The EnComm is discouraged to see a 10.3 percent, or $88.2 million
reduction in the fiscal year 2013 DOE Office of Nuclear Energy budget
request. Total funding for fiscal year 2013 would fall to $770 million.
The EnComm remains convinced that nuclear energy will hold an important
role in the Nation's energy future, and that programs like Reactor
Concepts, and Fuel Cycle R&D need sustained funding to aid the Nation's
transition to a low-carbon energy future. The current proposed lack of
funding may adversely impact the ability of the current U.S. fleet to
continue to operate past its 60-year life. The loss of funding may also
contribute to the loss of the U.S. nuclear technology competitive edge
to overseas concerns. The Energy Committee remains interested in how
the proposed Reactor Concepts RD&D program distinguishes itself from
the traditional R&D program under the Office of Nuclear Energy. The
administration's invocation of an ``all-of-the-above'' energy strategy
at this year's State of the Union Address should be reflected in this
budget request. President Obama has again proposed the creation of a
national ``clean energy standard'' of 80 percent by 2035 the EnComm
believes very strongly that sustained increases in nuclear power
research are justified in light of this goal.
energy efficiency and renewable energy
The Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) manages
America's investments in research, development, and deployment of DOE's
diverse energy efficiency and renewable energy applied science
portfolio. The fiscal year 2013 request of $2.37 billion, which is a
$527 million, or 29.1 percent increase over the fiscal year 2012
appropriated amount of $1.81 billion, demonstrates that the
administration would like to restore EERE to pre-Budget Act levels
(Public Law 112-25). Most of the key EERE programs, including Biomass,
Solar, Wind, Geothermal, Building Technologies, Vehicle Technologies,
and Advanced Manufacturing technologies, would receive substantial
increases in funding to support the growth of renewable energy and
energy efficiency. The EnComm is particularly pleased to see large
increases for both the Advanced Manufacturing program ($290 million, or
a 150.9 percent increase), formerly known as the Industrial
Technologies Program (ITP), as well as the Building Technologies
Program ($310 million, or a 41.4 percent increase).
The EnComm 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 2013 budget for biomass and
bio-refinery systems R&D is slated to receive a $70.7 million increase
to $270 million for fiscal year 2013, 35.5 percent above the fiscal
year 2012 appropriated amount. We are also pleased to see the $91
million, or 27.7 percent increase in the effort related to vehicle
technologies emphasizing plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. However, the
EnComm is concerned about the current level of mandated use of ethanol-
based fuels.
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
EnComm 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
The mission of the Office of Science (SC) is the delivery of
scientific discoveries and major scientific user facilities and tools
to transform our understanding of nature and to advance the energy,
economic, and national security of the United States.
During these difficult budget times, the EnComm is pleased with the
request for the Office of Science. The fiscal year 2013 budget proposal
of $5 billion is an increase of $118 million, or 2.4 percent, from the
fiscal year 2012 appropriation. As successive budget cycles come and
go, the Nation seems to be getting further away from the funding
trajectory mandated in the ``America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of
2007'' (Public Law 111-358). Science 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.
Fusion Energy Sciences, High Energy Physics, and Nuclear Physics would
receive decreases under this budget, with specific cuts to domestic
fusion in favor of honoring the Nation's commitments to International
Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER). The EnComm respects the
Office of Science's goals related to microbiological sciences, computer
science, and basic energy sciences but urges a restoration of funding
for these reduced programs at fiscal year 2011 levels. The Energy
Committee supports the budget request for the Office of Science in the
amount of $5 billion.
other department of energy 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 EnComm questions
the advisability of flat funding for the Environmental Management
program. The Yucca Mountain (YM) Waste Repository is a critical part of
the future of nuclear energy and the use of uranium as a resource for
energy usage in the present and foreseeable future. The EnComm is
concerned that the cancellation of the YM repository program will
result in a difficult, and more costly, search for a new repository
that will likely encounter similar obstacles. DOE and the Congress
should honor their commitments with regard to disposal of Spent Nuclear
Fuel. The EnComm has read the Blue Ribbon Commission (BRC) on America's
Nuclear Future report and will be closely monitoring any efforts in the
Congress toward implementing the BRC's recommendations. 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. The Congress should
appropriate the funds to ensure that this work is accomplished in an
expeditious manner.
conclusion
Members of the EnComm consider the issues related to energy to be
one of the most important issues facing our Nation. There is an urgent
need for a strong and coherent energy policy. The EnComm is concerned
that without a National Energy Policy the proposed and ongoing research
will not be utilized to its full potential. We applaud the
administration and the 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 EnComm is
pleased to respond to requests for additional information or
perspectives on other aspects of our Nation's energy programs.
______
Prepared Statement of APS Technology, Inc.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 9 Laser Lane, Wallingford, Connecticut 06492. http://aps-
tech.com/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Madam Chairwoman and honorable Senators: Seven years ago, I
submitted testimony \2\ regarding proposed cuts to the Department of
Energy (DOE) budget for oil and gas exploration research. Much has
happened since 2005, all of which reinforces the need for such funding.
I wish to address, in particular, the cuts to the National Energy
Technology Laboratories (NETL).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Testimony to the House Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee
on Energy and Water Development, submitted March 6, 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I wish to make perfectly clear that my company, APS Technology,
Inc., has benefited from these programs. We have completed two cost-
sharing research contracts \3 4\ from the NETL, one Small Business
Innovation Research (SBIR) \5\ and one Small Business Technology
Transfer (STTR) \6\ grant. This support has been critical to the growth
of APS and its introduction of new products for the industry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ DE-FC26-02NT41664, ``Drilling Vibration Monitoring and Control
System''.
\4\ DE-FC26-04NT15501, ``Novel High-Speed Drilling Motor for Oil
Exploration & Production''.
\5\ DE-FG02-02ER83368, ``Rotary Steerable Motor System for Deep Gas
Drilling''.
\6\ DE-AC26-98FT40481, ``Downhole Fluid Analyzer''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I will not repeat the general justifications that you know so
well--the necessity of our striving toward energy independence or near-
independence; the importance of new technologies to reaching this goal,
while protecting the environment, et cetera. While these are clearly
important considerations, I would rather focus on three particular
aspects from my personal experience:
--an outstanding success story;
--the changes in the business environment for oil and gas
exploration; and
--some reasons that DOE support for oil and gas research and
development is more important today than ever.
a success story--teleco oilfield services inc.
In his State of the Union Address,\7\ President Obama reminded us
that ``it was public research dollars, over the course of 30 years,
that helped develop the technologies to extract all this natural gas
out of shale rock--reminding us that government support is critical in
helping businesses get new energy ideas off the ground.'' One of these
key enabling technologies was measurements-while-drilling (MWD) and the
leader in MWD was my former company, Teleco Oilfield Services Inc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ http://www.whitehouse.gov/photos-and-video/video/2012/01/25/
2012-state-union-address-
enhanced-version#transcript.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1972, I began this new venture with the support of my then
employer, Raymond Engineering \8\ and the European oil company,
SNPA.\9\ The sole purpose of this new company was to develop and
commercialize this new MWD technology. Even then, before there was a
commercial tool, the industry recognized MWD as a transformative
technology. By transmitting data to the surface in real time from the
bottom of a well as it was being drilled, it would open the door to
directional and horizontal drilling, real-time analysis of the oil and
gas content of a well, steering the well within a pay zone, things
unheard of then that are now standard operating procedure in oilfields
around the world.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Now a part of Kaman Corporation.
\9\ Societe Nationale des Petroles d'Aquitaine, now a part of
Total.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1978, dozens of companies were trying to develop these
systems,\10\ including large corporations within the oil industry and
without. Most, however, were unsuccessfully trying to adapt existing
wireline technology to the much more severe environment within a well
during drilling. Teleco took the opposite approach;\11\ it adapted the
proven reliable military and space technology of Raymond Engineering
and applied it to the new environment in a effort to attain the
reliability needed for such service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ cf., ``MWD: State of the Art'', series of articles in the Oil
& Gas Journal, 1978.
\11\ R.F. Spinnler & F.A. Stone, ``MWD: State of the Art--4; MWD
Program nearing commerciality'', Oil & Gas Journal, May 1, 1978.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1975, after several years of intense and expensive self-funded
development, Teleco was ready to build and field test its first
prototype tools. The combination of their complexity and the
requirement that they work in an extreme environment made this a
prohibitive task. The oil companies were unwilling to invest in this
technology without a successful field test. It was at this time that
the company applied for, and received, $2 million in development
funding from the DOE. With these funds, the field testing could proceed
and proved successful.
At this point, six major oil companies \12\ provided an additional
$0.9 million funding in return for future repayment through the
company's sales. These funds allowed the commercial launch of MWD in
1978.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Exxon, Shell, Chevron, Conoco, Amoco, and Placid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As anticipated, the commercial introduction of MWD by Teleco
revolutionized oil and gas exploration, first primarily offshore, but
now on land as well. What was the role of the DOE in this success? MWD
would have certainly been developed in time, but it took more than 2
years for other companies to enter the market. The Teleco system
remained the leader in reliability over its entire existence. The
support of the DOE was critical to making the leap from a laboratory
demonstration to fully commercial systems in use worldwide. Thus, the
small investment by the DOE led directly to the development of a
company and an industry that served to improve the efficiency and
safety of oil and gas exploration, led to many advances that help
restrain the price of oil including such innovations as horizontal
drilling, and created thousands of jobs in the United States.
changes in the oil and gas industry over the past four decades
In the past four decades, the oil and gas industry has undergone
dramatic changes. In the 1970s the major production companies were the
principal sources of new technology for the industry. Exxon, Mobil,
Texaco, and ARCO, to name a few, maintained research facilities staffed
by the most experienced experts in their fields. These companies
developed many of the key innovations in the drilling and well logging
industry despite their recognition that, as commodity producers, they
were neither equipped to market, nor particularly interested in,
technology per se. This was the province of the oil service companies,
to whom the producers licensed their use, often giving nonexclusive,
royalty-free licenses to any company that requested them.
In the ensuing decades, the industry has consolidated. For example,
all of the companies mentioned above have either merged or been
acquired since then, also consolidating their research programs. In the
volatile oil and gas industry, it difficult to justify to shareholders
investments in long-term programs that will not produce any direct
revenues or competitive advantage. Thus, companies have striven to
``right size'' their organizations, often at the expense of research.
A similar contraction has taken place in the oilfield services
business. New technologies were once transferred from the producers,
developed by the major service companies, or introduced by small,
specialized companies (such as Numar \13\ or Landmark Graphics \14\).
Many of the researchers laid off in the consolidation of the producers'
research labs found their way to service companies. The service
companies also acquired many of the smaller companies, such as those
listed above. Now, after significant consolidation and downsizing on
the part of the service companies, and under the continuous, short-term
scrutiny of the market, even they are cutting the costs associated with
long-term development.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Now a part of Halliburton Corp, see: http://
www.halliburton.com/news/archive/1997/corpnws_093097.jsp.
\14\ Now a subsidiary of Halliburton Corp, see: http://www.lgc.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To cite one example, Schlumberger has closed its world-renowned
Schlumberger-Doll Research Center in Ridgefield, Connecticut, and
relocated to Cambridge, Massachusetts. They have transferred much of
the work previously done by industry experts to university professors,
research associates, and students. The service companies are also
outsourcing many high-risk projects to small companies such as APS.
In this environment, the growth and success of a Teleco would be
impossible. The large companies have become more risk-averse and
oriented toward current revenues. Small companies lack the resources to
pursue high-risk, long-term developments. The government, through the
DOE, is the backer of last resort for these efforts.
current necessity for department of energy support
The U.S. oil and gas province is quite mature. Production of oil
peaked in the 1970s and gas production is nearly at its peak. To
produce additional reserves, technical progress is needed in two areas:
--drilling safely in deeper waters offshore requires new methods for
dealing with the increased temperatures and pressures in the
formations; and
--producing oil and gas from the prolific shale deposits we possess
requires sophisticated horizontal drilling \5\ and monitoring
\3\ equipment.
Some of the technology for these areas is being supported by the
Research Partnership to Secure Energy for America (RPSEA), of which we
are a member. These programs, however, tend to be on a larger scale and
less suited for small businesses.
DOE R&D support, through NETL, which requires cost-sharing by the
applicant and outside sources, is an ideal model for a stimulant to
small business and technological growth. To cite one example, consider
our Drilling Vibration Monitor and Control System,\3\ currently
entering commercial service. In 2002, NETL launched the Deep Trek
initiative, aimed at developing new technologies to reduce the cost of
deep gas drilling. After review by outside experts of both a pre-
application and application, APS was granted a Cooperative Agreement to
develop this new tool, with the DOE paying 75 percent of the first
phase.
During this period we designed and modeled this tool, which senses
the vibration of the bit and drillstring, and continually adjusts the
stiffness of an active vibration damper located above the bit. As a
result, the bit does not bounce off bottom, and applies the optimal
force to enhance the rate of drilling.
Phase II drilling tests have shown\15\ that use of this tool can
increase the drilling speed by 10-50 percent, and significantly extend
the life of drill bits and other downhole components. None of this
development would have been possible without DOE support. APS was not
in a position to fund it; the major service companies were not
interested until there was an indication of value to the end user and
the production companies needed something more concrete before
investing in the technology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ M.E. Wassell et al. ``Active vibration damper improves
performance and reduces drilling costs'', World Oil, September 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, with the help of these tests made possible by DOE support,
there is considerable customer interest. This product should lead to
major improvements in efficiency for the oil and gas drilling industry,
and growth for our company. For example, APS has been recognized as one
of the fastest-growing technology companies in Connecticut for the past
9 years. We are in the midst of a hiring boom and plan to increase our
U.S. employees by 60 during 2012.
In summary, DOE research initiatives are essential to ``prime the
pump'' of new technology development. This is even more important in
these times of high fuel prices, ``lean'' corporations and increased
dependence on foreign oil sources. I urge you, in the strongest
possible terms, to maintain or increase the funding for these programs.
Thank you.
______
Prepared Statement of Carnegie Mellon University
Madam Chairwoman, ranking member, and members of the subcommittee:
My name is Timothy McNulty, and I am the Associate Vice President for
Government Relations at Carnegie Mellon University. The great progress
being made in America's pursuit of energy independence is a product of
the synergy between the entrepreneurial strength of our energy sector
and strategic research investments that have fundamentally changed the
very nature of production. As our pursuit of energy independence gains
momentum, it is critical to continue funding the programs that best
foster this dynamic. A prime example of such a program is section 999,
the Ultra-Deepwater and Natural Gas Supply Research and Development
Program created by the Energy Policy Act (EPAct) of 2005.
The section 999 program supports the dynamic research of the
Strategic Center for Natural Gas and Oil at the National Energy
Technology Laboratory (NETL SCNGO), as well as a consortium of U.S.
energy research universities, industry, and independent research
organizations under the Research Partnership to Secure Energy for
America (RPSEA). This approach ensures that the program engages
partners from across the United States and fully utilizes the
capabilities of the Nation's fossil energy lab, which has a long
history of strong collaboration with industry and a proven track record
of moving technology from discovery to commercialization. The RPSEA
partnership brings the best of highly competitive research to bear on
the fundamental industry challenges that the United States must address
in order to realize the full potential of new energy sources safely and
effectively.
At NETL, research is underway to address the central technological
and basic scientific questions that will support continued expansion of
shale production. These include novel techniques for water quality and
treatment, research on well distribution and optimization, modeling to
predict induced seismicity, and pre-competitive research on new end-use
products and markets for natural gas.
This research program also benefits from a unique collaboration
between the National Lab and five universities--Carnegie Mellon
University, Penn State University, Virginia Tech University, the
University of Pittsburgh, and West Virginia University. Working with
the Lab, these institutions comprise the NETL Regional University
Alliance (NETL RUA), a ``virtual'' laboratory that taps leading
capabilities in hydrology, water systems, drilling technologies, and
risk assessment from across the region.
The NETL research builds upon recent breakthroughs such as the
development of potential new nanoparticles supporting enhanced oil
recovery and new ways to model and image multiphase, multifluid flow in
shale core. Other major research accomplishments include the
development of remote sensing techniques to monitor shallow groundwater
salinity, the effective utilization of airborne magnetic surveys to
detect the location of unknown wells in an active enhanced oil recovery
well in the western United States, and the assemblage of a 3-D geologic
framework for the Marcellus Shale using commercially available
software.
In addition to aiding the pursuit of energy independence, the
section 999 program is also vital to maintaining America's global
leadership in energy-related technologies. As the discovery of shale
sources continues across the world--on virtually every continent--one
aspect of the energy race for the future will clearly be to develop the
production-related technologies and expertise that will become a major
source of export-related business and job growth.
The question is whether American companies, workers and communities
will benefit from leading this development. By bringing together the
best of American industry, university and national lab research on
practical problem-solving and opportunity-seizing innovation, the
section 999 program funding is vital to laying the foundation for
American leadership in what will be a major export market of the next
two decades.
In essence, the research NETL is leading as part of the section 999
program spans breakthroughs that both extend the boundaries of
discovery and production and strive to ensure that this production is
undertaken in an environmentally safe manner. This program is critical
to advance productivity, to establish the foundation for scientifically
based, environmentally sound extraction, and to catalyze new industries
related to new energy extraction.
The Congress's support for restoring funding of section 999 in
fiscal year 2012 was greatly appreciated and needed. It is enabling
practical results that make a difference in both production and
scientifically based environmental protection. Continued support of the
section 999 program by restoring the full $50 million in funding for
fiscal year 2013 is respectfully urged as an investment in emerging
American energy innovation and continued progress toward
environmentally safe energy independence.
______
Prepared Statement of the Coal Utilization Research Council
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 (see www.coal.org). Members of
CURC, together with the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), have
developed a Technology Roadmap (Roadmap) that defines the research,
development, and demonstration (RD&D) necessary to insure the enhanced
utilization of coal in the United States. The recommendations for
fiscal year 2013 appropriations discussed in this testimony are keyed
directly to the 2012 update of the Roadmap.
coal utilization research council fiscal year 2013 budget
recommendation
The President has requested $241 million for the coal RD&D program
in fiscal year 2013, which is $93 million below the fiscal year 2012
enacted level of $333 million. This fiscal year 2013 request is nearly
40 percent below the $389 million fiscal year 2011 appropriated levels.
The budget request being made for Fossil Energy represents the only
area in Department of Energy's (DOE) budget for which less funding is
being requested than the prior year. CURC recommends that the fiscal
year 2013 coal research and development (R&D) program be funded at $372
million (see chart below). Recommended increases in funding would be
targeted to specific areas as well as new programs, all of which are
keyed to the Roadmap (details below). This recommendation represents an
increase of $131 million over the President's fiscal year 2013 request
and $39 million above the funding level of $333 million (exclusive of
the National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) in-house R&D program)
that the Congress provided in fiscal year 2012.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The CURC figures are exclusive of the NETL coal research and
development (in-house R&D) program budget of $35 million. While an
important program, this funding supports salaries for research
conducted by NETL in-house and is not a cost-shared program with
industry. The Roadmap identifies programs that are undertaken in
partnership between industry and government, and therefore, CURC's
recommendations are focused on the competitive programs funded in the
coal RD&D program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
importance of coal and the department of energy fossil energy research
and development program
Coal is essential to the U.S. energy economy. In 2010, coal
provided 21 percent of total U.S. energy consumption and 48 percent of
U.S. electric power.\2\ The U.S. Energy Information Administration
(EIA) projects that coal will continue to provide nearly 40 percent of
our Nation's electricity through 2035. Technology has enabled coal to
address environmental and economic challenges in the past. The proven
formula for success has been the collaborative, cost-sharing efforts of
the Government and the private sector. This public and private sector
partnership has provided great value to the taxpayer yielding a return
of $13 for every $1 of Federal funding spent for coal RD&D.\3\ The
National Academies of Science estimated that between 1986 and 2000, the
DOE Fossil Energy Program generated $7.4 billion in economic benefits
to this country.\4\ Today, 3 out of every 4 coal plants in United
States are equipped with technologies that trace their origins to DOE's
program, allowing coal use to increase by more than 63 percent in the
United States over the last 30 years while the emissions of
SO2 and NOX have decreased on the order of 70
percent.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Coal plays a similar role in the global energy economy. Between
2000 and 2010, coal accounted for nearly one-half the increase in
global energy use, OECD/IEA 2011.
\3\ Fossil Energy Research Benefits, Clean Coal Technology Program,
USDOE/NETL.
\4\ ``Energy Research at DOE, Was it Worth It?'', Energy Efficiency
and Fossil Energy Research 1978 to 2000, National Academy of Sciences,
2001 Report, pg. 6.
\5\ EIA Annual Energy Review 2010, EPA National Air Pollutant
Emissions Trends: 1900-1998.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
the roadmap
The Roadmap represents a plan for developing technologies that
convert coal to electricity and other useful forms of energy and
manufacturing feedstocks. The Roadmap describes coal technology
advancements that will achieve specific cost, performance, and
environmental goals and in doing so, will benefit the Nation's
environment, economy, and energy security. A significant conclusion of
the Roadmap is that, with the combination of technology development and
enhanced oil recovery (EOR), coal-based power plants designed and
constructed in 2025 can provide electricity at a price competitive with
natural gas and other fuels, and with 75 percent less CO2
than today's new natural gas-based power plant. Other additional
benefits of successfully implementing the Roadmap include aggressive
reduction of traditional air pollutants and water use/discharge; and
enhanced energy and economic security via production of low-cost power
using the largest U.S. domestic energy resource. The key to successful
technology development is:
--adequate public support;
--enhanced levels of funding targeted to specific technology areas;
and
--a regulatory and public policy framework that supports coal use.
funding needs to accomplish the roadmap
Below is a chart that outlines CURC's proposed funding
recommendations compared to the fiscal year 2013 proposed budget for
Fossil Energy R&D. These CURC recommendations are targeted to achieving
the Roadmap goals by directing funds to specific programmatic
activities, including new activities not currently funded by DOE.
Advanced Energy Systems
Advanced Combustion.--CURC recommends a total of $65 million for
the Advanced Combustion program in fiscal year 2013 to develop
technologies for advanced combustion platforms, including
focused work on waste heat recovery and integration, advanced
power cycles, and alternative process configurations. The
Roadmap envisions a pathway for the integration of these
advanced ultra supercritical (AUSC) materials technologies into
new, highly efficient advanced coal systems. CURC recommends
$10 million in fiscal year 2013 for DOE to build upon the
successes of the AUSC program and to develop a roadmap that
identifies a pathway for moving the AUSC materials work forward
and support industry efforts in commercializing AUSC
technologies. CURC also recommends $10 million for DOE to
initiate a mercury control technology program to develop
technologies to allow new combustion plants to meet the mercury
emissions standard imposed by Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) on new plants.
Gasification.--CURC recommends $55 million in fiscal year 2013 to
support dry feed system integration and scale up, advanced
sensors work, simulation of fast ramp improvements, and
refractory testing, as well as focus on the integration of ion
transport membrane (ITM) technologies into the power generation
process, which is important for overall cost reductions of
gasification technologies.
Turbines.--CURC recommends $24 million for the turbine program in
fiscal year 2013 to validate advanced hydrogen turbine
technology and components in full turbine test stand
demonstrations, and to expand the program to development of
components compatible with ITM integration.
Cross-Cutting Research.--In addition to supporting university
training and research and computational modeling through the National
Risk Assessment Partnership (NRAP) and the Carbon Capture Simulation
Initiative (CCSI), CURC recommends $12.4 million for DOE to initiate a
water management program. The Roadmap defines a program to survey the
industry's water management practices in order to model water use and
management for a variety of coals, process steps and emission limits,
and to develop technologies that reduce water withdrawal and
consumption. CURC also recommends $16 million to fund research on
breakthrough technologies. The Roadmap characterizes these technologies
as ``out-of-the-box'' thinking, or fundamentally new approaches to
solving coal's challenges.
Carbon Capture.--CURC believes that it is a wise public investment
to determine how to cost-effectively capture and use/store
CO2 so that we do not eliminate any options for coal in the
future, and sees a dual role for continued development of
CO2 capture technology. The first role is the benefit for
meeting current and future climate mitigation regulations. States have
adopted CO2 regulatory requirements and on March 27, the EPA
has proposed regulatory requirements for CO2 emissions from
new coal-fueled power plants which would require the application of
carbon controls. The second role is driven by energy security benefits.
If the price of captured CO2 can be reduced through RD&D,
the CO2 can be used to augment production of domestic crude
oil through EOR, thereby increasing the potential to domestically
produce trillions of dollars of oil over the next several decades,
which would reduce reliance on imported oil and improve the U.S.
balance of trade.
Post-Combustion.--For both new and existing power plants,
postcombustion capture technology must be made more efficient
and cost-effective by reducing parasitic power and capital cost
requirements. CURC recommends $60 million in fiscal year 2013
to develop novel capture process improvements that can support
coal power plant retrofits and natural gas combined cycle
(NGCC) retrofits equally.
Pre-Combustion.--CO2 capture for gasification is
focused on improved capture processes in order to reduce costs.
CURC recommends $17.4 million for pre-combustion capture work
in fiscal year 2013 specifically to pilot new shift catalysts
and reactor designs, accelerate hydrogen membrane pilot
projects, address CO2 slurry feed integration,
evaluate alternates to warm gas capture, and acquire data and
design guidance from current demonstrations.
Carbon Storage.--CURC supports the Regional Carbon Sequestration
Partnerships (RCSP), and recommends a follow-on program that builds
upon the success of the RCSPs. In our judgment this follow-on program
will support the development of a commercial industry necessary for
deployment of carbon storage. CURC recommends $40 million in fiscal
year 2013 to initiate a ``carbon storage site certification'' program
intended to characterize and qualify 5 regionally diverse sites that
can each accept 50 million tons of CO2 at a rate of 5
million tons per year.
loan guarantee program
Demonstration of first-generation technology, as reflected in the
projects currently supported by the DOE Clean Coal Power Initiative
(CCPI) program and the DOE Loan Guarantee program, are critically
important in proving the integration of these technologies. The success
of these projects is necessary to support the development of second-
generation technologies contemplated in the Roadmap. CURC supports the
$8 billion authorization for DOE to provide loan guarantees to selected
fossil energy projects.
department of energy practice of mortgaging
The practice of partial funding of multiyear projects contingent on
future appropriations has been a fundamental aspect of DOE's research
program for many years and is embodied in DOE's Financial Assistance
Regulations. Mortgaging provides DOE the flexibility to fund several
projects, to discontinue projects that are not meeting objectives and
redirect funds to other meritorious projects that are successfully
achieving development targets. Any restriction on the DOE practice of
mortgaging will reduce the portfolio of technologies emerging from the
program and create public and private investment risks. CURC recommends
that the current approach to funding projects be maintained at DOE.
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enacted Request CURC
---------------------------------------------------
Carbon Capture and Sequestration and Power Systems Fiscal year Fiscal year Fiscal year Fiscal year
2011 2012 2013 2013
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carbon capture:
Postcombustion.......................................... 41,299 55,495 49,035 60,000
Pre-combustion.......................................... 17,404 13,403 11,403 17,600Carbon storage:
Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnerships.............. 77,160 83,190 66,980 56,600
Geological storage...................................... 24,946 14,978 11,255 ...........
MVAA.................................................... 8,122 6,738 6,738 ...........
Carbon Use/Reuse........................................ 967 778 778 ...........
Sequestration Science focus area........................ 9,717 9,726 9,726 ...........
Carbon storage site certification \1\................... ........... ........... ........... 40,000
Advanced Compressor \1\................................. ........... ........... ........... 960Advanced Energy Systems:
Advanced Combustion Research, including:................ 30,724 15,942 10,699 65,000
--Advanced Ultra SuperCritical (High Temperature) ........... ........... ........... 10,000
materials \1\......................................
--Mercury capture for new plants \1\................ ........... ........... ........... 10,000
Gasification Research, including:....................... 47,614 39,000 31,905 55,200
--Air Separation and Oxygen Production.............. ........... ........... ........... 4,800
Hydrogen turbines....................................... 30,106 15,000 12,589 24,800
Hydrogen from coal...................................... 11,661 ........... ........... ...........
Coal and coal biomass to liquids........................ ........... 5,000 ........... ...........
Solid oxide fuel cell................................... 48,522 25,000 ........... ...........Cross-cutting research:
Plant optimization (sensors, controls, NC, materials)... 7,789 13,663 7,000 ...........
Coal utilization science:
--Computational system dynamics--National Risk 12,462 11,800 7,800 10,000
Assessment Partnership.............................
--Computational Energy science--Carbon Capture 11,844 13,371 9,400 10,000
Simulation Initiative..............................
Energy Analyses......................................... 4,837 4,950 950 ...........
University training and research........................ 3,164 4,000 3,250 4,000
International activities................................ 1,350 1,350 1,350 ...........
Water management \1\.................................... ........... ........... ........... 12,400
Breakthrough technology research \1\.................... ........... ........... ........... 16,000
---------------------------------------------------
Coal R&D subtotal without in-house R&D................ 389,688 333,384 240,858 371,960National Energy Technology Laboratory Coal Research and ........... 35,011 35,011 35,011
Development (in-house R&D).................................
---------------------------------------------------
Coal R&D subtotal with in-house R&D................... 389,688 368,395 275,869 406,971
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Program is CURC-EPRI Roadmap Program and does not have a comparable program in the DOE budget.
______
Prepared Statement of the Coalition of Northeastern Governors
The Coalition of Northeastern Governors (CONEG) is pleased to share
with the subcommittee on Energy and Water Development this testimony on
fiscal year 2013 appropriations for the Department of Energy's energy
efficiency programs, the Energy Information Administration, and the
Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve. The governors request fiscal year
2013 funding of no less than the fiscal year 2012 levels for the
following Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Programs: $50 million
for the State Energy Program and $220 million for the Building
Technologies Program. The governors also ask that you provide at least
historic funding levels for the Weatherization Assistance Program. In
addition, the governors request at least $105 million for the Energy
Information Administration, and sufficient funding for maintenance and
operation of the Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve.
We recognize that this year the subcommittee faces a very difficult
set of choices in this environment of severe fiscal constraints.
Continued, adequate Federal funding for these energy programs is a
vital step in helping businesses and households across the Nation
manage their energy costs, and moving the Nation toward increased
energy independence.
state energy program
The CONEG governors request at least $50 million for the State
Energy Program (SEP) in fiscal year 2013 with these funds provided as
base SEP formula funding. This level of base funding is critical for
the SEP to continue the successful State-Federal-private sector
partnerships for many energy efficiency and conservation programs. The
base SEP program is particularly important to smaller States since it
allows them to dramatically enhance program delivery and leverage non-
Federal resources with Federal funds.
The 56 State and territory energy offices use SEP funds, along with
leveraged State and private sector funds, to implement vital energy
efficiency, renewable energy, and alternative energy demonstration in
energy end-use sectors such as buildings, industry, agriculture,
transportation, and power generation. In addition, States use SEP funds
to prepare for natural disasters and increase the security of critical
energy infrastructure.
States use SEP funds to carry out a wide variety of activities most
appropriate for the energy profiles of a State. These may include
energy efficiency retrofits and installation of solar systems on State
buildings that save taxpayers thousands of dollars in energy costs and
reduce carbon emissions. These funds also support public outreach and
education to local residents, small businesses, farmers, and others to
make them aware of opportunities to reduce energy consumption and
energy bills. Using SEP funds, States also work with the private sector
to showcase new clean technologies and to invest in renewable energy
projects.
The SEP program yields proven energy and economic benefits. The
most recent Oak Ridge National Laboratory cost-benefit analysis of the
program found that every $1 in SEP funding yields $7.22 in annual
energy cost savings, $10.71 in leveraged funding, and annual energy
savings of 1.03 million source BTUs. The Department of Energy (DOE)
estimates that, based on recent appropriations levels, the SEP program
results in an annual energy cost savings of $300 million.
weatherization assistance program
The CONEG governors request at least historic funding levels in
fiscal year 2013 for the Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP).
Weatherization is an immediate and effective tool to alleviate the
energy burden of low-income households by making their homes more
energy efficient. The fiscal year 2010 funding level of $210 million is
the minimum level needed to ensure that States across the country can
continue the program's successful efforts to reduce the costs of home
energy and increase the safety of these vulnerable households.
Low-income households pay a disproportionate share of their income
on energy bills, often spending more than 19 percent of their annual
income on home energy compared to just 4 percent for all other
households. Through a State-managed network of more than 900 local
weatherization providers, WAP makes cost-effective improvements to
about 100,000 low-income households annually, permanently reducing
energy costs for these vulnerable families.
Cost-effective weatherization measures are tailored to specific
homes and climates. Many of these measures are inexpensive yet
effective services, such as installing insulation, sealing ducts, and
tuning and repairing heating and cooling systems. The program uses the
most advanced technologies and diagnostic equipment to develop a
comprehensive cost-effective strategy to reduce household energy use.
In fall 2011, DOE estimated that these measures save families an
average of $437 annually in heating and cooling costs alone.
In addition to the considerable energy benefits, weatherization
services increase the health and safety of low-income homes by
detecting carbon monoxide and gas leaks in tested equipment, replacing
unsafe equipment, and checking for moisture damage. The program also
fosters significant investments in local economies by creating jobs,
offering professional training, and making housing more affordable in
communities across the Nation. For every $1 invested, WAP returns $2.51
in benefits, including $1.80 in energy savings, according to DOE.
building technologies program
The CONEG governors request at least $220 million for the Building
Technologies Program (BTP) in fiscal year 2013. According to DOE, the
buildings sector consumes more energy than any other sector in the
United States including transportation and industry. The potential
energy savings are great. Through partnerships with State and local
governments, national laboratories and universities, BTP supports
research, demonstration and deployment of technologies and practices to
make new and existing buildings less energy intensive. These RD&D
partnership activities are a vital complement to other public policy
incentives that encourage private sector investments in smart energy
use.
In the millions of existing buildings, BTP works to decrease energy
consumption through retrofits or replacements that decrease energy use
and improve safety and comfort. In new construction, BTP works to make
improvements in technologies and techniques for the design,
construction and operation of more energy efficient, productive, and
affordable buildings.
energy information administration
The governors request at least $105 million in fiscal year 2013
funding for the Energy Information Administration (EIA). As the
independent statistical arm of the DOE, EIA is a leader is providing
reliable independent information, analyses and forecasts on U.S. energy
production, demand, consumption, imports and prices. The information
and analyses provided by EIA are vital to State and Federal
policymakers as they develop critical energy and environmental
strategies. Consumers rely on EIA's widely-available information and
forecasts to make a variety of energy and household-related decisions.
Increasingly complex global energy factors have greatly increased
EIA's workload. Continued adequate appropriations in fiscal year 2013
will ensure that EIA can provide the most accurate reliable information
at the level of detail needed by policymakers and consumers to make
informed decisions.
northeast home heating oil reserve
The CONEG governors request sufficient fiscal year 2013 funding for
maintenance and operation of the Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve.
The Northeast is uniquely dependent on home heating oil. More than 25
percent of northeast homes use fuel oil for heating. These homes
account for more than 80 percent of residential heating oil use
nationwide, making the region particularly vulnerable to the effects of
supply disruptions and price volatility.
In the event of a supply disruption, the Reserve provides a buffer
that allows additional time for supplies to reach the region. Reserve
locations are strategically placed throughout the region to respond
rapidly and efficiently to any emergency supply interruption.
summary
In summary, the CONEG governors request that the subcommittee
provide at least $50 million for the State Energy Program for the base
SEP formula program, $220 million for the Building Technologies
Program, at least historic funding levels for the Weatherization
Assistance Program, at least $105 million for the Energy Information
Administration, and sufficient funding for maintenance and operation of
the Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve.
______
Prepared Statement of Cummins Inc.
office of energy efficiency and renewable energy
Office of Vehicle Technologies
Advanced Combustion Engine Research and Development
Advanced Technology Powertrain--Light Duty.--Increase the
administration's request of $55.2 million by $5 million to bring the
program total to $60.2 million in fiscal year 2013. $58.02 million was
appropriated in fiscal year 2012. The Advanced Combustion Engine
research and development (R&D) program includes important research
areas for diesel and gasoline engines to develop more energy efficient
and environmentally friendly technologies. The Department of Energy
(DOE) has launched the ``Supertruck'' Initiative which includes the
Advanced Technology Powertrain--Light Duty (ATP-LD) program. The goals
of ATP-LD program are to deliver a standard light-duty pickup truck
which can achieve at least 40 percent improvement in fuel economy over
the state-of-the-art gasoline engines while meeting Tier 2 Bin 2
tailpipe emissions (the same emissions standard required for gasoline
powered vehicles). Diesel engine R&D is critically important to improve
energy-efficiency and environmentally friendly technologies. This is
accomplished through a better understanding of combustion processes
which enable the use of significantly less petroleum while meeting or
exceeding customer value. When this technology has fully penetrated the
market, 40-percent fuel economy enhancement in light-duty trucks and
SUVs would reduce U.S. petroleum consumption by more than 1.5 million
oil barrels/day and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by more than 0.5
million metric tons/day with energy security and trade balance
benefits. Innovative high-risk technologies, such as low-temperature
combustion, variable-valve actuation, closed-loop selective catalytic
reduction (SCR) controls, lightweight structural and advanced materials
are planned. The funding increase will help address significant
technology hurdles in the areas of on-board diagnostics, parasitic loss
reduction, aftertreatment requirements, minimizing fuel penalty due to
the aftertreatment, and the use of renewable fuels. Without the
increased funding, research activities would be significantly limited.
Advanced Manufacturing Office (Formerly Industrial Technologies
Program)
Next Generation Manufacturing Processes
Combined Heat and Power Generation--Advanced Reciprocating Engine
Systems.--Support administration's request of $198.7 million for fiscal
year 2013. $62.1 million was appropriated in fiscal year 2012. Next
Generation Manufacturing Processes are cross-cutting activities which
focus on energy efficient processes and reduce energy intensity of
manufactured products. The Combined Heat and Power Generation
initiative within the Advanced Manufacturing Office includes the
important Advanced Reciprocating Engine Systems (ARES) program, a
component of distributed generation. The objective of the ARES program
is to develop high efficiency, low emissions and cost-effective
technologies for stationary engine systems (500-6500 kW) that can use
natural gas or domestic renewable resources such as ``opportunity''
fuels. Natural gas-fueled reciprocating engine power plants are
preferred for reliability, low-operating costs, and point-of-use power
generation. Opportunity fuels can be renewable fuels (e.g., landfill
gases) which exhibit low BTU, lower methane number and varying gas
composition. Their use reduces the dependence on high-quality pipe-line
natural gas. The technologies goals sponsored by the ARES program are
being readied to demonstrate 47-percent engine efficiency (20-40-
percent increase from the baseline), higher power densities than
current products, with an expected reduction in life-cycle costs and
GHG emissions. The administration's fiscal year 2013 budget will
support advanced technological challenges including higher-base engine
efficiency, combustion enhancements with low BTU and methane gases,
nitrogen oxides (NOX) reduction, advanced sensors and
controls, hardware durability and lower life-cycle costs. The
development of distributed power generation supports lower life-cycle
energy consumption of manufactured products, national energy security
needs, improves protection of critical infrastructure and decreases
dependence on the national electrical grid system through point-of-use
energy production.
Combined Heat and Power Generation--330kw Packaged Combined Heat
and Power System.--Support administration's request of $198.7 million
for fiscal year 2013. $62.1 million was appropriated in fiscal year
2012. Next Generation Manufacturing Processes are cross-cutting
activities which focus on energy-efficient processes and reduce the
energy intensity of manufactured products. The 330kw Packaged CHP
System project entails the development of a flexible CHP system that
can be deployed to commercial and light industrial (100-500kw)
applications at a lower total cost of ownership than current CHP
solutions. This project will result in a CHP system that is easy to use
and inexpensive to install, offering world class customer support while
providing a high efficiency internal combustion engine for a CHP system
of this size. CHP systems offer higher system energy-efficiency, lower
emissions and overall economic benefits. Modern engine designs operate
at significantly lower regulated exhaust emissions. Combined heat and
power systems use internal combustion engines to produce electricity at
point of use and recover waste heat for heating or cooling purposes.
Energy intensity of the CHP customer can be reduced in excess of 35
percent due primarily to more efficient electrical generation and
recovered waste heat. The fiscal year 2013 budget will support
prototype CHP system development and field testing.
office of science
Basic Energy Sciences
Fundamental Interactions Research
Predictive Simulation for Internal Combustion Engines.--Support
administration's request of $71.5 million for fiscal year 2013. $67.5
million was appropriated in fiscal year 2012. Fundamental Interactions
Research builds the fundamental science basis essential for
technological advances in diverse range of energy processes. In support
of the clean energy agenda, Predictive Simulation for Internal
Combustion Engines (PreSICE) program is a simulation and diagnostics
study addressing the interplay between combustion chemistry and
turbulent flows in combustion systems. This will lead to the
development of robust engineering design tools for computational
analysis capability. This large-scale computational simulation
initiative is targeted at achieving cost-effective means for even
greater fuel efficiency. Models will be developed for advanced chemical
kinetics, computational fluid dynamics (CFD) and large eddy
simulations. These models will simulate advanced combustion regimes,
transient events and cycle-to-cycle variability. Development of better
solver algorithms will minimize cycle-to-cycle variations and more
rapid optimization of overall engine design. The administration's
fiscal year 2013 budget will accelerate the predictive simulation of
internal combustion engines.
______
Prepared Statement of the Diesel Technology Forum
The Diesel Technology Forum (DTF) is a not-for-profit organization
representing diesel engine and equipment makers, fuel suppliers, and
emissions control technology companies. We appreciate the opportunity
to submit outside witness testimony regarding certain aspects of the
fiscal year 2013 proposed budget of the Department of Energy (DOE),
particularly its Vehicle Technologies Program (VTP) and its various
budget activities for commercial vehicles such as Advanced Combustion
Engine R&D (ACE R&D), batteries and electric drive technologies,
vehicle and systems simulation, fuels technology, and materials
research.
Diesel engines play a key role in the global economy. A 2011
economic study commissioned by the DTF and completed by Aspen
Environmental Group reported that more than 80 percent of all freight
is moved throughout the United States by diesel trucks, ships, trains,
and intermodal systems. Worldwide, 94 percent of all global trade is
powered by diesel engines and equipment. In addition, the diesel
industry contributes more than $480 billion annually to the U.S.
economy and provides more than 1.25 million jobs.
Medium- and heavy-duty trucks--the majority of which are powered by
diesel engines--consume roughly one-fifth of transportation fuels in
the United States. Petroleum consumption for heavy-duty vehicles is
expected to increase 40 percent between 2010 and 2035. Increasing the
efficiency of these vehicles can lower the costs of land-based freight
and the industries that depend on it, while greatly reducing the
Nation's dependence on imported oil.
Last year, we expressed our concern with this subcommittee over the
Department's fiscal year 2012 budget request that would have terminated
or delayed commitments under the SuperTruck program, which focuses on
improving heavy-duty truck efficiency. Today, we commend the Department
for moving forward to meet commitments to prior awards within the
SuperTruck program. We are pleased that the fiscal year 2013 Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) budget request proposes to
retain the contracted investments in several key budget activity areas
that impact heavy-duty diesel engines, commercial vehicles, and truck
efficiency programs.
Because of Well-Established Future Need, Proven Past Performance, and
Extended Societal Benefits, Funding for VTPs Including ACE R&D,
Fuels, Vehicle and Systems Simulation, Batteries and Electric
Drive Technology, and Materials Technologies, and SuperTruck
Activities Should Be Retained
The subcommittee again faces a difficult task of setting priorities
among many competing programs with limited resources. The subcommittee
should seek to assure a proper balance between fully funding programs
that are known to improve efficiency of existing energy-intensive
sectors on a medium-term basis as well as more future-oriented, but
uncertain other technologies. The current fiscal year 2013 budget
request from DOE EERE properly funds those key heavy-duty vehicle
programs and projects that bring a proven track record of real-world
fuel savings, and we urge that it be retained.
The commercial vehicle research activities have been cross-cutting
in scope and shared risk and benefits between DOE, private industry,
the Department of Defense (DOD), Department of Transportation and
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This suite of programs to make
commercial vehicles more energy efficient--the 21st Century Truck
Partnership and diesel engine and fuel research--have been among DOE
EERE's most successful investments. They are proven to have helped meet
important societal goals of economic growth and small business
development (economics of more energy efficient commercial truck
acquisition and ownership); cleaner air (reducing diesel engine
emissions), reduced reliance on imported oil (increasing truck energy
efficiency).
They have also enhanced our national security, through contributing
to fuel savings of DOD military vehicles. Fuel accounts for 70 percent
of the bulk tonnage transported to the battlefield and reducing
consumption by 1 percent leads to 6,500 fewer soldier trips, which has
been identified with saving lives on the battlefield through reduced
risk in transporting fuel.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Bochenek, Grace. U.S. Army Tank Automotive Research Development
and Engineering Center, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Need To Reduce Energy Consumption From Commercial Vehicles is
Significant
In August 2011, President Obama announced the finalization of the
first-ever fuel economy and greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction standards
for medium- and heavy-duty commercial vehicles. This new regulation
requires vehicle and engine manufacturers to improve efficiency by
anywhere from 7 to 25 percent for model years 2014-2017, with the
potential for further reductions beyond 2017.
Reaching these challenging goals will require substantial
manufacturer investment in the next several years at a time when
economic recovery and market potential for heavy-duty commercial trucks
has shown some recent positive signs but still remains tentative. More
than ever, the combined collaborative approach of the DOE program of
shared research toward common energy-saving objectives is needed and
necessary to assure continued progress and increase the speed of
development, deployment of technologies, and societal benefits.
While manufacturers are already well at work to meet these
aggressive and brand new regulatory requirements, continued
collaboration and partnership within truck research programs that are
funded at the committed levels will enable more rapid development and
deployment of these advanced technologies than could have been
accomplished without the collaborative government and industry
partnership. This translates into greater reductions in energy use and
savings to the economy and reduced emissions occuring earlier than
predicted as well.
The 21st Century Truck Partnership and Related Research Programs Have
Been Recently Reviewed and Found To Be of Significant Value and
High Performance
The prestigious National Research Council of the National Academy
of Sciences recently conducted an exhaustive review of the government
industry partnership program for commercial truck efficiency. In a 2011
pre-publication report,\2\ the independent NAS review panel noted that:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Review of the 21st Century Truck Partnership, Second Report,
2012. National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council Pre-
publication copy accessed from National Academies Web site March 22,
2012. http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13288 ISBN-10: 0-309-
22247-8; ISBN-13: 978-0-309-22247-1.
``Given the Federal regulatory requirements to reduce emissions and
fuel consumption, it seems the sharing of research and development
(R&D) costs between the government and U.S. manufacturers of trucks and
buses or heavy-duty vehicle components are appropriate to develop new
technologies. Thus, the 21CTP is providing access to the extraordinary
expertise and equipment in Federal laboratories, in addition to seed
funding that draws financial commitment from the companies to push
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
forward in new technology areas.'' (Page S-3)
``The 21CTP should be continued to help meet the nation's goal of
reduced fuel consumption in the transportation sector.'' (Page S-3)
``The three (see note) SuperTruck projects will be the flagship
projects under the 21CTP for fiscal year 2011 through fiscal year 2014;
the goals are in concert with recommendations made in the 2008 NRC
Phase 1 report.'' (Page S-12)
(Note: After the NAS report was drafted, one additional project was
added (for a total of four) which falls into the same category as the
projects mentioned.)
The existing DOE EERE Commercial Vehicle and Engine Programs have
delivered substantial and proven economic, environmental and energy
saving benefits: For every $1 invested, advanced combustion research
delivered $53 in benefits. According to a May 2010 study \3\ previous
advanced combustion research for laser and optical diagnostics along
with combustion modeling undertaken by DOE and now in commercial
vehicles on the road today saved 17.6 billion gallons of diesel fuel
over a 12-year period (1995-2007); a 4.5-percent savings in fuel
consumption over what would have occurred without the program
investments. This translates into a monetized saving of $34.5 billion
in 2008 dollars, and reduction of more than 177 million tons of
CO2 prevented.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Link, Albert N. Retrospective Benefit-Cost Evaluation of U.S.
DOE Vehicle Combustion Engine R&D Investments, Department of Economics,
University of North Carolina at Greensboro; May 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The established goal of improving fuel economy by 20 percent for
commercial vehicles in the ACE R&D has the potential to save more
energy than the electrification of 1 million cars. Past investments
have contributed to diesel engine manufacturers being able to meet the
most stringent emissions standards on record, resulting in today's
clean diesel technology with near zero emissions of ozone forming
compounds (nitrogen oxides) and particulate matter. The total health
and environmental benefits in terms of savings in air pollution and
energy savings exceed $70 billion according to the previously
referenced May 2010 study.
Fully Funding Commercial Vehicle Research Budgets Assures Continued
Gains and That Will Help Expedite Fuel-Saving Technology
Development and Deployment
Given the substantial progress made in the 21st Century Truck
Program, a framework of continuous progress has been developed over
time that is a predictive indicator of potential future success.
Adequate DOE program funding can assure that the commercial vehicle,
engine, and SuperTruck program goals of 50 percent increase in freight
efficiency (ton-miles per gallon) will be more likely to be met. Truck
and engine manufacturers face the unique challenge of competing
societal demands of improved efficiency and near-zero emissions while
meeting customer demands for lowest cost of operation. Significant
investments in research are required but there are diminishing
opportunities to recoup the substantial investments needed to meet
these goals with only an average 200,000-250,000 heavy-duty trucks sold
annually. Federal research investment in high-risk research is vital to
the industry. DOE R&D programs are usually a 50-50 cost share between
government and industry and this Federal match encourages companies to
spend their R&D dollars in the United States. A fully funded SuperTruck
program can assure these goals are more likely to be accomplished
earlier than if companies alone shoulder larger research demands.
conclusions
There is an incontrovertible and established need to improve energy
efficiency of the Nation's commercial vehicles. Commercial diesel-
powered trucks are the backbone of the U.S. economy and the prime
movers of the Nation's goods movement system, and will be for the
foreseeable future. Fuel consumption in this sector is projected to
continue to grow with the economy. Past EERE engine and vehicle
efficiency programs have delivered substantial and well-documented
economic, energy and environmental benefits to society. To assure
uninterrupted progress of these efforts, we urge that the subcommittee
retain the proposed fiscal year 2013 budget request for the committed
levels of SuperTruck and related program funding.
An adequate Government funding stream for the suite of VTPs like
SuperTruck and the ACE R&D, Fuels Technologies, Batteries and Electric
Drive Technologies, Vehicle and Systems Simulation, and Materials must
be retained at DOE requested levels to assure continued progress and
accelerate development and deployment of energy saving technologies.
Any reductions to the fiscal year 2013 EERE proposed funding will
jeopardize continued progress at an especially critical time as the
industry moves to meet new GHG emissions and fuel efficiency goals,
near-zero emissions levels along with competing customer demands with
the backdrop of a weakened and recovering economy.
The diesel engine is the prime mover of America's transportation,
infrastructure, and goods movement today and for the foreseeable
future. The 21st CTP has made substantial contributions to the new
near-zero emissions performance of diesel engines in commercial trucks
and with the continued investments will assure further efficiency gains
to meet future societal goals.
We appreciate the opportunity to file these comments.
______
Prepared Statement of the Edison Electric Institute
The Edison Electric Institute (EEI) respectfully submits this
written testimony for the record to the Senate Appropriations
Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development. We appreciate this
opportunity to share our views on some of the Department of Energy's
(DOE) programs for the fiscal year 2013.
EEI is the association of U.S. shareholder-owned electric
companies. Our members serve 95 percent of ultimate electricity
customers in the shareholder-owned segment of the industry and
represent approximately 70 percent of the U.S. electric power industry.
EEI has long advocated for an ``all-of-the-above'' energy strategy.
Different regions of the country use different fuel mixes to generate
electricity. Embracing a diverse and balanced energy portfolio is
crucial to reliable, affordable electricity. Therefore, we respectfully
ask the subcommittee to direct sufficient resources toward these
critically important activities.
fossil energy
As the administration notes in its Office of Fossil Energy budget
request, ``the United States has 25 percent of the world's coal
resources, and fossil fuels currently supply over 90 percent of the
Nation's energy''. Accordingly, EEI urges the subcommittee to ensure
that fossil energy research, development, and demonstration (RD&D)
receive as much funding as possible under the tight budget constraints
of the subcommittee's allocation. We further urge the preservation and
funding of fossil fuel loan guarantee authorities pending completion of
the Section 1703 Program review by the U.S. Department of Treasury.
EEI urges strong support for carbon capture and storage (CCS) and
advanced coal technology programs. Just this week, the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) issued a proposal that effectively would
require CCS on new coal-fired power plants, even though the technology
is not commercially viable. CCS commercialization is still in the
future, but demonstration technologies hold great promise, and we are
working with the Congress and the administration to develop policies
that will accelerate commercial availability and deployment. Coal is an
important domestic energy resource; given this recent EPA rulemaking,
commercially available CCS technologies are essential for coal to be a
viable part of a diverse and balanced electric generation portfolio.
In addition to coal, EEI strongly advocates for adequate funding of
policies that allow the ready access to affordable natural gas for
electric generation, including environmentally responsible development
of shale resources by the gas industry throughout the United States.
Natural gas is an increasingly important source for electric
generation, especially given its availability and low prices. As a
result, our industry is a strong proponent of developing our natural
gas resources.
nuclear energy
Given that nuclear energy is the Nation's largest source of carbon-
free electricity production, and that construction of new plants will
create tens of thousands of jobs, EEI urges strong support for the
nuclear power loan guarantee program. Under DOE's implementation,
participating borrowers pay the entire credit subsidy costs, making
this program different from other loan programs administered by the
Department.
EEI respectfully requests the subcommittee to oppose DOE's
imposition of its decontamination and decommissioning tax on electric
utilities for the cleanup of uranium enrichment facilities. As in past
years, the administration is seeking this tax under a program in which
the industry has already met its financial obligations while the
Federal Government failed to pay its required share of the cleanup
funds.
EEI strongly supports nuclear R&D, including funding for the Energy
Innovation Hub on modeling and simulation of advanced nuclear reactor
operations. In addition to this essential investment, we urge funding
for the acceleration of technology development and commercialization of
small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs). EEI supports DOE's announced
cost-shared program with private industry to support SMR design and
licensing.
electric transportation
The need for fuel diversity carriers over into the transportation
sector, where plug-in electric vehicles (PEVs) give Americans the
choice to fill up at the pump or recharge their battery at home. Using
domestically produced electricity to fuel a range of both on-road and
off-road transportation uses has the potential to transform our
Nation's transportation fleet. Electric transportation funding will
help our country reduce its dependence on foreign oil, thereby
increasing our Nation's energy security.
EEI supports the DOE's Clean Cities program, which has brought
together thousands of stakeholders in States across the Nation to
support the deployment of alternative fuel vehicles and infrastructure.
We are also supportive of the recently announced EV-Everywhere program,
which will bring down the cost of batteries, charging infrastructure
and electric vehicles so they are affordable for more families.
In 2011, according to the Oil Price Information Service, Americans
spent more than $480 billion on gasoline, paying an average of more
than $3.50-per-gallon, both record amounts. Already this year, gas
prices are more than $4-per-gallon in many cities. Electrifying the
Nation's light-duty vehicle fleet, which accounts for roughly 45
percent of total U.S. oil consumption, would reduce oil imports by more
than 3 million barrels per day in 2030.
Another benefit of electric transportation is that real electricity
prices historically have been more stable than real prices for both
gasoline and natural gas. Electricity is produced domestically, using a
wide variety of energy resources, which contributes to its greater
price stability. Unlike oil and gas, electricity does not experience
price volatility due to political instability or changes in the global
markets.
smart grid
EEI urges robust funding of DOE's efforts to continue the
deployment and commercialization of smart grid technologies. Research
and development are also keys to accelerating America's shift to an
information-enabled electricity grid. Modernizing the grid will
increase operational efficiency, improve reliability, and provide more
control and situational awareness both for utilities and their
customers.
More than 90 percent of EEI's members are involved in grid
modernization activity. As of September 1, 2011, electric utilities in
more than 43 States have installed 27 million digital smart meters.
Sixty-five million smart meters--covering 54 percent of U.S.
households--are expected to be deployed by 2015.
DOE's smart grid program is a public-private partnership. To date,
DOE funding has been matched by contributions of more than $5.5 billion
from the private sector. In a time of large budget deficits, the
subcommittee must ensure that funds are used to the greatest effect. We
respectfully request that the subcommittee continue its support of
these investments to achieve substantial cost savings and security in
the Nation's grid.
energy innovation hubs
EEI supports essential funding for DOE's Energy Innovation Hubs.
Each of these Hubs will speed research and shorten the path from
technological development to commercial deployment of highly promising
energy-related technologies. Specifically, we support the Cyber
Security Energy Delivery Systems Hub that conducts R&D activities
addressing vulnerabilities within the Nation's electricity delivery
system to reduce risk of energy disruptions due to cyber attacks. In
addition, we support the Energy Efficient Building Systems Design Hub
and the Battery/Energy Storage Hub, which will develop utility-sited
energy storage as well as new batteries with improved lifetimes and
strong capacities for expanding the range of electric vehicles while
decreasing manufacturing cost.
For fiscal year 2013, in particular, we support funding for DOE's
proposed Electricity Systems Hub. This new Hub would bring together a
multidisciplinary team of researchers to address barriers to
modernization, both short-term and long-term, at critical points in the
various regions. Establishing this Energy Innovation Hub is important
to facilitating and accelerating the process of integrating power
flows, information flows, markets, and regulation in a way that
complements grid modernization and other ongoing efforts. More
importantly, the Hub approach will promote technological innovation
and, ultimately, lower electricity costs through better utilization of
utility assets.
transmission and renewable energy
New transmission lines are increasingly needed to maintain
reliability and relieve congestion. However, obtaining regulatory
approvals for new facilities is a complex process, and often leads to
costly delays, particularly when siting involves Federal lands.
EEI supports the administration's efforts to improve Federal
coordination and ensure timely review of proposed renewable energy
projects and transmission lines though the formation of two interagency
Rapid Respond Teams, one for transmission and one for renewables.
The Rapid Respond Team for Transmission would accelerate the
permitting review of seven proposed transmission lines that cut through
12 States. These projects will help increase electric reliability,
integrate renewable energy projects and create thousands of jobs. In
Pennsylvania and New Jersey, for example, PPL Electric Utilities (PPL)
and Public Service Electric and Gas Company (PSE&G) have proposed a
power line project which includes an approximately 145-mile long 500-kV
transmission line from the Susquehanna Substation in Pennsylvania to
the Roseland Substation in New Jersey, and several substations in both
Pennsylvania and New Jersey. The project is expected to be in service
in the spring of 2015, creating more than 2,000 new jobs in these two
States alone.
______
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 2013 request for the Department of Energy's (DOE)
Vehicle Technologies and other electric drive programs.
Our members represent the entire value chain of electric drive,
including vehicle manufacturers, battery and component manufacturers,
utilities and energy companies, and smart grid and charging
infrastructure developers. Collectively, we are committed to realizing
the economic, national security, and environmental benefits of
displacing oil with hybrid, plug-in hybrid, battery, and fuel cell
electric vehicles.
Since we import nearly 50 percent of the oil used in the
transportation sector--at a cost of more than $1 billion per day--there
is a strategic and economic imperative to move toward domestically
generated electricity as an alternative to oil. The need is already
clear to families and businesses paying almost $4 gallon (and in some
places more) for gasoline and diesel fuel today. Energy Information
Administration (EIA) projects barrel prices more than $100 through
2013. Over the longer term, increasing global demand will put even
great upward pressure on prices. The implications for the economy are
also clear: every $10 per barrel increase costs the economy
approximately $75 billion.
Electric drive vehicles are being introduced into the market place
in numerous configurations, including passenger cars, commercial
trucks, buses, tractors, and ground support equipment. For instance,
more than a dozen plug-in electric drive vehicles will be on sale by
the end of 2012. These vehicles can provide substantial fuel savings
and reduced emissions while contributing to our energy and economic
security. Federal support for research, development and deployment can
accelerate achievement of those benefits.
The American Energy Innovation Council, a group of U.S. industry
leaders working to ``foster strong economic growth, create jobs in new
industries and re-establish America's energy leadership'' concluded in
their 2011 report that Federal participation in energy innovation was
imperative because ``ready access to reliable affordable forms of
energy is not only vital for the functioning of the larger economy, it
is vital to people's everyday lives and significantly impacts the
country's national security and environmental well-being''.
The Department's Vehicle Technologies program promotes innovation
in transportation through public/private partnerships and it leverages
private sector investments. Working with the diverse stakeholders of
the electric drive industry, DOE is helping to accelerate technology
breakthroughs, promoting investment in manufacturing capacity and
speeding deployment of electric drive vehicles and infrastructure.
We support the goals of the proposed EV Everywhere grand challenge
to bring down electric vehicle costs and increase electric range and
fast charging capability through expanded research in batteries and
power electronics, electric drive motors and components, and advanced
charging technologies. Specifically, we support the requested increase
for Batteries and Electric Drive Technology and Vehicle and Systems
Simulation and Testing activities that are advancing next generation
charging, systems integration, and codes and standards for vehicle to
grid communication.
The Vehicle Technologies program also conducts critical research
and development activities to advance electrification of the medium-
and heavy-duty fleet, including hybrid, plug-in hybrid, battery, and
fuel cell electric trucks and buses. Electric drive in the commercial
and transit fleet has great potential for fuel savings and emissions
reductions: putting just 10,000 hybrid electric trucks to work would
reduce diesel fuel use by 7.2 million gallons per year and reduce air
pollutants and carbon dioxide emissions by 83,000 tons. We ask that the
subcommittee direct meaningful resources toward program activities,
including work with industry partners, to reduce component costs and
further enhance performance.
Fuel cell vehicles are also critical assets in the advanced vehicle
portfolio. Fuel cell cars, trucks and nonroad vehicles will provide
``zero emission/zero petroleum'' options that are integral to meeting
national goals for energy security and reduced pollution. The budget
request points out that foreign industries are growing rapidly and that
``sustained support of the [Hydrogen and Fuel Cell] program and
continued progress toward its goals help enable the U.S. to maintain
leadership in fuel cell manufacturing and hydrogen production
technology. Success of the program will also support domestic
employment and economic growth as well as increase our options for
clean power''.
The industry is meeting aggressive cost, performance and deployment
milestones as it pushes toward commercialization in 2015. The ongoing
partnership with DOE has already yielded substantial component cost
reductions including reducing the cost of automotive fuel cells by more
than 30 percent and doubling their durability. The industry is pushing
vigorously toward commercialization in 2015. Specifically, we ask that
funding for fuel cell electric vehicles and infrastructure deployment
activities in Technology Validation and in early market development,
including education and other testing and enabling activities, be
provided at levels sufficient to enable the industry to build on
technology and market achievements to meet 2015 commercialization
targets.
Finally, we strongly support the Department's deployment programs,
including Clean Cities' work with local and regional coalitions to
expand deployment of electric drive vehicles (hybrid, plug-in hybrid,
battery, and fuel cell electric vehicles), other alternative fuel
vehicles, and recharging/fueling infrastructure as a path to increased
energy security. These efforts have a demonstrated record of success
and we support expansion of these partnerships and allocation of
additional resources for communities deploying electric drive vehicles
and recharging infrastructure.
Acknowledging the material budgetary constraints that the
subcommittee faces, we respectfully request that the Committee direct
the resources to the DOE's electric drive programs that are
proportionate to the cost of our foreign oil dependence and that will
enable the Department to build on its success, in partnership with the
private sector, in accelerating the achievement of a secure and
sustainable transportation sector.
We thank you for your consideration.
______
Prepared Statement of the Federation of American Societies for
Experimental Biology
The Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology
(FASEB) respectfully requests a fiscal year 2013 appropriation of $5.1
billion for the Department of Energy Office of Science (DOE SC). As you
know, DOE SC funding in recent years has failed to reach the levels
authorized in the America COMPETES Acts of 2007 and 2010. FASEB's
broader goal is to support sustainable growth and a return to a funding
trajectory reflective of the COMPETES reauthorization.
As a federation of 26 scientific societies, FASEB represents more
than 100,000 life scientists and engineers, making it the largest
coalition of biomedical research associations in the United States.
FASEB's mission is to advance health and welfare by promoting progress
and education in biological and biomedical sciences through service to
its member societies and collaborative advocacy. FASEB enhances the
ability of scientists and engineers to improve--through their
research--the health, well-being, and productivity of all people.
DOE SC is the lead Federal agency supporting fundamental energy
research and the Nation's largest supporter of basic research in the
physical sciences. In addition to supporting research at more than 300
universities and institutions in all 50 States, DOE SC funds and
manages 10 world-class national laboratories. Research and development
user facilities located at these national laboratories provide more
than 26,000 researchers with access to particle accelerators, advanced
light sources, supercomputers, and other state-of-the-art
instrumentation. The large-scale scientific tools at DOE SC facilities
serve as invaluable resources to academic and government scientists,
and they are also critical to the research and development capabilities
of more than 40 Fortune 500 companies, including Exxon Mobil, Ford
Motor, Boeing, and Pfizer.
A source of abundant, safe, and sustainable energy is essential for
the Nation's future, and fundamental research supported by DOE SC
provides the basis for discovering new energy technologies that can
replace fossil fuels and reduce U.S. dependency on foreign oil. DOE SC-
funded scientists and engineers are also making extraordinary
discoveries in other areas of energy research that improve health,
protect the environment, create economic opportunities, and strengthen
national security. For example, a team of DOE SC-funded scientists have
determined that certain bacteria can help facilitate the cleanup of
toxic uranium particles by converting them to forms easily collected
from the environment. Understanding the process by which these bacteria
interact with materials is important for increasing and improving their
use in contamination removal techniques. Other researchers supported by
DOE SC have identified the gene that controls ethanol production in a
well-studied microorganism, a breakthrough that could expand the
availability of biofuels and reduce reliance on imported energy
sources. Discovery of a single gene responsible for ethanol production
allows scientists to begin engineering more efficient biomass crops and
microorganisms capable of generating higher ethanol yields at reduced
costs.
In addition to its strong research programs, DOE SC supports user
facilities that benefit the entire research community by providing
unparalleled scientific and technological capabilities. For example,
powerful xray light sources at DOE SC-supported national laboratories
were used by the pharmaceutical company Plexxikon to develop a new drug
treatment for malignant melanoma, the deadliest form of skin cancer. In
this instance, scientists used the bright light sources to determine
the molecular structure of a mutated protein, enabling the design and
optimization of a drug to prevent the uncontrollable spread of cancer
cells. Researchers from the life sciences community account for almost
40 percent of all researchers using the DOE SC Basic Energy Sciences
light source facilities, many of which are studying proteins involved
in other diseases such as Alzheimer's disease, bird flu, and hepatitis.
The number of researchers using DOE SC facilities grew from 20,241 in
fiscal year 2007 to 25,876 in fiscal year 2010, an increase of 27.8
percent. In recent years, the agency's funding has failed to keep pace
with the growing demand for user facility access.
DOE SC instrumentation and technical expertise make efficient use
of precious research resources, bringing researchers across the Nation
access to cutting-edge technologies without duplication or prohibitive
cost to institutions. The agency's national lab system advances
strategic national goals and creates a research infrastructure unlike
any other in the world. With its crucial mission, national labs, and
unique scientific facilities, investment in DOE SC programs should be
one of our highest research priorities. Now is the time to provide
robust Federal funding for DOE SC to support the fundamental energy
research required to overcome the Nation's most pressing challenges.
Thank you for the opportunity to offer FASEB's support for DOE SC.
______
Prepared Statement of the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
We are the Executive Committee of the Users Organization of the
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory (Fermilab), located outside of
Chicago, Illinois. We represent the approximately 3,000 scientists who
perform research at Fermilab--our country's premier particle-physics
laboratory. Also known as high-energy physics (HEP), our field is the
study of the fundamental particles that are the building blocks of the
universe, as well as their role in astrophysics, and the accelerators
used in their study.
Eight U.S. national laboratories are actively engaged in HEP
research. They operate facilities used by scientists and students from
hundreds of U.S. universities, from other national laboratories, and
from dozens of foreign institutions. Of these laboratories, Fermilab is
the only one that is dedicated exclusively to HEP.
The Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Science supports HEP
research at U.S. national laboratories and universities. More than 160
U.S. institutions in 43 States host physicists, astrophysicists,
engineers, and accelerator scientists who work in HEP. More than one-
half of these institutions are funded through the DOE Office of
Science.
We urge the Senate to support sustained funding for fundamental
science within the DOE Office of Science. We request that the portfolio
of funding for fundamental research be balanced. HEP research is a key
part of these programs and yields valuable benefits to our Nation as
described below.
Our field is undergoing a transition, Fermilab's Tevatron
accelerator program having come to a conclusion in 2011 after an
extremely successful three decades. New programs are underway or just
beginning that will provide the basis for vibrant, world-class research
at Fermilab for the next several decades. This transition is a critical
time for our field in the United States and requires sustained funding
in order to maintain our role in world HEP research.
impact of budget cuts
Continued funding of science research is critical to our Nation.
Severe budgetary cuts will have devastating effects that will be felt
for decades. Science opportunities will be delayed or lost to other
nations. Our reputation as the place to be for the best and brightest
will be damaged.
We are therefore pleased that the administration's request for
fiscal year 2013 includes a modest increase for the DOE Office of
Science. However, we are concerned about the cuts for Fermilab included
in that request: $30 million, or approximately 8 percent. This will
require layoffs or furloughs. A large Fermilab project that will be key
to sustaining our field in the United States over the next decade, the
Long-Baseline Neutrino Experiment (LBNE), will be delayed. Such
projects are critical to the near- and medium-term future of the
laboratory and the U.S. HEP program.
The proposed cuts come at a time when Fermilab has closed the
Tevatron program, resulting in cuts in fiscal year 2012 as well. This
was done in order to consolidate resources so as to focus on new
projects, especially LBNE. The resulting savings ought to be reinvested
at Fermilab, in order to maintain the United States' preeminent HEP
facility at the forefront of world HEP.
The largest and longest-lasting impact will be in our training of
the next generation of scientists. Significant cuts will force us to
train fewer students. They will demoralize our current students and
post-docs, and some will quit. And we will no longer attract the best
students. It will take a long time to recover from even a short-term
cut to funding. These young people will be the foundation on which our
economic growth depends. Without the advanced training offered by
fields such as HEP, they will lack the skills to develop the next
technology or the next new industry. Or they will be trained in other
countries, and that innovation will occur overseas. It is critical that
we remain attractive to United States and foreign students now and in
the future.
value of high-energy physics research
In our modern economy, science and technology (S&T) drive growth,
as detailed in the National Academies' report, ``Rising Above the
Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter
Economic Future'', its 2010 update, Rising Above the Gathering Storm
Revisited, the recent book, Knowledge and the Wealth of Nations, and
many other publications. Continued leadership in S&T fields is critical
to our economic growth, national security, and position vis-a-vis the
rest of the world. Innovation by a highly trained workforce is key.
Without new technological developments within the United States,
our economy will not grow and other countries will surpass us. But the
most revolutionary technologies often require revolutions in our
fundamental knowledge and understanding, or are invented in the
research struggle of our most talented minds in pursuit of testing,
measuring, and understanding new ideas and concepts. As an example, no
one could have predicted the nature of our current society from the
first studies of the electron at the dawn of the 20th century; however,
we would not be communicating via email, fax, cellphone, or text
messages without them. It has also famously been said that the light
bulb could not have been invented by incremental improvements to the
candle! Revolutionary technologies arise from new ways of thinking
about society's problems--often derived from new experiments that ask
new questions that cannot be answered using existing technology.
HEP strives to understand the most fundamental aspects of nature.
While we can rarely predict the outcome, the quest for such knowledge
has always led to numerous technological advances, a few of which are
described below. What is predictable, is that we will educate and train
some of the best and brightest students, who will contribute to our
Nation in many different arenas.
value of technology development
While the primary purpose of HEP research is not the creation or
development of new technology, our work often requires it in order to
accomplish our goals. Many of our experiments require technology that
does not exist before the project is undertaken. Therefore, many of our
researchers spend a significant part of their careers advancing high-
tech particle detectors, developing complex computing algorithms,
inventing new kinds of particle accelerators, or pushing the limits of
high-speed electronics. Without continuous innovation, we would not be
able to complete our experiments. And once these advances are made,
they are often used in fields as diverse as medicine, materials
research, and manufacturing.
An example is the construction of the Fermilab Tevatron
accelerator, which reigned as the world's most powerful device of its
kind for nearly three decades. It required more than 1,000
superconducting magnets, placed around a 4-mile ring. Creating
superconducting magnets requires superconducting wire. At the start of
the project in the 1970s, it was known how to make such wire, but the
industry needed in order to make it on a large scale did not exist.
Fermilab researchers helped to build up that industry and advance its
production techniques through a very successful joint government/
business venture. Once the accelerator was complete in 1983, these
businesses looked around to see what other projects could use
superconducting wire. MRI machines that are now commonly used for
medical imaging are an example. Because of the work of Fermilab in
building the Tevatron, starting in the 1980s, commercial MRI scanners
have now become widespread.
A current experiment led by Fermilab scientists is the Dark Energy
Survey (DES). This requires a digital camera larger than any ever
built. Its technological developments will ultimately influence the
digital cameras available at your local electronics store as well as
devices no one has yet dreamed up. A current research and development
(R&D) effort by a university/national laboratory collaboration is
inventing new, cost-effective particle detectors with unique power to
resolve events on the picosecond (trillionth-of-a-second) time-scale.
These will also doubtless lead to new industrial, research, and medical
applications.
High-energy physicists have invented particle accelerators and
continue to steward their development. Our work requires the most
powerful particle accelerators that can be built. However, thousands of
smaller accelerators are now used in many areas of technology. Of more
than 30,000 particle accelerators throughout the world, only a small
fraction are dedicated to HEP. Most are used by industry or for medical
treatment and diagnosis. The tire industry, for example, now uses
particle accelerators to treat their tires, reducing both the amount of
rubber needed (by 3 pounds per tire) and the amounts of chemicals used
in the production process. This industry is both more efficient and
better for our environment because of the application of particle
accelerators. This success was unanticipated in the early days of
accelerator development. Industrial accelerator applications now range
from the manufacture of shrink-wrap plastic to the processing of
industrial coatings and automobile parts.
value of science education
The United States has long been the destination of choice for the
best science students from around the world. Our universities provide
an education that is second to none. Our national laboratories provide
research opportunities that are unavailable elsewhere. Fermilab is an
excellent example of this. Numerous students from foreign institutions
travel to Fermilab to complete their research. Many of these students
then choose to stay in the United States after completing their
degrees.
Our students learn a variety of skills that are applicable in
numerous fields. They learn to work on problems to which the answer is
unknown and to adapt to unforeseen challenges. They learn skills in
computer programming, data analysis, simulation of complex problems,
and electronics development, among others. They learn to work in teams
as members of international collaborations, finding innovative
solutions to challenging problems. They learn how to take a project
from start to finish, write a document detailing it, and present it to
an audience. The complex analytical thinking necessary to solve
problems in fundamental science can't be taught in a classroom, but is
nonetheless crucial for solving problems in business and industry in
the 21st century.
Many of our students choose to continue their immediate careers as
postdoctoral associates. This provides a postgraduate education that
further develops their skills. , docs generally take on more complex
projects and develop leadership and management skills. Most HEP
experiments involve 20 to 2,000 scientists and face challenges that are
similar to those in many businesses.
Scientists trained in HEP work in telecommunications, software
development, aerospace, education, medicine, government, and finance,
to name a few. About 90 percent of our Ph.D. students enter new fields.
Private businesses are the largest and most diverse employers of
scientists trained in high-energy physics. Several former HEP
researchers have founded or led small and large companies, including
Richard Wellner, chief scientist at Univa UD, a cloud management
software company; Francisco Vaca, CEO of Vaca Capital Management LLC;
George Coutrakon, former director of operations at Loma Linda
University Medical Center and now technical director of the Northern
Illinois Proton Treatment and Research Center; Homaira Akbair, CEO of
SkyBitz, a satellite-based tracking company; Rolland Johnson, founder
and president of Muons, Inc., an accelerator R&D company; and Nagesh
Kulkarni, CEO of Quarkonics Applied Research Corp., a business and
technology consulting company.
Our researchers are engaged in education at all levels and
understand the importance of scientific literacy in our society. For
example, hundreds to thousands of public lectures are given around the
country by high-energy physicists each year. Our scientists visit local
schools to share the excitement of science through physics
demonstrations or presentations of their work. The QuarkNet program,
funded through the National Science Foundation, trains K-12 teachers in
28 States in cutting-edge research that they can take into the
classroom. More than 38,000 students attend Fermilab education
activities each year.
summary
Scientific research in general, and HEP in particular, provides
value to our Nation that will be lost without sustained funding from
the U.S. Government. The knowledge that is gained will lead to future
innovation that will maintain our world-class scientific capabilities.
The path to that knowledge will lead to advances in technology that
will help sustain our economic recovery. And the education of students
from the United States and abroad will provide the knowledgeable
workforce that will carry us through the next half-century.
It is critically important to maintain our world-class position in
scientific research. The repercussions of severe cuts will be felt for
a long time. We urge the Senate Appropriations Committee to support the
President's request to maintain our scientific research program for the
long-term health of the Nation, and to restore funding to HEP and
priority projects at Fermilab in order to reinvest in this core
discovery scientific discipline.
______
Prepared Statement of the Gas Turbine Association
The Gas Turbine Association (GTA) appreciates the opportunity to
provide the United States Senate Committee on Appropriations
Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development with our industry's
statement recommending fiscal year 2013 funding levels for the
Department of Energy (DOE).
GTA respectfully recommends that the fiscal year 2013 appropriation
for DOE Office of Fossil Energy include $20 million for the Hydrogen
Turbines Program to meet critical national goals of job creation, fuel
conservation, greenhouse gas reduction, fuel flexibility (including
syngas and hydrogen), and criteria pollutant reduction. A spending
level of $20 million is more appropriate than the administration's
recommendation $12.6 million considering that the fiscal year 2012
spending level was $14.6 and years of under-funding for Gas Turbine
Technologies is resulting in our Nation's loss of leadership in this
important industry. A spending level of $12.6 million will result in
pushing out the timeline for the development and deployment of
environmentally advanced gas turbines by several years.
Federal investment in research and technology development for
advanced gas turbines that are more efficient, versatile, cleaner, and
have the ability to burn hydrogen-bearing reduced carbon synthetic
fuels and carbon-neutral alternative fuels is needed to ensure the
reliable supply of electricity in the next several decades. Japan and
China are quickly moving into leadership positions in this industry
which in the United States has been responsible for hundreds of
thousands of research and development (R&D), engineering, manufacturing
and field service jobs for the past 75 years. Japan is consistently
investing more than $80 million per year, and China has recently
announced an indigenous F class gas turbine (F class represents 50
percent of the gas turbine market). If our Nation continues to
underfund research and development efforts in gas turbine technology,
the resulting loss of jobs and U.S. technology will be long-term and
possibly permanent.
We believe that a modest Federal investment in future gas turbine
technologies will be repaid many times over in reduced electricity
costs, increased flexibility and increased reliability for our Nation's
consumers. In addition, we believe that additional funding should be
directed at encouraging university based research that will ``jump-
start'' the careers of future engineering graduates in the gas turbine
industry.
The gas turbine industry's R&D partnership with the Federal
Government has steadily increased powerplant efficiency to the point
where natural gas fired turbines can reach combined cycle efficiencies
of 60 percent, and quick-start simple cycle peaking units can reach 46
percent. The gas turbine's clean exhaust can be used to create hot
water, steam, or even chilled water. In such combined heat and power
applications, overall system efficiency levels can reach 60 to 85
percent lower heating value (LHV).
CO2 Emissions
Gas turbines are both more efficient and typically burn lower
carbon fuels compared to other types of combustion-based power
generation and mechanical drive applications. The Nation needs to
reinvigorate the gas turbine industry/government partnership in order
to develop new, low-carbon powerplant solutions. This can be done by
funding research to make gas turbines both efficient and more capable
of utilizing hydrogen and synthetic fuels as well as increasing the
efficiency, durability and emissions capability of natural gas fired
turbines. If the Congress provides adequate funding to DOE's turbine
R&D efforts, we believe technology development and deployment will be
accelerated to a pace that will allow the United States to achieve its
emissions and energy security goals.
GTA respectfully requests $20 million in fiscal year 2013
appropriations for the Fossil Energy Hydrogen Turbines Program to meet
critical national goals of job growth, fuel conservation, fuel
flexibility (including natural gas, syngas and hydrogen), greenhouse
gas reduction, and criteria pollutant reduction.
______
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 2013 budget requests for the Department of
Energy (DOE). GE recognizes that particularly difficult choices must be
made in fiscal year 2013. These budget pressures make it essential that
the subcommittee prioritize those programs that will contribute to
economic growth and jobs creation and support core technology
development. GE recommends:
--in the Fossil Energy program, increased investment in pre-
combustion carbon capture and gasification systems;
--in Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, full funding of the
budget requests for solar and wind technologies;
--in Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, full funding of the
budget request for research and development; and
--in Nuclear Energy, full funding for the Small Modular Reactor
Licensing Technical Support program and additional amounts for
research and development (R&D) in Advanced Reactors Concepts
and Small Modular Reactor Advanced Concepts.
fossil energy
Coal Program: Carbon Capture, Pre-Combustion Capture
GE is concerned that the funding reductions proposed in
gasification systems and pre-combustion carbon capture will negatively
affect programs that are critically important to the future of power
generation from coal. These programs are on the path to improve the
cost and performance of Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC)
technology to enable IGCC to be a cost-competitive option for low-
carbon power generation.
IGCC is capable today of achieving the emissions standards of the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) mercury and air toxics standards
and new source performance standards for new coal plants without
additional R&D. Compared with conventional coal plants, IGCC consumes
less water, produces useful coal byproducts, and can co-produce
valuable transportation fuels and chemicals that reduce oil imports.
With its proven, pre-combustion carbon capture, IGCC also provides
CO2 useful for enhanced oil recovery (EOR) at lower cost
compared to combustion coal technology.
GE therefore recommends that fiscal year 2013 funding for Carbon
Capture: Pre-combustion Capture be increased by $6 million to $17.4
million. This increased funding is needed to:
--continue key programs that have met their early goals;
--develop alternative capture processes; and
--provide for new competitive solicitations.
GE also recommends that fiscal year 2013 funding for Advanced Energy
Systems: Gasification Systems be increased by $5.7 million to $37.6
million. This increased funding is needed to support the next phase of
R&D focused on reducing IGCC cost, increasing performance and improving
availability.
Clean Coal Power Initiative
The Clean Coal Power Initiative (CCPI) is the key vehicle for
commercial validation of technology emerging from the DOE R&D programs
and from industry. Current CCPI projects are supporting first
generation gasification and IGCC technology. DOE has not announced
plans for a future CCPI solicitation. GE recommends that DOE move
forward with the development of a CCPI-4 solicitation in preparation
for the commercial demonstration of second-generation technologies, and
that a modest level of funding for this solicitation be provided in
fiscal year 2013. A CCPI-4 solicitation should focus on demonstration
of technology that is specifically optimized for EOR so as to provide a
revenue stream that will reduce the operating cost impact that could be
a deterrent to cost-share participation by industry.
Advanced Energy Systems, Hydrogen Turbines
According to the DOE's 2011 performance report, the advanced
turbine program has made consistent progress toward fully mitigating
the cost and performance penalty associated with carbon capture. The
funding reductions proposed in the fiscal year 2013 budget request
will:
--delay completion of Phase II development;
--curtail Phase III implementation and prototype validation; and
--significantly scale back important university research.
GE, therefore, recommends that fiscal year 2013 funding for
Advanced Energy Systems: Hydrogen Turbines be increased to $20 million.
This amount would still represent a 33 percent reduction from the
fiscal year 2011 funding level, but would better balance program needs
and accomplishments.
Water Management
Large amounts of water are needed to produce or extract energy, and
large amounts of energy are needed to treat or transport water. EPA is
preparing to finalize its proposed rules for cooling water intake
structures under section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act, which
underscores the important linkage between water use and energy
generation. In addition, CO2 capture can increase raw water
usage by up to 125 percent, depending on the underlying technology. DOE
has set aggressive goals of reducing freshwater withdrawals and
consumption 50 percent by 2015 and 70 percent by 2020. Federal support
for water-related R&D is necessary if these goals are to be reached.
Unfortunately, the fiscal year 2013 budget does not contain any new
funding for Water Management activities within the fossil energy
program.
GE believes that Federal investment in R&D for innovative water
reuse technologies and demonstration projects is warranted. In addition
to R&D focused on cooling tower blowdown water reuse, Flue Gas
Desulphurization wastewater reuse and recovery, and ash pond solids
reduction, treatment and reuse of source water for and flowback/
produced water from unconventional oil and natural gas production would
further reduce environmental impacts and operational costs of upstream
energy processes. Advancement of reuse/treatment technologies for the
conversion of impaired wastewater streams into renewable water sources
in areas of water scarcity could reduce the need to use energy to
transport water over long distances and to support electricity
generation.
energy efficiency and renewable energy
Wind
GE supports full funding of the DOE's fiscal year 2013 request for
wind energy. The cost of wind energy has declined significantly in
recent years due to technological advances and manufacturing scale,
both of which have benefited from past DOE R&D support. However, the
decline in the price of natural gas generation accentuates the need for
continued technological advances to support wind affordability and
reliability. DOE funding support is critical for catalyzing next-
generation innovations in both onshore and offshore wind. Related work
in wind resource assessment and system integration will further enable
higher levels of wind deployment and penetration.
Solar
GE supports full funding of the DOE's fiscal year 2013 request for
solar energy. DOE research programs have been central to recent cost
declines in solar electricity, and the SunShot Initiative to achieve
cost-competitiveness with other electricity sources is both ambitious
and necessary. While solar cost-competitiveness will not be
accomplished through DOE funding support alone, the Government can play
an essential role in leveraging additional industry and university
research. GE also welcomes the PV Program's focus on lowering costs
through conversion efficiency and manufacturing process improvements,
as well as the overall program's investigation of balance-of-system
issues.
Fuel Cells
R&D is required to develop advanced fuel cell technologies to drive
efficiency to make this technology more commercially viable. Research
into combined cycle technologies using fuel cell and aero derivatives
or natural gas reciprocating engines is needed to achieve efficiency
goals of 90 percent or greater.
electricity delivery and energy reliability
Research and Development
GE supports the fiscal year 2013 budget request for OE Research and
Development. R&D on grid modernization technologies will advance
reliable, affordable, efficient, and secure delivery of electric power
to industrial, commercial, and residential customers, while at the same
time preparing the grid to support greater quantities of renewable
energy. Integration of traditional electric grid infrastructures with
modern IT computer and communications systems will be necessary, and GE
continues to work closely with national and international standards
development organizations in the development of grid interoperability
standards. Cybersecurity remains a fundamental design principle of this
effort.
In order to reduce risk and accelerate the adoption of new advanced
grid modernization technologies, R&D funding will be required for the
development of modeling, simulation, and visualization of both the
transmission and distribution networks. 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 grid modernization technologies. DOE should expand industry
participation in programs to develop modeling and computational
capabilities for grid applications to fully leverage work already
underway.
In conjunction with modeling and simulation research, R&D is
required to develop advanced grid analytics software to optimize grid
efficiency and reliability, including ``Big Data'' storage and real
time analysis and exascale computing. Research into broadband wireless
technologies will be required to collect the field data required in
``real time.'' Research into low costs sensors will be needed to
monitor the status of a modern grid.
Energy Storage
GE endorses the requested funding for further research into energy
storage technologies. The fiscal year 2013 budget request appropriately
broadens the scope of interest to include innovations in new battery
chemistries. This could lead to radical improvements in energy storage
performance. Electricity storage is a critical technology to enable
both deployment of electric vehicles and improvements in grid stability
and efficiency through utility-scale storage.
Equal attention should be given to both electric vehicles and
storage. The requirements of utility-scale storage are quite different
from those of electric vehicles. GE recommends inclusion of research
into large-scale energy storage into this line item. This includes all
potential storage modalities such as compressed air, pumped hydro, and
flywheel technologies.
In addition, investment should be made in research into broader
applications of storage technologies such as ancillary services,
including frequency regulation service to balance supply and demand on
the transmission system as addressed in Order No. 755 issued by the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in October 2011, energy arbitrage,
and peak shaving.
nuclear energy
Next Generation of Nuclear
GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy (GEH) wholeheartedly supports the efforts
of DOE's Office of Nuclear Energy to research and develop the next
generation of nuclear technologies for carbon free electricity
generation and for the management of used nuclear fuel. In support of
both of these goals, the Congress should provide the requested $65
million for the cost-shared, industry partnership Small Modular Reactor
Licensing Technical Support program (``SMR program'') for fiscal year
2013. At the direction of the Congress, DOE opened the SMR program
competition to all advanced reactor technologies providing 300 MW or
less of power. GEH concurs with the Congress that a fleet of advanced
reactor SMRs will play a key role in meeting the country's energy
security, economic, and carbon-free, baseload generation goals.
Recognizing the high cost and extreme importance associated with the
design certification and licensing of first-of-a-kind SMR designs, GEH
recommends that the SMR program, in which industry is providing a
minimum 50-percent contribution, be funded at the requested amount.
Advanced reactors, like GEH's PRISM reactor, can provide secure and
clean baseload electricity while benefitting the back end of the fuel
cycle. For this reason, it is important that the Reactor Concepts
research, development, and demonstration program be provided sufficient
funding. In particular, the Advanced Reactors Concepts and Small
Modular Reactor Advanced Concepts R&D subprograms, which are facing 43-
percent and 34-percent funding cuts, respectively, should be expanded.
Both of these subprograms focus on high-value research to address near
term challenges such as demonstration, simulation and training
programs, and the application of advanced modularization and
construction techniques to help reduce new plant capital costs.
GEH further supports the funding of National Nuclear Security
Administration's Nonproliferation Policy and International Security
program. International civil nuclear cooperation is fundamental to
implement our nonproliferation policy goals and to keep viable our
domestic commercial nuclear capabilities. Recognizing the importance of
U.S. commercial nuclear exports in achieving our nonproliferation
objectives, GEH supports increasing the fiscal year 2013 budget for the
Nonproliferation Policy subprogram.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Association of State Energy
Officials
Chairperson Feinstein and members of the subcommittee: I am Malcolm
Woolf of Maryland and chair of the National Association of State Energy
Officials (NASEO). NASEO is submitting this testimony in support of
funding for a variety of Department of Energy (DOE) programs.
Specifically, we are testifying in support of no less than $50 million
for the base, formula State Energy Program (SEP). We urge the
subcommittee to strive for the $125 million figure, which is equal to
the fiscal year 2012 authorization. SEP is the most successful program
supported by the Congress and DOE in this area. This should be base
program funding, with no competitive portion, which focuses primarily
on DOE's internal priorities. SEP is focused on working with private
business to help facilitate 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. The base SEP funds are the critical linchpin to
help States in building on these activities and expanding energy-
related economic development, much as SEP has done for 30 years. We
also support the $210 million level 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 the budget request for the Energy
Information Administration (EIA) of $116.4 million. 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 EIA
responsibilities under the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA).
NASEO continues to support funding for a variety of critical buildings
programs, including Building Codes Training and Assistance, ENERGY
STAR, and residential energy efficiency at least at the fiscal year
2012 level, and Building Codes at a $15 million funding level. NASEO
also supports funding for the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy
Reliability (OE) at the level of the fiscal year 2013 budget request.
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 research and development (R&D) function and Operations and Analysis
function within OE. The industries program (now renamed the Advanced
Manufacturing program) should be funded at least at the fiscal year
2012 level, to promote efficiency efforts and to maintain U.S.
manufacturing jobs.
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 energy financing programs, revolving loans, utility-
based programs, energy service performance contracts, et cetera. We
greatly appreciate the support of the subcommittee for SEP in the past.
In January 2003 (and updated in 2005), 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 found that $1 in SEP funding
yields:
--$7.22 in annual energy cost savings;
--$10.71 in leveraged funding from the States and private sector in
18 types of project areas;
--annual energy savings of 47,593,409 million source BTUs; and
--annual cost savings of $333,623,619.
Energy price volatility makes the program more essential as
businesses and States work together to maintain our competitive edge.
stimulus funding implementation
We have been working closely with DOE to implement the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) 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
sharing best practices and providing 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 assist the
private sector to implement major positive changes in the U.S. economy
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, all the work is being implemented quickly. The deadlines
set forth in the statute will be satisfied. We and DOE have worked
through the barriers that slowed spending, including National
Environmental Policy Act (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. Of the ARRA funds
dedicated to SEP and Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant
(EECBG), approximately $1 billion has been dedicated to energy
financing programs in cooperation with the private sector. This has the
greatest long-term potential.
Examples of Successful State Energy Program Activities.--The States
have implemented thousands of projects. We have previously supplied to
subcommittee staff examples of programs and projects implemented. Here
are a few representative examples.
Alabama's SEP funds are being used to support the purchase and
installation of energy efficient equipment in 118 Alabama K-12 schools.
The energy improvements have generated cost-savings exceeding $1
million a year. The Talladega County Board of Education replaced 31
heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) units in 17 schools.
The new efficient units are saving the district more than $75,000
annually. Winston County Board of Education replaced 14 HVAC units in
two of its schools with new efficient units which are saving the school
more than 20 percent on electricity costs a year.
Alaska collected benchmarking data on 1,300 public facilities in
order to identify high-energy using buildings. A total of 351 public
buildings with a high Energy Use Index were identified and are
undergoing Investment Grade Audits, which will pinpoint specific energy
improvement projects. These energy measures will be funded through a
loan program where the project's debt service will be paid entirely
through the energy cost savings.
California is improving energy efficiency in State-owned buildings
through the State Property Revolving Loan Fund Program. This
sustainable loan program is supporting energy upgrades in more than 60
buildings located throughout the State--including energy retrofit
projects in 18 California Highway Patrol Offices. As a result, a field
office in Oakland now has energy efficient lights that are saving
nearly $21,000 a year in energy costs. The Oakland lighting project
will pay for itself in cost savings in just more than 2 years.
Illinois is promoting the development of renewable energy and
energy efficiency manufacturers and supply-chain businesses in the
State. Since 2010, the Green Business Development Grant Program has
awarded grants to 25 Illinois manufacturers that have expanded into the
green technology sector by retrofitting their manufacturing processes.
Ingersoll Machine Tools, Inc., a Rockford-based manufacturer of
aviation components, used a Green Business grant to purchase and
retrofit equipment so it can also produce wind turbine components. The
retooling effort created 87 new jobs at Ingersoll. Funk Linko has been
producing light poles at its Chicago Heights facility since 1925. With
a Green Business grant the company retooled its existing steel mill
equipment to produce components for wind power generation.
The Iowa State Energy Office provided a $1.7 million matching grant
funded by SEP to support the Sun Prairie Vista Court Apartments in
reducing energy use by implementing and documenting the performance of
new, energy-efficient technologies that include, for example, variable
speed pumps, thermal solar collectors for hot water, and induction
exterior lighting. To measure the benefits of the efficiency upgrades,
the apartment complex will monitor before and after results, including
real-life information on energy use. Tenants are benefiting from the
energy efficiency improvement. The demonstration project employed
approximately 21 individuals and produces projected annual energy
savings of $111,417.
In Kentucky $14 million has been dedicated to the Green Bank of
Kentucky for energy efficiency financing for public buildings. To date,
11 Green Bank loans have funded energy upgrades in 61 public buildings.
The Kentucky Department of Veterans Affairs used a Green Bank loan for
energy upgrades in three of its facilities--Thomas-Hood, and the East
and West Kentucky Veterans Centers. These facility improvements are
generating annual energy cost savings of $195,000, and $23,000 annually
in water savings. The savings will repay the Green Bank loan in less
than 12 years and after that all further savings will directly benefit
the taxpayers of Kentucky.
Louisiana's Transportation Efficiency and Alternative Fuels Program
awarded a grant to Bossier City for two publicly accessible Compressed
Natural Gas fueling stations and the purchase of 10 heavy duty
compressed natural gas (CNG) vehicles for the city's fleet. The Bossier
City project has resulted in the displacement of approximately 270,000
gallons of diesel or gasoline per year and created 10 new jobs.
Maine's Home Energy Savings Program, which launched in 2010, has to
date resulted in approximately 5,000 residential energy audits with
more than 3,000 of these homeowners receiving rebates for whole house
energy upgrades. More than 100 licensed construction companies have
been certified to participate in the program, which has resulted in
excess of $27 million worth of residential energy retrofit projects.
These energy improvements are saving homeowners an average of 40
percent in energy costs, or approximately $1,454 per year, amounting to
savings of approximately 405 gallons of heating oil per year.
Mississippi's public buildings program is helping to finance
energy-saving upgrades through performance contracting in 10 public
institutions. The participating public sector partners include the
Biloxi School District, Cleveland School District, Desoto County,
Jefferson County, Lawrence County School District, Mississippi State
Hospital, Monroe County School District, Claiborne County, Alcorn
County School District and Hollandale School District. Under the
program, 149 public buildings, representing more than 3 million square
feet of space, have been completed. The Biloxi Public Schools project
was completed in October 2011 and is expected to save more than
$275,000 a year in utility costs.
Montana improved its recycling infrastructure in communities
throughout the State with the purchase of equipment to collect, store,
and transport recyclables to market and assist local businesses use the
materials collected. A total of 19 recycling projects were funded
through the Montana Recycling Infrastructure Grants program, including
recycling collection bins in Libby, Troy, Colstrip, St. Ignatius,
Ronan, Polson, Bozeman, Havre, Shelby and at sporting events,
performances and tradeshows held on the campus of Montana State
University.
New Jersey supported the development of six combined heat and power
(CHP) projects at commercial and industrial customers. Results include
a 3.2 megawatt (MW) CHP project at the National Gypsum Company facility
in Burlington. Other projects include a 9.5 MW cogeneration unit at the
DSM Nutritional Products facility in Belvidere, a 1.1 MW gas engine
generator at Ocean City College, and a 4.6 MW cogeneration plant for
the new University Medical Center at Princeton. All totaled, nearly 35
MW of clean-energy production has resulted from this SEP-funded
program.
Rhode Island's Deliverable Fuels Program provides incentives and
rebates for energy retrofits to customers who heat their homes and
businesses with oil, propane, or other deliverable fuels. The program
launched in August 2010, and in the first 6 months 1,431 audits had
been conducted statewide. Of these audits, 546 customers implemented
recommended heating system replacements or other energy saving
measures. These initial retrofits will reduce heating oil consumption
by 2 million gallons over the next 20 years, saving these customers a
combined $7 million through lower heating bills.
South Carolina's public building energy retrofit program has
resulted in energy efficiency improvements in 579 buildings statewide.
The buildings represent nearly 21 million square feet of public
building space and include 32 2- and 4-year colleges, 22 State agencies
and 85 school districts. Williamsburg Technical College used a grant
from this program to upgrade lighting and replace outdated HVAC units.
These upgrades will pay for themselves in energy costs savings in less
than 2 years and will help the college save more than $30,000 annually
going forward.
South Dakota conducted energy audits of all State-owned buildings.
Based on the audit's data, grants, and loans were executed to implement
cost-effective projects in 55 public buildings. A boiler replacement in
the 100-year-old State capitol building complex is among the completed
projects. The boiler replacement is projected to save taxpayers more
than $2 million in energy costs over the life of the new equipment.
Tennessee's Volunteer State Solar Initiative's grant programs have
awarded a total of 236 grants to date and more than $40 million of
private funds have been leveraged. The grant-funded projects have added
approximately 6.5 MW of solar power to the grid.
Texas' Transportation Efficiency Program awarded 16 grants for the
synchronization of traffic signals and/or the replacement of traffic
signal lights with LEDs. A major traffic synchronization project in
Missouri City retimed and synchronized traffic signals at 44
intersections on 120 lane miles of six major roads. This one project is
saving an estimated 47,000 hours annually for people traveling those
roads during weekday rush hour.
The Washington Community Energy Efficiency Pilot Program has to-
date retrofitted 1,154 commercial buildings representing nearly 1.2
million square feet, and more than 8,000 residential structures
throughout the State. In addition, it created the foundation for a
sustainable residential and non-residential energy retrofit industry
and workforce in the State of Washington.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Association for State Community
Services Programs
The National Association for State Community Services Programs
(NASCSP), urges the U.S. Senate Committee on Appropriations
Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development to fund the Department of
Energy's (DOE) Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP) at $210 million.
In these difficult budgetary times, we understand that tough decisions
have to be made. However, WAP is proven, cost-effective, measurably
successful, and vital to the Nation's energy security and energy
efficiency movements, delivering savings to low-income Americans,
businesses, and industry. WAP faces an uphill battle in the immediate
future do to a reduction in funding and leading to the loss of jobs and
capacity to assist low-income Americans. It is necessary to fund WAP at
this level in order to sustain its historic infrastructure in and
widespread impact on all States and local communities as well as the
expanded training and technical assistance expertise and activities
enabled with the funding provided by the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA). This funding level is essential to
continue and improve this outstanding program for our citizens. Due to
the close of ARRA funding in March 2012 and the severely limited 2012
funding, continued funding is even more critical to allow the WAP
Network to fulfill its mandate duties and ensure continued quality and
success at pre-Recovery Act levels.
Some examples of the program's accomplishments include:
--Creation and support of more than 13,000 full-time, highly skilled
jobs within the service delivery network due to ARRA funds, the
second highest in the Nation, with 8,000-10,000 additional jobs
from annual grant funding, and many more in related businesses,
such as materials suppliers;
--Weatherization of an additional 700,000 homes occupied by low-
income families, more than 100,000 homes above projected
numbers, due to the ARRA and tens of thousands of more homes
through annual appropriations, thereby reducing energy use and
associated energy bills;
--Served more than 7.1 million low-income homes since the program's
inception, with an additional 38.3 million eligible;
--Saves an estimated 35 percent of consumption for the typical home,
with savings continuing year-after-year and actual $1 savings
increasing as fuel prices increase;
--Saves $437 in first year energy savings for households weatherized;
--Returns $2.51 for every $1 spent in energy and nonenergy benefits
over the life of the weatherized home;
--Serves as a foundation for residential energy efficiency retrofit
standards, technical skills, and workforce training for the
emerging broader market;
--Supports communities through local purchasing and jobs created
nationwide;
--Reduces residential and power plant emissions of carbon dioxide by
2.65 metric tons/year per home; and
--Decreases national energy consumption by the equivalent of 24.1
million barrels of oil annually.
WAP is the largest residential energy conservation program in the
Nation and serves an essential function by helping low-income families
reduce their energy use. The program was developed in the late-1970s as
a response to rapidly rising energy costs associated with oil shortages
created by oil embargoes. The Congress acknowledged that low-income
families were particularly vulnerable to increased energy price
fluctuations and created the program to assist those families by
reducing the cost to heat their homes. WAP was institutionalized within
the Department of Energy in 1979 and today operates in all 50 States,
the District of Columbia, five U.S. territories, and several Native
American Tribes. Approximately 1,000 local agencies provide services in
every political jurisdiction of the country using direct hire crews and
local contractors to do the work, thus investing in local businesses
and communities. These network providers use program funds to improve
the energy efficiency of low-income dwellings, utilizing the most
advanced technologies and testing protocols available in the housing
industry. Since the Program's inception, more than 7.1 million homes
have been weatherized using Federal, State, utility, and other monies.
WAP is still as relevant now as it was when it was formed in
response to the energy crisis 30 years ago. The savings to America's
most vulnerable citizens are significant and make a huge, immediate
difference in their lives. These families have an average energy
burden--the percentage of their income needed to pay residential energy
bills--around 15 percent of their income as compared to around 3
percent for non-low income households, or five times greater. And the
poorest families have a much higher energy burden than that. For
example, in the State of California, Subcommittee Chair Dianne
Feinstein's home State, there are more than 718,000 households below 50
percent of the Federal poverty level, making less than $12,000 per year
for a family of four. Those families have an energy burden of 36.5
percent--more than one-third of their income. With lower energy bills,
these families can increase their usable income and buy other
essentials like food, shelter, clothing, medicine, and healthcare and
thus investing in local businesses and communities. WAP provides a
positive return on investment to meet its primary objectives of making
homes warmer in winter and cooler in summer and creating safer and
healthier indoor environments.
Because of the advanced diagnostics and technology developed in
WAP, the program is the foundation for the emerging green energy
efficiency retrofit workforce. There are approximately 25,000 jobs in
the Weatherization network, with many more supported in related
businesses, such as material suppliers. These jobs are good, living
wage jobs, which are more important than ever due to the economic
downturn in the housing and construction industries. Workers are highly
trained and receive on-going instruction to further develop their
skills. WAP is at the core of the larger energy-efficiency retrofit
market, and its training curricula, methods, and centers play an
integral role in developing tools and techniques and a workforce. WAP
managers, trainers, and technical experts figure prominently in the
Recovery through Retrofit initiative, contributing their expertise to
the Workforce Guidelines for Residential Energy Efficiency Workers and
playing a key role in the development of standardized training
curricula, worker certifications, and training facility accreditations.
In order to sustain the program, it is critical that the WAP
maintain adequate funding so the network can continue to provide jobs
and support local economies as well as promote energy efficiency
nationwide. The fiscal year 2012 level of $68 million is not enough to
continue nationwide coverage of the program and continued low funding
will result in the loss of jobs, investment of local business, and
energy efficiency services that ensure the health and safety of
families across the country.
NASCSP urges the subcommittee to fund WAP at $210 million for
fiscal year 2013. The WAP remains a crucial component of our Nation's
energy future. WAP is a clearly proven investment, has provided
significant energy savings, and has helped more than 7.1 million
families live in safer, more comfortable living conditions. This is a
program that has proved its worth and effectiveness for more than 30
years. NASCSP looks forward to working with subcommittee members in the
future as we attempt to create energy self-sufficiency and good jobs
for millions of American families through these invaluable national
programs.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Carbon Capture Center
Madam Chairwoman and members of the subcommittee: Southern Company
operates the Department of Energy's (DOE) National Carbon Capture
Center (NCCC) (http://nationalcarboncapturecenter.com) at the Power
Systems Development Facility (PSDF) in Wilsonville, Alabama for DOE's
National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL). The NCCC is the world's
premier research and development (R&D) facility for cost-effective
carbon dioxide (CO2) capture technologies for use at coal
and natural gas fired power generation and industrial facilities. With
the completion of its construction in 2011, research is now underway to
screen the more than 300 capture technologies already identified and to
ensure development of those concepts most likely to be commercially
successful. To accomplish this, the NCCC is collaborating with
technology developers world-wide as well as industrial, utility, and
fuel co-funding partners \1\ and is bringing to the Nation a proven
technology development business model at a scale that is more cost-
effective than large demonstrations of single technologies. As the NCCC
begins its first full year of operation in 2012, this partnership
respectfully requests the support of the Congress for the fiscal year
2013 DOE budget request at the fiscal year 2012 enacted levels for the
annual operating costs of its NCCC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would like to thank the Senate for its past support of the NCCC
and request the subcommittee's continued support of the DOE's Fossil
Energy R&D core budget. At a time when our country's economy is
recovering, we need to assure continued utilization of domestically
produced, low-cost, coal and natural gas based power generation. DOE's
Fossil Energy R&D efforts have already produced significant results to
advance coal-based power. DOE's core R&D budgets, combined with
investments by the private sector assure a sustainable technology base
on which to address the environmental and economic challenges facing
coal and natural gas use in the future. Operation of the NCCC in
partnership with DOE will benefit the Nation by developing cost-
effective CO2 capture technology for fossil-fueled power
generation by teaming with technology developers and accelerating
commercial deployment of viable technologies.
The NCCC's CO2 capture efforts address all three areas
of DOE's CO2 capture goals concerning postcombustion capture
for conventional plants, pre-combustion capture for coal gasification
power plants, and advanced oxy-combustion processes which produce a
more CO2-rich flue gas than conventional combustion for
easier CO2 capture. Southern Company also supports the goals
of the Clean Coal Technology Roadmaps developed by the Electric Power
Research Institute (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 25 years.
The NCCC offers a flexible applied R&D test facility which provides
commercially representative flue gas and syngas and the necessary
infrastructure in which developers' technologies are installed and
tested to generate data for performance verification under industrially
realistic operating conditions. This effort is a less costly way to
bridge the gaps between fundamental R&D and more costly large-scale
commercial demonstrations. By operating a unique, but central R&D test
facility, available to all CO2 technology developers,
redundancy in testing sites and equipment is minimized and cost-
effective use of R&D funds is achieved.
summary
The United States has historically been a leader in energy
research. Adequate funding for fossil energy R&D 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, if adequately funded, will assure that a wide
range of electric generation options are available for future needs.
The Congress faces difficult choices when examining near-term effects
on the Federal budget of funding energy research. However, EIA projects
that coal will continue to fuel our country well into the future, and
continued support for coal-based energy research will be essential to
the long-term environmental and economic well being of the United
States. Prior DOE clean coal technology research has already provided
the basis for a 25-fold return in consumer benefits over research
costs. To realize potentially even greater consumer benefits, the
critically important R&D program in the CURC-EPRI Clean Coal Technology
Roadmap must be implemented.
One of the key national assets for achieving these benefits is the
NCCC. The fiscal year 2013 funding for the NCCC will provide
operations, maintenance, and modification of the facilities to test
technologies that are critical to the development of cost-effective
climate change technologies that will enable the continued use of
fossil fuels to supply a share of the Nation's energy needs. Any budget
cuts in the DOE Fossil Energy Core R&D budget from the fiscal year 2012
enacted levels could proportionately impact the necessary work that
will be conducted at the NCCC. A key NCCC feature is its flexibility to
test new carbon capture technologies for power generation systems in an
integrated fashion and under realistic industrial conditions. The NCCC
can evaluate CO2 capture technologies as they are integrated
into actual syngas (from gasification) or flue gas from actual power
plant operations. Integrated operation allows the effects of system
interactions, typically missed in un-integrated, laboratory-based,
component development programs, to be understood. This integration
provided by the NCCC is the key to ensuring component technologies are
validated before they can be designed into large scale industrial
applications. Furthermore, the NCCC is large enough to produce data to
support commercial scale designs, yet small enough to be cost-effective
(compared to typical large-scale demonstrations) and adaptable to a
variety of technology research needs. The major accomplishments at the
NCCC/PSDF to date and the current test program planned by DOE and the
NCCC's industrial participants are summarized below.
prior accomplishments
The PSDF test-bed has operated successfully for many years in
support of DOE's advanced coal program. The two significant
achievements are:
--a new gasifier design (Transport Integrated Gasification
(TRIGTM)) suitable for use with low-rank fuels,
which represent more than one-half of the total coal reserves
in the United States and the world; and
--hot gas filtration to improve energy efficiency.
These two technologies have progressed to commercialization with
integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) power plants being built
at Kemper County, Mississippi, and Dong Guan, China. Other highlights
of the test program included development of novel pressurized coal feed
and ash removal systems, and sensors and controls automation
improvements. In some instances, testing has eliminated technologies
from further consideration. Such screening is valuable in that it
concentrates R&D efforts on those technologies most likely to succeed
and is an essential part of managing the U.S. DOE's financial
resources.
national carbon capture center current test program
Building on success with TRIGTM, the NCCC/PSDF facility
has refocused its mission on supporting the development and scale-up of
cost-effective, commercially viable carbon capture technologies for
fossil-fueled power plants through collaboration with the DOE and
third-party technology developers. Most of the current CO2
capture technologies are being developed at laboratory- or bench-scale
under ideal conditions. Continued R&D under realistic field conditions
are needed to validate laboratory results and identify technical issues
that are not present under ideal conditions. In collaboration with
technology developers, the NCCC makes available coal-derived syngas gas
and flue gas to carry out applied R&D on components or small pilot-
scale systems to bridge gaps between fundamental R&D and large-scale
commercial demonstration. This provides for a cost effective, seamless
transition for promising technologies to migrate from laboratory into
commercial demonstrations. And importantly, NCCC postcombustion test
results are applicable to both coal and natural gas applications, new
and existing.
The NCCC is a unique applied R&D test facility containing two major
sets of infrastructure to support CO2 capture technology
development:
--an existing pilot-scale coal gasification facility that produces
syngas for pre-combustion CO2 capture technology
evaluation; and
--a Post-Combustion Carbon Capture Center (PC4) which enables testing
of capture technologies on flue gas from an adjacent fossil-
fueled power plant.
Both are readily adaptable to test a variety of technologies at
multiple scales and using different coals, providing data for scale-up
to commercial applications. This flexibility, in conjunction with real-
world operating conditions, allows the NCCC to support developers in
advancing the CO2 capture technologies that are critical to
continued use of fossil fuels for power generation. Jointly with the
DOE, NCCC has developed a Technology Screening Process which is a key
evaluation tool to assess and prioritize technologies for testing at
the facility. Currently more than 300 carbon capture technologies have
been identified as screening candidates.
Postcombustion.--Today's postcombustion capture technology has been
estimated to increase the cost of electricity (COE) by up to 80
percent.\2\ For both new and existing power plants, postcombustion
capture technology must be made more efficient and cost-effective by
reducing parasitic power and capital cost requirements. In
postcombustion capture, CO2 is separated from the flue gas
in a conventional powerplant downstream of the boiler. Many
postcombustion capture technologies need to be proven and integrated in
an industrial powerplant setting. The PC4 test facility (completed in
2011) was built to accommodate tests of a wide-range of capture
technologies from flue gas and includes three major test areas:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ ``Cost and Performance Baseline for Fossil Energy Plants,
Volume 1: Bituminous Coal and Natural Gas to Electricity, Final
Report''; NETL, May 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--a pilot solvent test unit (PSTU) to test developers' next
generation CO2 absorption solvents;
--a second test bay to support evaluation of fully integrated test
systems supplied by technology developers; and
--a bench-scale test area to accommodate small tests of emerging,
advanced technologies such as sorbents or membrane systems.
Initial testing at the PC4 began in 2011 when researchers conducted
trials with monoethanolamine (MEA) solvent to be used as a baseline to
evaluate the performance of advanced CO2 capture
technologies. Solvents being developed by Aker Clean Carbon and Babcock
& Wilcox, as well as Membrane Technology Research's membrane-based
technology, were also tested. Commitments are in place for the NCCC to
provide other advanced technologies a scaled-up testing platform as
development progress warrants.
Precombustion.--In precombustion capture, CO2 is
separated from the syngas produced by a coal gasification process,
prior to the combustion of the syngas in gas turbine for power
generation. CO2 capture is estimated to increase the COE
from an IGCC facility by more than 35 percent.\2\ Reductions in both
capital cost and power requirements of CO2 capture processes
are needed for development of efficient and cost-effective pre-
combustion technology, and the NCCC is focused on achieving those
goals. R&D activities at NCCC for pre-combustion capture include:
Advanced CO2 Capture Systems.--New solvents, sorbents,
and gas separation membrane technologies are being assessed on
syngas and are being scaled-up and tested based on fundamental
R&D progress by third-party developers.
Water Gas Shift Enhancements.--Water gas shift (WGS) catalyst
test results have been conducted which reveal that parasitic
steam consumption can be reduced, which in turn increases the
net power output of an IGCC plant and reduces COE with
CO2 capture. Results have been supplied to catalyst
suppliers and findings are being implemented at a commercial
IGCC plant currently under construction. Testing of various WGS
catalysts continues.
Advanced Syngas Cleanup.--New advanced syngas cleanup systems are
being tested for reducing hydrogen sulfide, hydrochloric acid,
ammonia, and mercury to near-zero levels.
Oxy-Combustion.--The NCCC is also evaluating the potential benefits
of oxy-combustion CO2 capture using the pressurized
transport reactor operating in oxygen combustion mode. Preliminary
screening studies have produced favorable results. Detailed system
studies, modeling and additional economic analysis are being conducted
to evaluate the commercial feasibility of this technology.
Gasification.--In developing a cost-effective advanced coal power
plant with CO2 capture, the NCCC also evaluates
opportunities to reduce cost for the entire plant in order to optimize
the plant processes with the integration of the CO2 capture
processes. Some of these cost reduction opportunities include
technology development for syngas cleanup, particulate control, fuel
cells, sensors and controls, materials, and feeders.
conclusion
The collaboration among DOE, technology developers, and private
industry is allowing the National Carbon Capture Center to make
significant strides toward the next generation of CO2
capture technologies. These technologies hold the promise of reducing
the costs of CO2 capture to levels necessary to assure that
affordable, reliable coal-based electric power can be produced for
America's economy, while also meeting all of the environmental
challenges associated with fossil fuel use. The Congress should sustain
the DOE Fossil Energy R&D budgets at the fiscal year 2012 enacted
levels.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Community Action Foundation
The National Community Action Foundation (NCAF) represents the 900
local Community Action Agencies and their partner organizations that
deliver the investments funded by the Department of Energy (DOE)
Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP) in low-income homes. We urge
the subcommittee to reject the President's fiscal year 2013 budget
request for WAP in the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE)
budget and, instead, provide $227.2 million for the fiscal year 2013
program. We also hope the regulation regarding the process for formula
allocations will not be set aside as requested.
This figure, $227.2 million, is equal to the 2008 level; 2008 was
the last program year before the massive, one-time expansion to create
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) jobs was implemented. Our
local members tell us that this is the minimum funding level for
delivering a responsible and effective low-income residential
efficiency program.
WAP should also continue to play its role as the ``incubator'' of
effective practices for the gradually developing conventional
residential efficiency upgrade market; although the administration and
many in the Congress have encouraged new demand for conventionally
financed home energy upgrades by those with credit and assets, that
market and the practices of the firms serving it has not yet matured.
To deliver a high-impact, well-managed, low-income program, and set
benchmarks for performance, energy savings, and transparent oversight,
Weatherization must maintain the worker training, cutting-edge
equipment and software, and the skilled managers and monitors. DOE
Weatherization remains a valuable national resource because it serves
as a model for quantifying investments, verifying performance, and
provides the benchmark energy audit tools, testing, and verification
protocols
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Budget Priorities.--First,
we would like to address the issue of priorities in the EERE budget
request. The request reflects a preponderance of research and
development (R&D), of incentives and of some commercialization
activities that, together, are intended to promote a ``market
transformation'' in the near future and a technological transformation
in the distant future. We believe the priorities demonstrated are
impractical in general and unfair to a large part of the population.
The lower priority which the budget gives to testing the results of
building efficiency research as well as other research is a mistake.
The results of the R&D that past years' appropriations have produced
should be verified and moved to general use through deployment by real
workers in real-world buildings. Further, offering taxpayer-financed
incentives for consumers who can afford to invest in new homes and
industry with credit to buy efficient equipment are only appropriate if
a robust program can be maintained for the most inefficient of the
millions of homes whose occupants lack the cash and credit to invest on
their own.
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Claims About Lower-Income
Consumers' Borrowing.--Secretary Chu's testimony before this
subcommittee on March 14 suggests that the DOE's request erroneously
assumes that large numbers of low-wage working families and retirees
will be served by the minimal program requested because new types of
lending will be available to such consumers so that they may buy their
own improvements. Madam Chairman, the Department analysts are poorly
informed about the financial situation of the WAP-eligible households,
all of whom have incomes far below the median income of their State.
The problem is not that they lack credit, which most do; the problem is
that they lack adequate resources and income flow to purchase even
immediate necessities.
Minimum Program Capacity.--There is size and capacity threshold
below which WAP can no longer function as an effective national
program. It takes funding at least the level size of the 2008 pre-ARRA
program to run a WAP that has trained, skilled, and well-equipped
workers, with even more experienced energy auditors and with local and
State inspectors checking and directing their work.
As the subcommittee is well aware, the 2008 funding level we are
requesting represented a drop from the program's resources a few years
earlier. For some States, it meant less than a full-time monitor for
the entire State and is still inadequate; however, our local members
want you to know that. Given a similar core program, they are committed
to finding enough additional partners with resources to serve every
county in the Nation; however, with less to build on, they will not be
able to offer utilities, building owners, and other investors the
certainty of a well-trained, well-equipped workforce whose work will be
backed by both local and State quality assurance. With the foundation
of funding at the pre-ARRA period level, $227.2 million, community
action will expand or develop partnerships with States; housing,
economic development and public health organizations; utilities; and
all manner of other local partners to create a robust and diversified
portfolio of resources delivered as single, customized packaged to the
dilapidated older homes on their waiting list.
Maintaining a Nationwide Program and Formula.--At the proposed
funding level, some States' formula allotments are particularly
inadequate. Moreover, the administration requested a renewal of the
one-time authority the subcommittee provided for 2012 which allows the
Secretary to establish a formula without benefit of public regulatory
process as required by law. We believe the subcommittee was wise to
allow it in 2012 when information about uncosted balances was relevant
and remained closely held by the Department. However, we believe it
would be a major mistake to set aside the statute a second year in a
row. It has turned out that the Department's information flow from
States about uncosted balances was flawed at both ends. High-performing
States now face imminent close-out of services, while other States are
still catching up to large balances but received 2012 funds. More
important, States must plan far ahead to match legislative and
budgetary requirements; more instability in the WAP system will not
contribute to good performance.
Significant Private Partnerships Depend on the Programs' Competence
and Transparency.--In 2008, the leveraged resources, including Low-
Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) dedicated funds and
nearly as much from private utility partnerships, amounted to almost
three times the Department of Energy Weatherization Assistance funding
the Congress provided. The reason partners turned funds over to
Weatherizers to deliver on low-income communities was the robust
Federal program foundation that gave local and private investors the
confidence to allow their resources to be combined with Weatherization
delivery. Federal standards, training, procedures, and oversight
requirements, including financial, assure our partners that their funds
go where they intend, that homes will not receive two or three
different kinds of evaluations and measures, that their jobs will be
inspected, and that there will be transparent accounting of each kind
of funding at the end.
Proven Capacity Should Not Be Wasted.--As Secretary Chu testified
to this subcommittee, the program delivered investments and ARRA jobs
at a dramatically higher scale than predicted, surpassing its total
production goal last year, coming in under budget and ahead of the
schedule planned. Weatherization ranked second in job creation last
quarter. Now our production is at about 100,000 more homes than planned
for delivery--700,000--and a number of States are still delivering
homes.
NCAF is certainly aware of the delivery problems that affected a
few of the recipients of the ARRA Weatherization expansion in a few of
the States represented on the subcommittee. Our organization worked
closely with DOE to raise quality and performance among our members. We
are confident these efforts worked, and we stand behind the Secretary
of Energy's testimony to several committees, including most recently
the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform (3/20/2012) that
serious problems existed in only 3 percent of the homes that have been
weatherized since 2010. All of these cases are being resolved, at no
further taxpayer expense, by the responsible parties.
Worker Skills and Standards.--Community Action is exceptionally
proud of the training it provided and the meaningful jobs organizations
filled with more than 20,000 construction industry workers, all of
which added up to between 14,000 and 16,000 full-time jobs per quarter
until major layoffs began this past winter as ARRA funds were
exhausted. There is still considerable work to do using prior year
funds or ARRA in many States for at least the next 6 months. After
that, fewer and fewer States will be able to sustain their workforce,
their quality control, and their State oversight through the end of the
2012 fiscal year.
The Weatherization Program leaders and field experts have worked
for 2 years with to develop definition of retrofit worker jobs skills,
the training required to achieve such DOE skills, and formal work
specifications for all key tasks involved in retrofitting residential
buildings of all types. Together with others in the emerging industry,
we have developed a yet-to-be implemented credentialing hierarchy which
could transform the sector of the building trades that has been
delivering energy retrofits in conjunction with housing upgrades
without benefit of common definitions and skill specifications.
Industry Training Capacity Is Built With Weatherization Assistance
Program Funds.--Weatherization has a network of tested of training
centers which serve not only the public sector program but also the
utility industry. Among the most distinguished is Montana State
University. NCAF was fortunate to be able to contribute funding (which
the Exxon-Mobil Corporation generously donated to us) to underwrite a
unique initiative in Montana that produced hours of video and other
online training built by these legacy centers and several partners in
higher education. These videos are now available nationwide to
introduce the industry to potential workers and to train those in the
field in a number of the required skills. It also resulted in models of
developing new small businesses to provide high-quality energy audits
in rural America in Oregon and in Virginia. Many of the others have
others have recently contributed to the intellectual capital and
training tools for the entire industry.
Worker and Contractor Access to Opportunity and Training.--It is a
great accomplishment that tens of thousands of newly unemployed workers
have left the program with skills and credentials they would never have
gained were it not for their experience with the ARRA Weatherization
program. The Weatherization program has served as an employment
``gateway'' to future opportunity for homebuilding industry workers who
came in with only conventional skills, including many workers who were
considered ``nontraditional'' in the construction field. The
administration's inadequate request means this door slams shut.
conclusion
We urge you not to accept the administration's request; it
represents the end-stage of access to Weatherization assistance for
lower-income families; within a very short period such low funding
would also spell the end of utility-community partnerships that assure
skillful delivery of coordinated investments.
We hope the subcommittee will take a different direction and
continue to build on the firm foundation that already exists for WAP by
allocating $227.2 million in fiscal year 2013. Thank you for
considering our concerns.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Consumer Law Center
The National Consumer Law Center (NCLC) is a nonprofit organization
which, during its 35 years of existence, has advocated for policies
that assist low-income families and seniors who struggle to pay their
energy bills. NCLC strongly recommends that the Senate approve a
funding level for the low-income Weatherization Assistance Program
(WAP) of $250 million for fiscal year 2013.
Because low-income families often live in older and poorly
weatherized homes,\1\ they tend to consume more energy than absolutely
necessary. Living in poorly weatherized houses leads to higher energy
bills and places these families at much greater risk of having their
utility services terminated for non-payment.\2\ Families can find
themselves without adequate heat in the winter, without lights, or
without the ability to prepare food, simply because their energy bills
are exorbitantly high.\3\ At the extreme, house fires can result when
families lose access to gas, electricity, or delivered heating fuels
and instead resort, out of desperation, to unsafe heating sources and
the use of candles.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ According to data from the U.S. Energy Information
Administration, 2005 Residential Energy Consumption Survey, 40 percent
of households at or below 100 percent of the Federal poverty level
lived in housing units constructed before 1960. Less than 30 percent of
households living above the poverty level lived in housing constructed
prior to 1960. Housing constructed before 1960 was not subject to the
stricter energy codes that apply to more recently constructed housing.
In addition, newer construction is more likely to use newer, more
energy-efficient heating, cooling, lighting, and refrigeration
equipment.
\2\ Electric and natural gas service disconnection rates are much
higher in low-income households than middle- or high-income households.
In California, for example, the low-income disconnection rate in 2010
was 5.5 percent, compared with 2.9 percent for non-low-income
households. (CA Division of Ratepayer Advocate, ``Status of Energy
Utility Service Disconnections in California'', March 2011, p. 2.)
\3\ 2011 National Energy Assistance Survey Summary Report, National
Energy Assistance Directors' Association, Nov. 2011. Available at
www.neada.org.
\4\ John R. Hall, Jr., Home Fires Involving Heating Equipment
(January 2010) at ix and 33. Also, 40 percent of home space heater
fires involve devices coded as stoves.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over the past 3 years, WAP has helped 860,000 households to reduce
their energy bills,\5\ while also increasing the comfort and health of
those living in those homes.\6\ Weatherization generally decreases
energy usage--and energy bills--an average of 25 percent (with a wide
variation above and below that average).\7\ DOE estimates that the
average household's annual heating bill will be reduced by $437 as a
result of receiving weatherization.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Testimony of DOE Secretary Steven Chu Before the Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform, U.S. House of Representatives, March
20, 2012, p. 3.
\6\ Various studies have shown that weatherization can result in
reductions in a range of health problems, including asthma and
bronchitis. See, e.g. National Center for Healthy Housing/Enterprise
Community Partners, Inc., ``Case Study: Creating Green and Healthy
Affordable Homes for Families Living at Viking Terrace, Worthington,
Minn.'' (2010). That study showed significant declines in bronchitis,
sinusitis, and asthma (in adults) and respiratory allergies and ear
infections (in children) following renovations that employed ``green
and healthy'' principles.
\7\ L. Berry & M. Schweitzer, ``Metaevaluation of National
Weatherization Assistance Program Based on State Studies, 1993-2002''
(Oak Ridge National Lab, RNL/CON-488). Ex. Summ., p. x. The authors
found that WAP achieved energy savings in gas-heated households of 21.9
percent of the average pre-weatherization consumption of natural gas
for all end uses and 30.8 percent of pre-weatherization space heating
consumption.
\8\ U.S. Department of Energy, Weatherization Assistance Program,
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/wip/wap.html (last updated January 30,
2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over those same 3 years, many States across the country have built
up the infrastructure to reach far more low-income homes each year than
before ARRA appropriated $5 billion for WAP.\9\ Under ARRA, States
received approximately $1.6 billion per year over a 3-year period.
Prior to that, annual funding for the program was between $224 million
and $243 million in all but 1 year since fiscal year 2002. States not
only increased the number of households served several fold, but also
had to bring on new contractors and make sure new employees were
properly trained.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ The American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (ARRA), Public Law
111-5, section 2, division A, title IV, 123 Stat. 138.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Choosing Massachusetts as one example, the State received
approximately $5 million annually in the years immediately prior to
ARRA. Under ARRA, the State will spend out its entire $125 million
grant from DOE. Spending has increased eight fold on an annual basis.
While the initial production goal was to weatherize approximately
17,000 units, the State will actually weatherize 20,000 units. The
quality of the weatherization work has been closely monitored by the
local nonprofits that retain the weatherization contractors and by the
State Department of Housing and Urban Development. In addition,
auditors from the Massachusetts Office of the Inspector General, from
the Federal Department of Energy, and from the Massachusetts Recovery
and Reinvestment Office have all monitored the program more closely
than in any year prior to ARRA, and found no instances of shoddy
workmanship or financial fraud or mismanagement.\10\ Massachusetts has
also helped develop a training pipeline for those interested in working
within WAP and, more broadly, in the green energy field.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ According to the Massachusetts Department of Housing and
Community Development (DHCD), the State grantee of the Federal WAP
funds, DHCD has met with the State Office of Inspector General (OIG)
twice for formal interviews and with DOE WAP monitors four times during
ARRA. The State OIG has also visited all of the State's WAP
subgrantees. Despite this close monitoring, no instance of fraud has
been identified nor have any ``significant findings'' been made.
Rather, the Massachusetts WAP network has been praised by its DOE
monitoring team for ``operat[ing] as a strong cohesive unit with good
internal and external support.'' DHCD has also been cited for taking a
``measured, prudent approach to preparing for the ARRA Weatherization
Program''.
\11\ The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) recently issued a report,
``Green Goods and Services Summary'' noting that in 2010, ``3.1 million
jobs in the United States were associated with the production of green
goods and services,'' comprising ``2.4 percent of total employment in
2010.'' Green jobs (including ``weatherizing and retrofitting projects
that reduce household energy'') now make up 6.8 percent of construction
jobs, according to the BLS report, available at: http://www.bls.gov/
news.release/ggqcew.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While no one expects that the Congress will fund WAP in fiscal year
2013 near the ARRA level of approximately $1.6 billion per year, NCLC
calls upon the Senate to recommend a funding level that will ensure
that the funding is adequate to maintain a network of agencies that can
deliver high-quality weatherization services and achieve substantial
energy savings in each home served. We believe that funding below $227
million, the level in fiscal year 2008, would completely fail to meet
that goal. We urge the Senate to appropriate no less than that amount,
and strongly recommend an appropriation of $250 million. Even at a $250
million level, virtually all States will have to substantially
dismantle the infrastructure that they successfully built up over the
past 3 years. State agencies across the country will be serving far
fewer households than in any of the past 3 years, leaving many needy
and eligible households literally and figuratively in the cold. The
network of contractors and workers who now possess the skills this
country needs to help us move towards a cleaner and greener energy
future will find itself without work.
The Congress must recognize that below the pre-ARRA funding level,
funding for WAP can be so low that States will not have the minimum
amount necessary to adequately oversee and deliver weatherization
services. There is a threshold below which States will not have the
resources to provide the financial oversight and training that is
needed to run a high-quality program, as well as actually providing the
funding local agencies need to carry out the weatherization work.
Moreover, as funding levels fall, States will likely reduce not only
the number of households served, but also the number or level of energy
efficiency measures delivered to each home, leaving the full
weatherization work that the house needs incomplete.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ This has been true historically: many homes weatherized pre-
ARRA were only partially weatherized due to lack of funding; most
States chose to reach more households rather than fully weatherize a
smaller number of homes. For this reason, the Congress allows homes
partially weatherized before 1994 to receive additional weatherization
services. 42 U.S.C. 6865(c)(2). Post-ARRA, it is likely that a large
percentage of households served by WAP will once again be only
partially weatherized.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This country is still in the grips of a serious economic downturn
that leaves fully 1 in 12 Americans unemployed.\13\ Moreover, the
nominal unemployment rate (8.3 percent) excludes the more than 1
million workers who the Bureau of Labor Statistics counts as having
given up looking because they are convinced the jobs just are not out
there,\14\ well more than double the number of discouraged workers in
2008. According to a Pew Fiscal Analysis Initiatives report, 4 million
workers (more than the entire population of Oregon) were unemployed for
1 year or longer, as of December 2011.\15\ Hard-working families who
have been trying their hardest but are still unable to get work need
the assistance of the Federal Government to get their energy bills down
to more affordable levels. This is precisely the wrong moment to cut
back too far on this much-needed program. Cutting back too deeply on
WAP will also lead to substantial layoffs among the weatherization
workforce at a moment when this country needs to build the green
workforce. In the last quarter of 2011, as reported in January 2012,
WAP ranked second among 200 Federal ARRA-funded programs in terms of
job creation.\16\ WAP not only reduces energy bills for low-income
households, but creates good jobs and helps build local economies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Bureau of Labor Statistics, ``Unemployment Rate'', available
at: http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost (accessed March 22, 2012).
\14\ Bureau of Labor Statistics, ``Not in Labor Force'', available
at: http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost (accessed March 22, 2012)
\15\ Pew Economic Policy Group Fiscal Analysis Initiative, ``Five
Long-Term Unemployment Questions'' (February 1, 2012), question 1.
\16\ Recovery.Gov, ``Track the Money'', available at: http://
www.recovery.gov/Pages/
TextView.aspx?data=jobSummaryProgram&topnumber=200&qtr=2011Q4 (accessed
March 22, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In summary, NCLC strongly recommends that the Senate approve a
funding level for WAP of $250 million for fiscal year 2013.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Hydropower Association
The National Hydropower Association (NHA) \1\ appreciates the
opportunity to submit this statement on the Association's priority
programs within the Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill.
The statement focuses on NHA's support of $59 million for the
Department of Energy's (DOE) Water Power Program and its research and
development (R&D) fiscal year 2013 initiatives. The Water Power Program
dedicates its efforts to research, test, and develop breakthrough
technologies and other sector innovations to increase generation of
renewable, reliable, and affordable electricity from water resources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ NHA is a nonprofit, national trade association dedicated to
promoting the Nation's largest renewable electricity resource and
advancing the interests of the hydropower, pumped storage and new
ocean, tidal, conduit and in-stream hydrokinetics industries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This statement also provides support for two other areas:
--additional funding to increase hydropower generation on the Federal
system (Army Corps of Engineers and Bureau of Reclamation
facilities); and
--funding for the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 2005) hydropower
incentives.
national hydropower association requests $59 million in fiscal year
2013 funding for the department of energy water power program
Funds should be directed with continued support of initiatives
across all hydropower technology sectors. The types of technologies
covered--conventional hydropower, pumped storage, marine and
hydrokinetic (MHK), and conduit technologies--unlock clean energy from
our country's rivers, oceans, tides, and water conveyances.
In recognition of the tremendous constraints on the Federal budget,
NHA's proposed fiscal year 2013 level of $59 million represents no
increase over the congressionally adopted fiscal year 2012 level and is
a significant reduction from recent NHA requests. The Association also
supports the fiscal year 2012 funding breakdown of $25 million directed
to hydropower and $34 million directed to MHK.
making the case for federal research and development support
Over the last 30 years, the Department of Energy's R&D budget for
all energy technologies (renewable, fossil, and nuclear) has declined
precipitously.\2\ For the Water Power Program, the numbers are even
more discouraging. Always one of the smallest of the Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy programs, in 2007-2008 the Water Power
Program was zeroed out. The administration's fiscal year 2013 budget
request would now cut funding by 66 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ 2006 GAO Report: ``Key Challenges Remain for Developing and
Deploying Advanced Energy Technologies to Meet Future Needs'' (GAO-07-
106).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Government R&D support is needed to promote hydropower
development nationwide. Conducting business as usual will not provide
the opportunity to fully realize the untapped potential available
throughout the country.
For MHK technologies, the R&D need is easy to demonstrate. The
United States lags far behind Europe in its investment to harness ocean
energy potential. While strides are being made, there are few actual
U.S. MHK projects, and those in existence are at early-stage
commercialization and deployment.
However, for conventional hydropower technologies, the R&D case is
no less strong and the need no less urgent. Some argue hydropower is a
``mature'' technology and not a candidate for R&D support particularly
in a constrained budgetary environment. This is a false choice.
Though a proven, reliable technology, hydropower owners, and
operators are always seeking ways to increase generating efficiencies,
improve water use, enhance environmental performance, and develop
better operating regimes. And now the industry looks to address new
issues resulting from the ever-changing electricity market and the
challenges posed by integration issues and grid reliability concerns.
Hydropower, like the automobile, is a technology that has
transformed over the course of a century. No one argues that the
government should stop investing in auto R&D--improving fuel efficiency
and economy, safety, incorporating new materials, et cetera. The same
holds true for continuing advancements in the hydropower sector. Since
the re-establishment of the Water Power Program in 2008, the Department
of Energy has begun several initiatives across the sector. These
include:
--Assessing resource potential (MHK, nonpowered dams, conduits);
--Reducing the cost of energy;
--Advancing technology readiness (new turbine designs for
conventional, MHK and conduit applications, as well as other
equipment and operational improvements);
--Ensuring environmental responsibility (technology advancement to
analyze and mitigate potential impacts);
--Quantifying hydropower's value to the grid (determining how to
increase the use of wind and solar through greater grid
flexibility and stability utilizing hydropower for
integration); and
--Advancing hydropower upgrades (analyze, assess and maximize
generation at existing facilities).
It is these types of initiatives and strategies that will propel
the hydropower and MHK industries forward, enhancing their contribution
to the Nation's electricity portfolio.
department of energy water power program goal: 15 percent of
electricity from water resources
NHA commends and supports the DOE Water Power Program's new vision
for water power technologies to provide 15 percent of the Nation's
energy by 2030.\3\ Like the goal established to support increased wind
generation, this is a fitting goal and one that recognizes hydropower's
role in achieving our country's push to substantially increase clean-
energy generation over the next 20 to 30 years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ DOE Wind and Water Power program brochure: ``Water Power for a
Clean Energy Future'' (p. 2) http://www1.eere.energy.gov/water/pdfs/
wp_accomplishments_brochure.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ultimately, for clean-energy policies to succeed, support for
increasing generation from all water power resources, conventional,
pumped storage, and MHK, is critical.
Not only does increasing hydropower generation provide more clean
energy megawatts to the grid, but it also increases the amount of grid
reliability, stability, and integrations services that hydropower
provides in order to enhance the penetration of variable energy
resources.
This is yet another area where Europe leads the United States.
Experience on the continent has clearly shown that increasing variable
energy generation requires access to energy storage. And that demand in
Europe is being met with storage from both conventional hydropower and
pumped storage projects.
NHA believes the hydropower industry is primed for growth to
provide these services; and this leads to an important R&D discussion.
While hydropower and pumped storage projects can provide regional and
grid-scale energy storage and other ancillary services, doing so will
require projects to operate in new ways and modes, and in some cases,
utilize new technologies.
As such, several R&D questions (ones that the DOE is positioned to
help answer) include:
--What is the impact of wear and tear on existing technologies due to
new operational regimes to provide the needed ramping rates and
other integration services?
--Does the United States have the technology in place to meet this
challenge?
--Is there new technology better suited for this purpose? If so,
where? If not, what innovations are needed in components,
equipment, facilities to improve performance?
As more is asked of the hydropower system to provide the ancillary
services needed to meet clean-energy goals, more questions and R&D
needs are sure to come into focus. The DOE Water Power Program will
fulfill a crucial role in collaborating with the industry to make this
transformation a reality.
other specific research and development needs
Over the last several years, NHA, the Electric Power Research
Institute (EPRI), and individual industry members have provided many
recommendations for needed data, analyses, research initiatives, and
other activities that would help to realize the full potential of the
water power sector.
While the following section briefly touches on some of those
recommendations, the larger point is that a robust DOE Water Power R&D
program is needed. With an industry consisting of facilities owned by:
Federal agencies; investor-owned utilities; municipalities and other
public power entities; independent power producers; along with new
technology developers; the DOE plays an important role in gathering
national baseline industry data and serving as a clearinghouse for this
information.
Past R&D recommendations included, but are not limited to:
--Advanced materials testing/science for turbines, generators, and
other components;
--Meteorological forecasting and optimal dispatch of energy/water
systems;
--New turbine designs (including distributed generation applications)
and operational regimes;
--Enhanced water quality mitigation technology; fish passage
bioengineering and mitigation;
--Study on potential effects of climate change on operations; and
--Updated resource assessments.
support for increased hydropower development at federal facilities
NHA also supports funding efforts within the Army Corps of
Engineers Civil Works Programs as well as at the Bureau of Reclamation
to operate, maintain, and upgrade their existing hydropower projects
and build on their existing non-powered infrastructure.
NHA specifically supports the work of the Corps on its Hydropower
Modernization Initiative (HMI) to develop a long-term capital
investment strategy. NHA also hopes that both Federal agencies will
continue to dedicate resources and staff time to standardize and
streamline their permitting responsibilities. Projects that can be
developed on Federal facilities are often too-longed delayed to realize
the significant energy potential due to the inconsistent support of
hydropower development and approaches to working with industry members
by agency staff at the local level.
support for the federal hydropower incentives of the energy policy act
of 2005
In EPAct 2005, the Congress established incentive payments--subject
to congressional appropriations--for the development of new hydropower
at existing dams or conduits as well as to increase efficiency of
existing hydropower facilities. To date these provisions have not
received funding.
NHA supports the provisions, and notes that at the time of passage,
new projects in the hydropower industry were rare. Since EPAct 2005,
the industry has seen a dramatic increase in interest and support for
new development. In 2011 alone, the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (FERC) issued 135 MW of project approvals and saw more than
1,600 MW of projects file for approval.\4\ These incentives could help
bring projects like these online in the coming years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ http://hydro.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/OEP-Energy-
Infrastructure-Update-Dec-2011.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
hydropower's role in america's energy portfolio and growth potential
Hydropower is America's leading source of domestic renewable
electricity, providing clean, affordable generation in every region of
the country. This reliable and underutilized resource accounted for
about 8 percent of total electricity generation and two-thirds of
renewable electricity generation in 2011.
Hydropower generation avoids approximately 200 million metric tons
of carbon emissions each year. In fact, regions that rely on hydropower
as a primary energy source reap the benefits of significantly cleaner
air as well as the lowest electricity prices.
While a proven renewable energy resource, hydropower is also an
energy resource for our future with tremendous growth potential. One of
the many myths about hydropower is that there are no new opportunities
for growth in our industry. In fact, the opposite is the case. In
addition to the numbers cited above, there are proposed projects
totaling more than 82,000 MW before FERC today across all technologies
in the waterpower sector.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ http://www.ferc.gov/industries/hydropower/gen-info/
licensing.asp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
conclusion
Unlocking the vast hydropower potential of our rivers, oceans,
tides, and conduits requires Federal R&D initiatives that make
innovative ideas a reality. Continued investment in the DOE Water Power
Program will ensure that innovative new technologies and operational
advancements come to market, increasing America's clean-energy
portfolio and providing the economic benefits and jobs the country
needs. With the potential to develop new projects on hundreds of
potential sites, hundreds of thousands of jobs will be created through
the manufacturing and installation of these projects.
NHA appreciates and strongly supports the work of the Water Power
Program and opposes the proposed 66 percent reduction in funding in the
fiscal year 2013 budget request. NHA calls upon the Congress to
champion R&D investment in hydropower--the Nation's most widely used
renewable energy resource that, if properly supported, can provide the
foundation of America's clean-energy future.
______
Prepared Statement of National Insulation Association and International
Association of Heat and Frost Insulators and Allied Workers
federal funding for mechanical insulation will create immediate green
energy jobs while saving energy and protecting the environment
Chairwoman Feinstein, Ranking Member Alexander, 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 of $500,000 in fiscal
year 2013 for the Department of Energy's (DOE) Advanced Manufacturing
Program specifically to continue and expand their 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 (EIA).
Commercial and industrial insulation--collectively known as mechanical
insulation--has the potential to slash the energy demand for the
building and industrial sector.
The Congress has already signaled its support for a mechanical
education and awareness program through both the appropriations and
authorization process. The Congress directed $500,000 be allocated in
DOE's budget for a mechanical insulation education and awareness
campaign in the fiscal year 2010 Energy and Water Development
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 the Congress's 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,
the Congress will both create jobs now and reduce carbon emissions.
Creating jobs, particularly green jobs, is a top priority for the
Congress and the administration. Using government data, NIA
conservatively estimates that maintenance of insulation at
manufacturing 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
sustainable; 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 healthcare sectors, among others.
Fiscal year 2013 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 the Congress in fiscal year 2013
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
million in developing and beginning the implementation of the campaign
and are full partners with the Energy Department in carrying out
meaningful elements to prove and encourage the greater use of
mechanical insulation made possible by $500,000 in fiscal year 2011
funding appropriated by this subcommittee and enacted into law. As
such, we have outlined proposed program elements to continue our
comprehensive, persuasive awareness campaign to engage and motivate
industrial and commercial decisionmakers to take action.
Elements of the program would include:
Education and Awareness
Mechanical Insulation Basics and Energy Assessment Process:
--DOE Industrial Assessment Centers.
--Engineering, HVAC, and Mechanical Design Schools.
--Inspection and Code Officials.
DOE and Other Tool Utilization (Facility Management and Design
Professionals):
--Simple Calculators.
--E-Learning Modules.
--3E Plus.
Tool Development
Mechanical Insulation and Energy Modeling Programs.
Building Simulation Programs--The Role of Mechanical Insulation.
Mechanical Insulation--HVAC Energy Calculator.
App development of simple calculators.
Data Development
Energy, Environment and Cost Reduction Impact Analysis of Mechanical
Insulation:
--Federal agency facilities.
--Armed force facilities.
--Manufacturing sectors.
--Healthcare facilities (hospitals and medical facilities).
--Education (schools and universities--colleges).
--Underground--District heating applications.
Energy and water conservation i.e., Energy--Water nexus.
Research
Materials--Systems:
--New technologies.
--Energy impact comparison on an equivalent basis (including aging)
Inclusive of All Mechanical Insulation Type Applications.
--Lifecycle analysis by product group.
--Impact of duct liners and exterior duct wrap on air leakage--Energy
efficiency.
NIA, its members, and the International Union are committed to
working with the Congress, DOE, 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 DOE to bring together a coalition to help develop, implement,
and provide educational awareness programs established and funded by
the 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 National Research Center for Coal and Energy
Dear Chairwoman Feinstein and Ranking Member Alexander: Thank you
for the opportunity to submit our testimony in support of the programs
of the Office of Fossil Energy, Department of Energy (DOE) for fiscal
year 2013.
introductory comments
The Office of Fossil Energy programs address two of our Nation's
key energy needs:
--Technologies for meeting our current demands for electricity; and
--Ensuring our supplies of petroleum and coal-derived fuels for our
transportation, industrial, and residential sectors.
Coal technologies provide more than 40 percent of our electricity
generation and are prominent in industrial applications for generating
process heat. The control of criteria pollutants and technologies for
the management of carbon emissions are important coal programs for
protecting our environment, a challenge that becomes increasing complex
as our Nation has legislated tighter limits on our energy-generating
processes. Electricity generation based on natural gas fuels, currently
providing 26 percent of our electricity generation, relies on
components such as gas turbines and fuel cells and on emissions control
technologies that were developed under the Fossil Energy program.
However, despite the prominence of fossil fuels in our national
energy mix for the present and for the foreseeable future, funding for
Fossil Energy programs has been reduced dramatically over the past
several years. Based on the fiscal year 2013 recommendations of the
administration, overall funding for civilian energy programs would
increase by 6 percent compared to fiscal year 2011 enacted funding.
However, Fossil Energy, which impacts the vast majority of our energy
extraction and utilization activities, would suffer a program reduction
of 31 percent. Given our national goal of being more efficient in using
our energy resources and being less dependent on imported energy, we
recommend that Fossil Energy should be funded at $634 million for
fiscal year 2013. Specific recommendations are provided in the Funding
Recommendations section.
benefits of investment in fossil energy research
Our Nation has benefitted from investments in fossil energy
research. In a study conducted by the National Research Council (NRC)
covering the period from 2000-2020, the NRC concluded that investments
in coal research, estimated to be around $9 billion in 2010 constant
dollars, would return around $14 billion in Federal tax revenues, a
ratio of 1.6:1. Related, but incomplete, studies for natural gas show
that our cumulative investment of $352 million from 1978-1999 in coal
bed methane, tight gas, and shale gas research have returned cumulative
benefits of $13.13 billion by 2010, a ratio of 37:1. We recommend that
the Congress conduct a more thorough study for natural gas as was done
by the NRC for clean coal technology programs.
In addition to the financial benefits to the U.S. Treasury, our
economy benefits from reduced costs for energy. Programmatic funding
supports jobs distributed over every State in our Nation. Research done
by our university sector provides workforce training for our current
and future fossil energy technology needs.
funding recommendations
Core Coal Research Programs
The core coal research program consists of a suite of projects in
carbon management, the development of advanced energy systems, and
cross-cutting research that provides new ideas for both making
meaningful evolutionary improvements to present technologies and for
developing new, revolutionary technologies that can be game-changers in
our energy portfolio. These programs cover the environmental, economic,
and efficiency aspects of energy.
We recommend that funding for the core coal research program be
maintained at or above $404 million, a level of funding that has been
supported in the past (fiscal year 2010) and is both achievable and
necessary for an effective fossil energy research program. Subprogram
elements would be distributed as follows:
Carbon Capture ($85 Million).--Most of the increase ($16 million)
should be directed to existing plants (postcombustion capture)
since existing plants will contribute the major portion of
electricity generated from coal-based units for the next 20
years. Funds should also be increased for developing advanced
(revolutionary) technologies to reduce the cost of capture and
for large pilot scale testing to validate the effectiveness of
proposed capture technologies.
Carbon Storage ($114 Million).--Most of the increase in this
subprogram should be directed to carbon reuse technologies to
use captured CO2 from power plants for enhanced oil
recovery (EOR), a cost-effective way of storing CO2
in depleted oil reservoirs while simultaneously increasing our
production of petroleum to reduce our imports of foreign oil.
Advanced Energy Systems ($145 Million).--Funding increases should
be directed toward advanced combustion systems (+$25 million),
advanced gasification systems (+$10 million), hydrogen turbines
(+$19 million), coal and biomass to fuels and chemicals (+$10
million), and fuel cells (+$25 million).
Cross-Cutting Research ($60 Million).--Increases are recommended
for plant optimization (+$16 million), computational modeling
(+$5 million), and technical and economic analyses of new
plants (+$7 million). Particular emphasis is recommended for
polygeneration applications and advanced design plants.
Natural Gas, Oil, and Unconventional Fossil Energy Technologies
We recommend an increase of $23 million for the natural gas program
and $10 million for the oil/unconventional fossil energy technologies
program. Funding would be allocated as follows:
Natural Gas Technologies ($25 Million).--Focal areas are shale
gas, including resource characterization, drilling technology,
and environmental protection.
Gas Hydrates ($15 Million).--Continue research on the development
of this major resource that exceeds our other reserves of
natural gas.
Unconventional Fossil Energy Technologies ($10 Million).--Focal
areas would include oil shale resources and enhanced
environmental safety, especially for off-shore operations.
In addition, we recommend retention of the Ultra Deepwater and
Unconventional Technologies program funded under section 999 of EPAct
2005, which the administration has recommended for rescission. This
program supports competitive, cost-shared research jointly conducted by
academic, nonprofit, State government (geological surveys) and industry
which serve the needs of small oil and natural gas producers.
Other Programs
Program direction funds support salaries of research and program
staff in the headquarters offices and the field offices of the Office
of Fossil Energy. We recommend that all program direction funds be
allocated under the Program Direction sub-element. The level of funding
for fiscal year 2013 should be in excess of $155 million.
Administration recommendations for Plant and Capital Equipment
should be increased to $17 million and Environmental Restoration should
be funded at $8 million.
closing comments
The funding requested by the administration for fiscal year 2013 is
only 59 percent of the value of the equivalent program in fiscal year
2010. This low level of funding is insufficient to support the fossil
energy R&D program the Nation needs to maintain our ability to generate
inexpensive electricity or to enhance our ability to produce
transportation fuels from our own resources. America's ability to sell
its energy technology abroad is also being severely restricted because
of insufficient funding to develop revolutionary new research ideas or
to successfully demonstrate viable technologies to reduce the financial
risk concerns of Wall Street and other financiers. The recommendations
for allocating $634 million in the program elements illustrated above
would return funding to 95 percent of fiscal year 2010 levels. We
strongly recommend restoration of a robust program of fossil energy
research.
We further recommend that the Congress also establish a mechanism
to allocate funding on annual basis for the support of demonstration
projects necessary to prove out promising fossil energy technologies
for commercial development. In the past, $100 million has been
allocated each year until a sufficiently large pool of funds was
accumulated to offer a request for proposals for demonstration
projects. We request congressional support for establishing a clean
coal power initiative account for demonstration programs.
Thank you for your support for fossil energy research and
development to maintain America's energy, economic, and environmental
strengths.
______
Prepared Statement of the Nuclear Energy Institute
The Nuclear Energy Institute \1\ (NEI) supports the
administration's request for fiscal year 2013 funding for the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC) ($1.053 billion), the Department of Energy
(DOE) National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) Fissile Materials
Disposition program ($921 million), and the DOE Office of Environmental
Management ($5.7 billion). NEI recommends $117 million more for the DOE
Office of Nuclear Energy ($792 million), and an increase of $1 million
to restore the NNSA Export Control Review and Compliance program to
$12.5 million.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
adopting the recommendations of the blue ribbon commission on america's
nuclear future
NEI supports the general policy recommendations of the Blue Ribbon
Commission (BRC) on managing used nuclear fuel and high-level
radioactive waste. A DOE task force is scheduled to provide a plan on
implementing the recommendations to the Congress by the end of July,
and industry believes that report should provide a basis for the fiscal
year 2013 budget. The following programs deserve support and represent
the highest priorities for the nuclear energy industry:
--Fuel Cycle Research and Development--$191 million (an increase of
$16 million);
--Used Nuclear Fuel Disposition (the BRC recommendations)--$60
million; and
--Advanced Fuel Research and Development--$60 million (+$20
million).
NEI also supports the request of $10 million derived from the
Nuclear Waste Fund to use on used fuel storage and disposal programs at
DOE. NEI urges the subcommittee to support the following initiatives
using $10 million from the Nuclear Waste Fund in fiscal year 2013. DOE
should:
--Work closely with utilities, and based on work performed by the
Department in fiscal year 2012, develop timelines,
specifications and costs for the development, licensing,
construction, and operation of a consolidated storage facility
for spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste;
--Work closely with affected States, Indian tribes, and utilities to
develop detailed transportation plans for moving spent nuclear
fuel from the sites of nuclear power plants that have ceased
operation to a consolidated storage facility;
--Work closely with affected States, Indian tribes, and utilities, to
develop and implement a plan for training first responders in
preparation for transportation under section 180c of the
Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (42 U.S.C. 10101); and
--Identify communities potentially interested in hosting a
consolidated storage facility; and
--Forward to the appropriate committees of the Senate and House of
Representatives a budget and authorizing legislation for
recommendations from DOE.
Within the DOE Fuel Cycle R&D program, $5 million should be used in
fiscal year 2013 to collect data on the aging characteristics of used
nuclear fuel in dry cask storage systems, to support the extended use
of these systems, and ensure their transportability after periods of
extended storage. The Advanced Fuel R&D program includes the Accident
Tolerant Fuel Initiative which is important to long-term light water
reactor fuel development and should receive $60 million in fiscal year
2013.
The nuclear industry remains concerned about the termination of the
Yucca Mountain project. The project should proceed and be funded so the
technical review of the license application can be completed. Numerous
State and local governments and the National Association of Regulatory
Utility Commissioners are actively opposing DOE's withdrawal of the
application for the Yucca Mountain repository at the NRC and in the
courts. We urge the subcommittee to request a specific plan, including
the resources required for completing the Yucca Mountain licensing
process, assuming the courts rule the application cannot be withdrawn.
uranium enrichment decontamination and decommissioning fund tax undue
burden on electricity consumers
The administration's fiscal year 2013 budget proposes to reinstate
the uranium enrichment decontamination and decommissioning fund, with a
tax on electric consumers of $200 million a year until 2022. Electric
utilities have already paid twice for decontamination and
decommissioning at uranium enrichment plants that were originally
operated by DOE--first as part of the price for uranium enrichment
services from the facilities and again under the Energy Policy Act of
1992. Under the 1992 law, the tax on utilities was to end after 15
years or the collection of $2.25 billion, adjusted for inflation. The
utilities paid this amount in full. Because the industry has fully met
its obligation for the cleanup of the government facilities twice
already, NEI strongly opposes the administration's proposal. The
industry appreciates the support of the subcommittee in rejecting this
proposal in prior years and encourages you to continue to oppose this
proposal.
ensuring a strong nuclear regulatory commission
An independent, credible regulatory agency is required for public
confidence in commercial nuclear energy facilities. During the next
couple of years, the NRC must continue its inspection and licensing
activities at America's nuclear energy facilities while implementing
safety recommendations of the agency's task force based on lessons
learned from the Fukushima Daiichi accident. Effectiveness of the five-
member commission is essential to ensure NRC staff and licensees alike
have clear policy guidance. The commission functions most effectively
when it has a full complement of five commissioners, and the nuclear
energy industry believes the Congress's highest priority should be
ensuring that vacancies on the commission do not occur.
The industry supports fiscal year 2013 funding at the NRC's
requested level of $1.053 billion, an increase of $15 million above its
fiscal year 2012 funding levels. The industry remains concerned,
however, at the steep escalation in agency budgets and staffing levels
over the last decade, from 2,763 staff in fiscal year 2001 to 3,927
staff proposed in fiscal year 2013, and from $487 million in fiscal
year 2001 to more than $1 billion proposed in fiscal year 2013. The
industry is aware that the agency has $32 million in unobligated
balances from prior years' appropriations. The NRC chairman has
suggested that the additional Fukushima-related work would amount to
nearly $30 million in new spending. If the agency does not plan to
allocate these funds in this manner, the industry believes that the
unobligated balances should be used to reduce licensee fees in future
years.
The industry applauds the oversight of the NRC by the Congress to
ensure the agency effectively prioritizes its activities and achieves
closure on open issues in a timely and appropriate manner. The agency
should continue to achieve greater transparency in its budgeting to
reveal planned staffing and resource needs by individual divisions.
This is particularly true concerning the defense and national interest
programs funded by taxpayers in appropriated funds. In any 1 year, the
NRC should ensure that these programs are funded at the entire 10
percent of available funds. A firewall should exist between fee-based
sources of funds so the user fee is not used as an additional source of
funding for appropriated programs. This would demonstrate to the
Congress, the public and the industry (which pays 90 percent of the
NRC's budget) that the budget fairly reflects industry-specific
activities.
Once again, the administration has proposed terminating the
Integrated University Program, which supports the Nation's universities
and community colleges. This program supports important nuclear science
and engineering research and workforce training. Given that more than
one-half of America's green jobs in the electric sector are at nuclear
energy facilities, it is vital that the Congress provide financial
support for students and junior faculty. The NRC program is managed
jointly with DOE's Office of Nuclear Energy and DOE's National Nuclear
Security Administration and has been authorized by the Congress. NEI
supports $15 million for NRC to continue its participation in the
program in fiscal year 2013 and recommends that NRC fund the program at
that level.
development of advanced reactor and fuel technologies
The DOE Office of Nuclear Energy fiscal year 2013 budget is 12
percent lower than fiscal year 2012 while other DOE non-nuclear
programs are funded at much higher levels. Funding was reduced by 17
percent in R&D programs that are vital to the Nation's interest in
nuclear energy, science and technology. The cuts in DOE programs hinder
the Nation's ability to manage used nuclear fuel and promote key
research in innovative reactor concepts. The following programs deserve
support and represent the highest priorities for the nuclear energy
industry:
--Small Modular Reactor Licensing Technical Support--$95 million
(+$30 million);
--Light Water Reactor Sustainability Program--$25 million (+$4
million);
--Energy Innovation Hub for Modeling and Simulation--$25 million;
--Integrated University Program--$5 million (+$5 million); and
--Next Generation Nuclear Plant--$41.5 million (+$20 million).
The Secretary of Energy strongly supports the small modular reactor
licensing program and has proposed a 5-year, $452-million program.
Unfortunately, the DOE fiscal year 2013 request of $65 million falls
well short of that obligation, and the industry requests that funding
be increased to $95 million. DOE made a similar 5-year $250 million
commitment for the Modeling and Simulation Hub and it is vitally
important that this program receive the funding necessary to succeed.
In addition, the Light Water Reactor Sustainability program that is
cost-shared with industry should receive $4 million more than the DOE
fiscal year 2013 request to implement research to extend the licenses
of the Nation's operating reactors.
industry supports the department of energy 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
maintain the appropriated funds for projects under development for
fiscal year 2013.
There is no cost to taxpayers for nuclear energy project loan
guarantees, but there is significant benefit to consumers. The use of
loan guarantees will lower the overall cost of nuclear energy projects,
ultimately reducing the cost of electricity to consumers. Companies
granted loan guarantees by DOE for nuclear energy projects must pay a
premium for use of the program, plus cover all administrative costs.
However, the clean energy loan guarantee program, although essential,
is not yet a workable financing platform. NEI urges the subcommittee to
exercise its oversight responsibilities on implementation by the
executive branch, particularly on the issues of the credit subsidy cost
that project sponsors are expected to pay.
environmental cleanup and national security
DOE's budget for the Environmental Management Office should be kept
at level funding to ensure DOE meets its fiscal year 2013 enforceable
environmental compliance milestones. NEI remains concerned about NNSA's
part 810 export control rulemaking. The industry has identified several
issues that will impact the implementation of the program in fiscal
year 2013. The NEI urges the subcommittee to consider the impact to the
U.S. industry as a result of the inadequate funding of $11.4 million
proposed for fiscal year 2013 for review of export licenses, about $1
million less than last year. NEI supports the administration's request
of $921 million for the Fissile Materials Disposition program.
______
Prepared Statement of the Nuclear Engineering Department Heads
Organization
Chairwoman Feinstein, Ranking Member Alexander, and members of the
subcommittee: on behalf of the faculty and students comprising the
nuclear education system in the United States we wish to provide
testimony on fiscal year 2013 appropriations for the Department of
Energy (DOE) and other relevant agencies under the subcommittee's
jurisdiction.
As you begin to develop fiscal year 2013 appropriations
legislation, we strongly urge you to reject the administration's
request to enact a 10-percent reduction in the research and development
(R&D) budget of DOE's Office of Nuclear Energy, and maintain funding
for the Integrated University Program at fiscal year 2012 appropriated
levels.
The Nuclear Engineering Department Heads Organization (NEDHO) is an
alliance of heads and chairs of academic programs emphasizing nuclear
and radiological science, engineering, and technology across the United
States. NEDHO provides a forum for discussion, coordination, and
collaboration on issues such as academic accreditation, funding for
scholarships, fellowships, and research, and funding for training and
research reactors. NEDHO collaborates with the American Nuclear
Society, the Nuclear Energy Institute, the Test, Research, and Training
Reactors (TRTR) organization, ABET, and other similar societies and
organizations that have a stake in nuclear education. We also have
strong interactions with industry and government both of which hire our
students and utilize our research results. At present NEDHO's
membership includes 43 U.S. academic institutions in 29 States, plus 2
military academies.
NEDHO seeks to inform national decisionmakers on nuclear policy,
science and technology, and related education through Hill visits and
by providing testimony at various subcommittee hearings. NEDHO's
ultimate goal is to preserve our Nation's historic leadership in the
nuclear field, and to sharpen our competitive edge in the future by
maintaining a tradition of excellence in nuclear academia that is the
envy of the world. For decades we have sustained the nuclear enterprise
with a highly qualified human resource that led the development of
nuclear power as a viable, safe, and environmentally sound source of
energy. Our graduates have also contributed to advances in nuclear
medicine and a multitude of industrial applications, for example oil-
well logging, and have engaged in international activities in the
nuclear security and safeguards arena.
In recent years interest in the nuclear science and engineering
education enterprise has been on the rise in the United States driven
by three primary factors:
--U.S. economic and energy security;
--global competitiveness; and
--national nuclear security.
First, with regards to U.S. economic and energy security we note
that nuclear energy today accounts for 20 percent of the U.S. total
electricity supply and more than 70 percent of non-carbon-emitting
electricity sources. The U.S. nuclear power industry, under a rigorous
yet robust regulatory regime administered by the U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC), has established itself as a safe,
environmentally responsible, economic, and highly reliable (about 90
percent capacity factors) provider of electric energy. Available
forecasts for uranium ore indicate ample, reliable, and inexpensive
supplies for the foreseeable future. The U.S. NRC's recent approval of
two new AP 1000 reactors at the Vogtle site in Georgia, and their
approval last week of two similar reactors in South Carolina, plus
rising interest in Small Modular Reactors (SMR), ushers a new nuclear
era in this country after a 30-year hiatus. The improving public
perception of the safety of America's nuclear fleet will be sustained
by the improved features in new designs and by incorporating lessons
learned from Fukushima. Also the prospect of closing the backend of the
fuel cycle that has been resuscitated by the Blue Ribbon Commission's
report will hopefully kick into high gear to resolve this urgent issue
once and for all.
Second, on the global scale many developing and underdeveloped
nations are ambitiously seeking to build up their nuclear power
capacity, most notably in the two most populated countries in the
world, China and India, whose economies are undergoing aggressive
growth. A recent presentation by DOE personnel reported on the
magnitude of the global market for nuclear power in the foreseeable
future as follows: there are more than 430 reactors operating in 30
countries, producing 370 GWe, or about 14 percent of the global
electricity supply. There are currently 65 reactors under construction
in 15 countries, with 26 of these in China alone. These operating and
soon-to-operate reactors comprise a substantial global market for
equipment (e.g., turbines, generators, instrumentation), fuel, and
services. DOE also notes 154 power reactors planned in 27 countries for
the next 8-10 years costing more than $740 billion, and a total of 331
reactors proposed in 37 countries over the next 15 years at a projected
cost of $1.6 trillion. Not only are the economic rewards of U.S.
engagement in this growing global market necessary for providing highly
paying jobs for Americans involved in the design, analysis, and
potentially construction of new reactors, it is an essential means of
spreading high U.S. technical standards in this sensitive industry
across the globe. A safety culture that transcends national boundaries
and that is based on a solid scientific foundation and supported by
decades of excellent American experience is the best guarantee that
nuclear power will remain an agent for improving the global
environment.
Third, the growing number of nuclear-hopeful nations and the
widening footprint of nuclear power raises concerns about nuclear
proliferation to historic highs and makes a strong case for developing
novel and better detectors and methods for verifying that nuclear
materials are only being employed for peaceful purposes. These concerns
cannot be addressed solely by controlling the flow of scientific
knowledge and underlying technologies and requires a revamped structure
that better integrates the technical and policy aspects of this issue.
In addition, the continued threat of nuclear terrorism is not likely to
abate any time soon and demands the continuous and untiring vigilance
of relevant agencies within the U.S. Government.
Common to all these factors is the need for a highly educated
nuclear workforce that is aware of national needs and that is well
equipped to tackle them. The magnitude of this immense challenge was
wisely recognized by the U.S. Congress and two administrations since
2009 when two programs designed to reinvigorate nuclear education in
the U.S. were inaugurated: The Integrated University Programs (IUP) and
the DOE Nuclear Energy University Programs (NEUP). The Blue Ribbon
Commission likewise recognized the importance of U.S. leadership in the
nuclear area, and highlighted continued innovation in nuclear
technology and workforce development as one of its eight major
recommendations.
A decade ago Federal investment in R&D and nuclear education
infrastructure was administered by DOE's Office of Nuclear Energy (DOE-
NE). Support through scholarships, fellowships, equipment grants,
research reactor upgrades, et cetera was crucial to stemming the
precipitous decline in the 1990s of nuclear academic programs and
university research reactors. In 2008, foreseeing an impending nuclear
human resource crisis fueled by an aging workforce and the rising
prospect of mass retirements DOE-NE created NEUP that directed
approximately 20 percent of NE's R&D funding towards universities in
support of DOE-NE's research mission. And in 2009 the IUP was instated
by the Congress to instill some degree of stability in the funding
stream of nuclear education by diversifying sponsorship across three
Federal agencies: DOE's NE, DOE's National Nuclear Security
Administration (NNSA), and the US NRC. The three arms of IUP were
directed to support broad educational objectives via programmatic and
non-programmatic awards, and to coordinate their support mechanisms in
order to minimize duplication.
In the ensuing years these support schemes have succeeded in
reviving nuclear academia, and expanded interest in nuclear research
topics into other disciplines, e.g., material science, mechanical
engineering, radiochemistry, leading to a fertile interdisciplinary
research environment in support of the Nation's research agenda. All
awards made via NEUP and IUP are competitive and have seen broad
participation from across the Nation. To be specific, the NRC invested
its share of IUP in curriculum development ($5 million), Junior Faculty
Development, scholarships and fellowships awarded to selected
universities, and support of community colleges (a total of $10
million). NNSA now dedicates $5 million in support of the Nuclear
Science and Security Consortium led by the University of California,
Berkeley, and awards $10 million in programmatic support of basic
research projects relevant to nuclear security.
DOE-NE administers IUP through NEUP in two separate funding
streams. First, NEUP spends $5 million in direct IUP funding on
scholarships and fellowships awarded directly to student applicants.
This program is distinct in its objectives from NRC's scholarship and
fellowship program in that it is designed to attract top talent to the
field without regard to the university where they seek their respective
degree. While this type of recruitment is likely to raise the overall
quality of students in the nuclear field, it is expected to concentrate
these students in highly ranked schools creating severe discrepancy
among the remaining nuclear academic programs. In contrast, NRC's
program empowers awarded departments to use the funds in recruitment of
high-quality students that will promote the reputation of the awarded
department and ensure a diverse educational foundation that improves
the chances of innovative breakthroughs. In addition, DOE-NE has
committed up to 20 percent of its R&D funds to support university
research via competitive awards of varying levels of programmatic
relevance. Some of these funds have been awarded in support of nuclear
infrastructure in U.S. universities.
To appreciate the importance of IUP for the revival of nuclear
engineering academia in the United States we note that the elements of
IUP cover the three primary missions of a research intensive
university:
--education (undergraduate and graduate);
--research; and
--service.
In the 3 years since its inception IUP has succeeded in reversing
enrollment decline that all but dominated the 1990s, with enrollments
continuing to climb even after the Fukushima event, and in revitalizing
existing academic programs with several universities starting new
nuclear engineering programs from scratch. Sustaining support of IUP
sends a clear and loud message to university administrators who need to
support nuclear programs and to prospective students that their career
investment in this field is desirable and will be rewarded. In
contrast, reducing DOE-NE's R&D budget, and eliminating support for IUP
sends a confusing message to the same administrators and target
students and steers them away from a field that we believe, and we hope
you agree, is of prime national interest.
In closing we hope that your subcommittee will reverse this
damaging development. Continued funding for NEUP and IUP will protect
the great progress achieved in nuclear academic programs in support of
our Nation's ability to compete in the global nuclear marketplace and
to enhance the safe and secure utilization of nuclear technology for
the benefit of humanity.
Thank you.
______
Prepared Statement of the Sacramento Municipal Utility District
Dear Chairwoman Feinstein: On behalf the Sacramento Municipal
Utility District (SMUD), I want to thank you again for supporting the
Department of Energy's (DOE) Water Power Program and your staff's
excellent work in securing $59 million for the program in fiscal year
2012. I am writing to respectfully request that the Senate
Appropriations Committee fund the Water Power Program at the same level
of $59 million for fiscal year 2013. This amount should be directed to
support hydropower research and development including projects
classified as ``conventional hydropower''.
Investments during the past few years in what is labeled
``conventional'' hydropower technologies have resulted in the
development of more efficient and environmentally friendly turbines,
reduced costs in state-of-the-art small hydropower technology, and
advances in technologies to integrate intermittent renewable energy
resources into the electric grid. These advances could be lost if the
administration's fiscal year 2013 budget request, which proposes
cutting the Water Power Program's funding level to $20 million, is
enacted and if no R&D funds are designated for conventional hydropower
projects.
Northern California electricity customers have benefitted directly
from investments made by the Water Power Program. In 2011, SMUD was
awarded two multiyear grants, including a $4.96 million award to assist
with initial geotechnical studies for the proposed 400 MW Iowa Hill
pumped storage project. While pumped storage technology has existed for
some time, SMUD is researching advanced plant control systems featuring
variable speed pump generators that have yet to be applied in the
United States. Use of this new technology would enhance SMUD's ability
to integrate high levels of intermittent renewable resources such as
wind and solar power into our electrical system while maintaining
electric reliability.
The DOE also awarded SMUD $1.49 million to help implement a new
low-head modular hydropower unit at the Slab Creek Powerhouse project
featuring inward flow reaction turbine technology allowing creative use
of existing tunnels to generate power from minimum releases of the
existing reservoir.
Each of these grants was awarded based on their ability to
contribute to the development of new technologies that produce
conventional hydropower more efficiently, reduce costs, and increase
sustainable hydropower generation. Both projects will advance
innovation in a traditional, carbon-free resource.
Because SMUD's grants depend on future appropriations, including
fiscal year 2013 funding, and to ensure continued Federal investment in
these valuable and innovative initiatives, SMUD believes the current
level of $59 million in funding for the Water Power program should be
maintained.
Thank you for your attention and support on these issues.
______
Prepared Statement of the Society for Industrial and Applied
Mathematics
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 $4.99 billion in fiscal year 2013. In particular, we urge you
to provide significant support for the Applied Mathematics Program
within the Office of Advanced Scientific Computing Research (ASCR)
within the Office of Science. We also emphasize the importance of
support for graduate students, postdoctoral fellows, and early career
researchers.
written testimony
We are Dr. Lloyd Nicholas Trefethen, President, and Dr. Reinhard
Laubenbacher, Vice President for Science Policy, of the Society for
Industrial and Applied Mathematics (SIAM). On behalf of SIAM, we are
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 more than 500 institutional members--colleges, universities,
corporations, and research organizations. SIAM members come from many
different disciplines, but have a common interest in applying
mathematics in partnership with computational science towards solving
real-world problems.
First, we would like to emphasize how much SIAM appreciates your
subcommittee's continued leadership on and recognition of the critical
role of the DOE Office of Science and its support for mathematics,
science, and engineering in enabling a strong U.S. economy, workforce,
and society. 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.
Today, we submit this testimony to ask you to continue your support
of the DOE Office of Science in fiscal year 2013 and beyond. In
particular, we request that you provide the Office of Science with
$4.99 billion, the level requested in the fiscal year 2013 budget
request. SIAM is aware of the significant fiscal constraints facing the
administration and the Congress this year, but we note that, in the
face of economic peril, Federal investments in mathematics, science,
and engineering remain crucial as they help to maintain U.S. pre-
eminence in innovation, upon which our economy and fiscal health
depend.
the role of mathematics in meeting energy challenges
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 nanotechnology,
biofuels, genomics, climate modeling, and materials fabrication.
To tackle many of these challenges, DOE must be able to understand
complex systems such as the U.S. power grid, the dispersion of nuclear
radiation after a disaster, and the Earth's climate system. These and
other complex systems 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.
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 $455.6 million requested for ASCR for fiscal year
2013. SIAM appreciates that the requested increase for fiscal year 2013
would be directed to the Mathematical, Computational, and Computer
Sciences Research activity programs, helping to restore balance between
research activities and facility investments.
SIAM supports Office of Science plans to fund research to manage
ever-growing data volumes in science. The explosion in data available
to scientists from advances in experimental equipment, simulation
techniques, and computer power is well known, and applied mathematics
has an important role to play in developing the methods and tools to
translate this shower of numbers into new knowledge.
SIAM also supports funding for research to develop exascale
computing and notes that investments in algorithm research and software
development are essential to developing the next generation of high-
performance computers, realizing the full benefits of these new
machines, and transferring those capabilities to industry for broad
economic benefit.
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. DOE programs support
the educational and professional development of the researchers at
universities, companies, and the national laboratories who will tackle
the research problems needed to change energy usage in this country.
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 postdoctoral fellows at DOE
national laboratories and universities.
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 to ensure energy independence
and facilitate 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.
We 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 to maintain our competitive edge in science
and technology, and therefore we respectfully ask that you continue
your support of these critical programs.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide testimony to the Committee
on behalf of SIAM and look forward to providing any additional
information or assistance you may ask of us during the fiscal year 2013
appropriations process.
______
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 to private industry 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.
In its fiscal year 2013 budget, the administration has requested
the appropriation of $15,579,815 for the final installment of Elk Hills
compensation to fulfill the Federal Government's obligations to the
State under the Settlement Agreement. The State respectfully requests
the appropriation by the Congress of $15,579,815 of the final Elk Hills
compensation payment due to the State.
background
Upon admission to the Union, States beginning with Ohio and those
westward were granted by the 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 the 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 one-half or
more of their original value to inflation.
state's claims settled, as the 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, the 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, the 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, section
3415). The Secretary was required by the 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 National 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.
the congress should appropriate $15,579,815 for fiscal year 2013 for
the final installment of elk hills compensation due to the state
The State's 9-percent share of the adjusted Elk Hills sales price
of $3.53 billion is $315,099,815 (after deducting the State's share of
the sales expenses). As the Congress had directed in the 1996 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 State.
To date, the 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.
The administration's budget for fiscal year 2013 requests the
appropriation of $15,579,815 for the Elk Hills School Lands Fund to pay
the final installment of Elk Hills compensation due to the State.
(Budget of the United States Government, fiscal year 2013--Appendix, at
p. 446, Account No. 89-5428-0-2-271). Thus, the provision for Elk Hills
compensation is a line item in the Federal budget; it is not an
earmark.
The State respectfully requests the appropriation by the Congress
of $15,579,815 to fulfill the Federal Government's obligation to the
State under the Settlement Agreement.
______
Prepared Statement of the University Corporation for Atmospheric
Research
On behalf of the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
(UCAR) and the university communities engaged in Earth systems research
and education, I submit this written testimony for the record of the
Senate Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Energy and Water
Development. UCAR is a consortium of 77 research universities that
manages and operates the National Center for Atmospheric Research
(NCAR) on behalf of the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the
university community. I urge the subcommittee to fund the fiscal year
2013 budget request of $4.992 billion for the Department of Energy
(DOE) Office of Science, including $625.3 million for Biological and
Environmental Research, and $2.337 billion for the DOE Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE).
With the following, I highlight several science research and
development programs that represent DOE's critical contributions to
American leadership in science and technology:
department of energy office of science
The DOE Office of Science directly supports university and
laboratory research, increasing the Nation's capacity to understand and
advance numerous fields of science, including the atmospheric sciences.
More broadly, the DOE's world-class laboratories, the research
conducted at the labs, and the scientific facilities accessible to the
larger research community through the labs, are centerpieces of the
robust innovation ecosystem that keeps the United States an
international leader in science and technology and that stimulates the
economy through technology development.
Biological and Environmental Research.--The Biological and
Environmental Research (BER) program within DOE Science makes
fundamental contributions to the Nation's premier Earth system models
and data analysis infrastructure that provide the scientific foundation
for future decisionmaking on environmental change. Without BER-
supported work, we would not know the level of risk that cities,
states, and businesses face from long-term weather trends and what
societal preparation and adaptation might be needed.
In particular, the Climate and Environmental Sciences program
within BER provides indispensable support to the Community Earth System
Model (CESM), a comprehensive computer model supported by DOE and NSF
to analyze Earth's past, present, and project future climate. CESM is a
major contributor to national and international assessments of
environmental change. And while CESM is housed and managed at NCAR, it
is an open-source climate model, involving contributions and
improvements from scientists across the Nation and around the world.
Thanks in part to BER support, CESM is incorporating more complex
and realistic representations of the natural and human processes that
shape the global climate. For example, the model now has a dynamically
coupled carbon and nitrogen cycle component that allows representation
of realistic exchanges of CO2 between the atmosphere, the
oceans, and the land surface. This new capability will allow realistic
studies of the role of the ocean in absorbing and releasing
CO2 to the atmosphere, thereby obtaining more accurate
predictions of future CO2 concentrations that are
fundamental to understanding the nature and magnitude of future changes
in global climate. Carbon and nitrogen cycling in CESM provides the
means to study in detail the contributions of land use change and
vegetation disturbance to local, regional and global climate change.
These new capabilities will allow the climate science community to
address societally relevant questions in a way that has not been
possible in the past.
CESM performs exceptionally well on DOE's modern supercomputers,
having been run at high resolutions in one experiment on more than
100,000 processors of the Cray Jaguar-PE system at Oak Ridge National
Laboratory. CESM scenario runs are now underway on this and other
supercomputers to make projections for the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change's Fifth Assessment Report, expected to be released in
2014.
New in fiscal year 2013, climate and Earth system modeling research
at DOE will develop an enhanced validation and verification capability
to compare models and measurements against a unified framework using
sophisticated software tools. This initiative promises to improve the
efficiency of data management and analysis in the field. As in fiscal
year 2012, atmospheric scientists will continue to receive grant
funding for cutting-edge research on aerosols, clouds, and aerosol-
cloud interactions, in order to improve estimates of how these
feedbacks impact climate, an area of atmospheric research that can be
better understood.
In order to develop more accurate, increasingly realistic, and
higher resolution Earth system models, with better environmental
predictive capabilities for businesses, stakeholders such as water
resource managers, and communities, I urge you to fund the Office of
Biological and Environmental Research within the DOE Office of Science
at the requested $625.3 million for fiscal year 2013, including $315.6
million for Climate and Environmental Sciences within BER.
advanced scientific computing research
According to a 2011 National Research Council report The Future of
Computing Performance, Game Over or Next Level?, ``Virtually every
sector of society--manufacturing, financial services, education,
science government, the military, entertainment, and so on--has become
dependent on continued growth in computing performance to drive new
efficiencies and innovation.'' Within the atmospheric sciences, the
advancement of our science rests on the continued growth of computing
performance and capabilities. DOE Science's Advanced Scientific
Computing Research (ASCR) delivers needed leading edge computational
and networking capabilities to scientists nationwide, enabling the
Office of Science and the larger university community to address and
answer major scientific questions.
In particular, the atmospheric sciences community depends on the
ASCR Leadership Computing Facilities (LCFs), which are available to all
researchers for scientific discovery and to address critical
engineering challenges. The continued support of these programs is of
particular importance to Earth system model development. Representing
the complex processes and feedbacks of the Earth's systems, while
efficiently harnessing the enormous amount of computing power
necessary, requires very advanced software engineering, computer
science, and numerical techniques. Because the climate simulations
using the CESM (described above) are too computationally intensive to
be run at NCAR alone, many computational experiments are run at the
LCF's.
At the Oak Ridge National Laboratory Leadership Computing Facility
(OLCF), for example, a new 2.33-petaflop Cray XT5 system is already
available to the scientific community, and OLCF plans to upgrade it to
a 10-petaflop Cray XK6 system in upcoming years. The Argonne National
Laboratory Leadership Computing Facility (ALCF) plans to upgrade its
IBM Blue Gene/Q supercomputer to a 10-petaflop system this year.
Alongside the NCAR-Wyoming Supercomputing Center and its 1.6-petaflop
Yellowstone system soon to be delivered to this new facility, these DOE
supercomputers will empower atmospheric scientists to push the
boundaries of Earth systems modeling science.
In the same way that more powerful telescopes enable new
discoveries in astronomy, each major supercomputer upgrade enables new
numerical experiences that reveal more details regarding how the Earth
system works. This information is critical to efforts to understand and
predict regional climate, as well as to develop and assess mitigation
and adaptation strategies. A failure to maintain and continue to
upgrade these LCFs would seriously undermine the steady progress in
this and many other areas of science.
Another important cross-cutting computing program that operates in
partnership with ACSR and other programs within DOE Science is the
Scientific Discovery through Advanced Computing (SciDAC) program.
SciDAC accelerates scientific progress by breaking down the barriers
between disciplines and fostering more dynamic partnerships between
basic researchers and computational science applications. A SciDAC
effort in partnership with BER, for example, is quantifying the
uncertainty in next-generation integrated Earth system models in order
to dramatically improve our ability to characterize the drivers of
global climate and quantify the impact of energy production and use on
the environment and human health.
I urge you to fund the Advanced Scientific Computing Research
within the DOE Office of Science at the fiscal year 2013 requested
level of $455.6 million and to support SciDAC program throughout the
Office of Science budget.
energy efficiency and renewable energy research and development
Renewable energy research, development, and technology transfer are
among the most important investments we can make to ensure long run
economic and environmental sustainability. Renewable energy technology
contributes numerous cross-cutting benefits to society, including
reducing our dependence on foreign oil and providing energy security,
driving innovation and job creation in the energy economy,
decentralizing the energy market, providing new high-tech jobs,
reducing the human toll on the environment, and improving air quality
and public health outcomes. DOE's Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy (EERE) is at the heart of this transformation.
Our national research universities, in collaboration with DOE
laboratories and the private sector, are driving the country's
innovation in renewable energy and energy efficiency. One example of
such collaboration includes a partnership between NCAR, DOE's National
Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), and Xcel Energy, Colorado's largest
utility company, to develop sophisticated wind forecasts for
operational use. These forecasts provide critical information to
utilities to:
--help them predict how much wind power will be generated over the
next 24 to 72 hours;
--enhance their ability to better integrate wind-generated
electricity into the grid; and
--assist with decisionmaking processes regarding whether to power
down coal- and natural gas-fired plants when sufficient winds
are predicted. To reduce the costs of integrating wind and
solar energy into the electrical grid and make renewable energy
more cost effective, significant improvements in weather
forecasting technologies will be required, and additional
weather observations in the lower atmosphere will be needed.
Given the critical importance to the Nation of developing
economically and environmentally sustainable technologies for energy
production, I urge the subcommittee to fund the fiscal year 2013
request of $2.337 billion for the Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy.
I want to thank the members of the subcommittee in advance for
supporting, through DOE, basic and applied scientific research in the
environmental and other Earth sciences. By doing so, you advance the
Nation's economic recovery, help stakeholders manage irreplaceable
natural resources, and sustain the Nation's global scientific
leadership.
______
Prepared Statement of the URS Corporation
Mr. Chairwoman and members of the subcommittee: My name is Dr.
Douglas Everett Wyatt, Jr.,\1\ and in my capacity as Director of
Science Research for URS Corporation supporting the Department of
Energy (DOE), Office of Fossil Energy, National Energy Technology
Laboratory, I provide this testimony. Specifically, I will address the
essential support of the Strategic Center for Natural Gas and Oil, a
Program Office within the National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL)
for the Office of Fossil Energy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Douglas E. Wyatt works for the URS Corporation, a global
Fortune 500 company and major support contractor to the U.S.
Government. URS employs 57,000 people working in program management,
engineering, design and construction, in site maintenance and
operations, and in decommissioning and decontamination. URS has been
named as the largest global environmental company and is consistently
in the top ten in engineering and architecture, power, design,
construction, transportation, and industrial processes. Wyatt holds a
Ph.D. in geological sciences from the University of South Carolina, an
MS in geology and geophysics from Vanderbilt University, a BA in
physical geography, and BA in zoology from the University of Tennessee.
He has more than 140 publications, papers, and presentations. Wyatt has
30 years of experience including oil and gas exploration and
production, nuclear energy, geothermal and renewable energy,
environmental characterization and in creating and managing large
multidisciplinary research programs. He lives in Aiken, South Carolina.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The abundant availability of energy, in all of its various forms,
has been a primary catalyst for the development of advanced
civilization. While this is somewhat a philosophical thought I believe
it to be as true today as it was for any time in the past. Simply put,
there is no conceivable advanced future for the Nation without
increasingly abundant energy. As a scientist for the past 30 years, I
am keenly aware that energy can be produced cleanly and utilized
efficiently as the following testimony will describe.
No scientist or engineer believes that a single energy source is a
viable solution for our national energy needs. We understand the energy
systems of the past and present, and can reasonably predict the energy
systems of the near future. However, because of the dynamics of
discovery and imagination, our ability to predict energy needs and
sources beyond six to eight decades is limited but the scientific
community can predict energy utilization and resources for the next 30
to 40 years. Oil and natural gas will continue to be a primary energy
resource during this time and the research initiatives of the Strategic
Center for Natural Gas and Oil strongly supports our Nation's ability
to efficiently and cleanly use this resource as part of our global
energy mix over the next several decades.
Oil and natural gas exploration, development and production is
well-understood by hundreds of oil and gas companies in the U.S.
market. Yet only a few of the largest companies, i.e., ExxonMobil,
ConocoPhillips, Chevron, have active self-funded research programs
addressing new technology and science associated with oil and natural
gas production, expansion, and efficiency. These companies, along with
the larger industry support companies, i.e., Schlumberger, Halliburton,
Weatherford, often support academic research in expanded and efficient
oil and gas development, but the vast majority of their research is to
develop a competitive advantage in the market; therefore, the knowledge
gained is proprietary. Only when partnered with a Federal agency will
the research become public. The Strategic Center for Natural Gas and
Oil is unique in that it leverages Federal funding to integrate
Federal, academic, and commercial research so that new science and
technology, supporting national policy and energy needs, is performed
with data available to the public. Therefore, I believe that it is
critically important for the programs of the Strategic Center for
Natural Gas and Oil to be more fully funded and expanded.
In my capacity as a scientist, with a finger on the pulse of the
state of the industry, I believe there are three critical areas in
fossil energy oil and gas where a Federal research presence, through
the Strategic Center for Natural Gas and Oil, is essential so that:
--technologies are investigated under a variety of conditions and
potential impacts are better understood;
--technologies or concepts that may not seem immediately useful or
marketable to industry in the short term are evaluated; and
--the broadest distribution of knowledge and data is guaranteed.
The three areas of Federal research with proposed budgets and
rationale are:
CO2 Enhanced Oil and Gas Recovery--The Use of
CO2 in Enhanced Oil Recovery and Residual Oil Zone
Production From Historic, Diminished and Depleted Oil Reservoirs.--
Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) is common practice in the oil industry and
CO2 is currently used for this purpose. However, there are
known limits to the capability of the existing technology and
utilization issues due to the limited availability of clean
CO2. Current research suggests that there are a variety of
high-technology options to improve the effectiveness of CO2
in the oil reservoir such as chemically altering nanoparticles and
enhanced geophysical monitoring of the CO2-oil interaction.
In addition, there is a probability that CO2 can be
beneficially reused as a replacement for water in the hydraulic
fracturing of shale and other gas producing geological formations. The
utilization of CO2 in ``fracking'' operations would
eliminate many of the current environmental concerns associated with
shale gas production. Other examples of CO2 use are
available. Many new enhanced oil recovery concepts using CO2
as the working fluid are subject to scientific analysis. I strongly
recommend you fund this research program at $150 million over a 5-year
period with $30 million annually. A $30 million annual budget would
allow for 10 to 20 university research efforts to be completed, a
robust extramural research competitive program to be completed,
continuation of NETL intramural research, and for a joint industry,
academic, Federal partnership to be formed to market and commercialize
technologies developed from this program. The U.S. produces
approximately 280,000 barrels of oil per day from 114 active fields
from CO2 EOR. Considering the current price of oil, if only
2 extra days' of oil production were generated from this research, then
the value of the new CO2 EOR oil added to the national daily
total would cover the cost of this critical research. However, new
research into CO2 EOR might be expected to produce new
efficiencies of 5 to 15 percent and more, above current production. I
strongly urge you to fund the Strategic Center for CO2
Enhanced Oil and Gas recovery research.
Environmentally Safe Development, Production and Utilization of
Natural Gas and Oil/Liquids From Unconventional Source Rocks.--The
production of massive quantities of natural gas from organic-rich shale
source rocks provides our Nation a path to energy independence. The
effective use of shale gas has the ability to shift global energy
markets to our Nation's substantial favor. In effect, a vision of our
Nation no longer coupled to the global oil market can be realized. The
oil and gas industry understands this possibility and is proceeding
with the development and production of abundant natural gas. Research
into best practices for shale gas reservoir development, new
technologies for reservoir stimulation, water disposal, near surface
environmental protection, and in the overall utilization of the gas are
but a few of the issues that demand attention. All of these research
missions are important but two deserve special attention.
Current shale gas reservoir development by hydraulic stimulation,
``fracking'', only stimulates a portion of the total shale volume
intersected by a horizontal well. It is probable that well bores might
be drilled on a closer spacing increasing the volume of rock penetrated
and the overall availability of gas. This possibility implies that the
current recoverable volumes of natural gas from shale, or other organic
rich gas-producing source rocks, might be doubled, or even tripled.
Additionally, if wells can be drilled on a denser spacing then it
becomes possible to strategically locate wells so that surface and
human impacts could be maximized or minimized, depending on the need.
Research to validate this concept and to develop best methodologies is
required.
New gas utilization concepts and technologies are also particularly
important. Natural gas is a very clean and versatile fuel that can be
used in fuel cells, chemical looping reactors, or directly burned in
internal combustion engines. There are other advanced concepts which
could be directly applied to the well-head and production area for
electricity and industrial heat generation, converted to useful goods
and merchandise such as plastics, among other probabilities. The wide-
spread distribution of shale gas reservoirs and the abundant gas
produced from a typical shale well implies that it might be possible to
use shale gas derived energy in the form of heat and electricity in
small-scale localized transmission grids and funneled into the overall
national SmartGrid technology program.
Possibly more important is the use of natural gas as a bridge fuel.
Natural gas is a clean burning and abundant fossil fuel that can be
used in a variety of existing and new applications, including
transportation, to form a bridge from our current fossil energy mix to
a future electrified energy mix that is projected over the next several
decades. Not only can the gas be burned for heat for internal
combustion engines or electrical generators it can be used directly in
fuel cell applications to generate electricity. Since natural gas can
be compressed, liquefied, and adsorbed it can be used in almost any
system requiring electrical or heat energy. It is a natural bridge fuel
for our Nation that requires your attention.
There are many recent research successes in the development of
environmentally safe natural gas. These include the recent DOE data and
support to the Environmental Protection Agency for ``fracking'' related
groundwater issues, the development of potential new nanoparticles
supporting gas and oil EOR, and the development of new approaches to
modeling and imaging multiphase, multifluid flow in shale and
sandstones. However, new research into the utilization of natural gas
for new and expanded markets is needed. I recommend that $300 million
funding allocation over a 5-year period be authorized to complete
research in this area. A $60 million annual allocation will allow for a
variety of university collaborations consisting of 20 to 40 university
research efforts covering a broad spectrum of research needs. A
competitive extramural research program of joint industry and joint
industry and academia can be completed to insure for the best market
and technology applications. Additionally, a small-business industry
program to develop, market, and deploy new technologies will insure
wide-spread use throughout the industry. Finally, ongoing intramural
research at the NETL will insure the brokering of environmental data
necessary to insure safe gas development.
Natural Gas Hydrates.--Gas hydrates are the largest source of
natural gas, methane, on Earth. Hydrates are ubiquitous on the
continental shelves of all major continents and are, therefore, a
globally distributed fuel resource. Hydrates are also abundant in
arctic sediments. Much research has been done for hydrates and their
character and distribution is well known. However, there is still
research necessary in hydrate stability, the environmental systems in
which they exist, and in the best, most efficient, most environmentally
safe method of production. The United States has led global hydrate
research, but the world is beginning to develop hydrates for energy. It
is important for our Nation to maintain a key role in overall hydrates
research. I recommend a $15 million 5-year program, $3 million
annually, to continue extramural university research and intramural
National Energy Technology Laboratory research programs.
______
Prepared Statement of the Worcester Polytechnic Institute
We have been working with the Department of Energy (DOE) National
Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) for several years developing
technology which is efficient and economical for simultaneous hydrogen
production and carbon dioxide sequestration. The project has been very
successful and is in the final stage of development and
commercialization. The project has provided employment opportunity for
8-10 people. The most recent two projects are DE-FC26-07NT43058
(Project title: Composite Pd and Pd Alloy Porous Stainless Steel
Membranes for Hydrogen Production and Process Intensification) and
Phase I of DE-FE0004895 (Project title: Engineering Design of Advanced
H2-CO2 Pd and Pd/Alloy Composite Membrane
Separations and Process Intensification). We have achieved amazing
success for the Phase I project and is ready to move into Phase II to
construct pilot scale unit for the production of 100 pounds hydrogen
per day and eventually to Phase III to design a plant for the
production of 5 tons hydrogen per day. Unfortunately, the funding for
Phase II and Phase III was cut and the project will be terminated. This
untimely termination of the project not only causes people to lose
their employment but also the United States to miss the opportunity to
be a leader in simultaneous hydrogen production and carbon dioxide
sequestration technology. In addition, it is sad that the technology is
so successful due to the successful investment made by the DOE in the
past several years has to be discontinued and set us back for several
years. Therefore, I would like to urge the subcommittee to restore the
appropriation to allow the project to continue and to provide the much
needed employment. Moreover, the continuation of the project not only
make good use of the U.S. investment already made in the past but also
allow the technology to be commercialized to strengthen our prospect of
stabilizing the fuel cost and energy independence.
Thank you for your attention and please feel contact me for more
information.
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Reclamation
Prepared Statement of the Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck
Reservation and Dry Prairie Rural Water
fiscal year 2013 budget request
The Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Reservation and
Dry Prairie Rural Water greatly appreciate $7.5 million that is
included in the Bureau of Reclamation's (BOR) fiscal year 2013 budget
request to continue construction of the Fort Peck Reservation Rural
Water System. However, this level of funding is far below the need and
project capacity for fiscal year 2013. Thus, we respectfully request
$29 million within BOR fiscal year 2013 rural water program for this
project, which will enable us to complete this project within the
authorization time.
Fiscal year 2013 funds will be used to construct critical elements
of the Fort Peck Reservation Rural Water System, Montana, (Public Law
106-382, October 27, 2000). The amount requested is based on need to
complete transmission pipelines across the Fort Peck Indian Reservation
and deliver regional water to the Reservation and Dry Prairie. The
request is within capability to spend funds in fiscal year 2013 as set
out in Table 1.
Good construction progress has been made on the Reservation and
will continue into 2013. By the end of fiscal year 2012, the project
will:
--complete the main transmission pipelines from the water treatment
plant (WTP) to Wolf Point;
--complete the main transmission system from Wolf Point to Frazer;
--complete the main transmission system from Poplar to Brockton;
--nearly complete the main transmission system from Brockton to the
Big Muddy River, the first interconnection point with Dry
Prairie;
--serve rural homes of tribal members and others between Brockton and
Frazer, that, when complete, will serve 75 percent of the
Reservation design population with safe and adequate water; and
--complete the Fort Kipp interim water project, poorest water quality
in the region.
Dry Prairie has continued to extend distributions projects in
Valley County on the west side of the project and in Roosevelt and
Sheridan Counties on the east side and has added several hundred new
users.
TABLE 1.--FISCAL YEAR 2013 FUNDING REQUEST,
FORT PECK RESERVATION RURAL WATER SYSTEM (PUBLIC LAW 106-382)
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sponsor/Project Feature Federal Non-Federal Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FORT PECK TRIBES (MAIN
TRANSMISSION PIPELINES)Brockton to Big Muddy Mainline... 725 ........... 725
Brockton to Big Muddy Zone 1 750 ........... 750
Branches....................
Wolf Point to Poplar Zone 1 1,425 ........... 1,425
Branches....................
Wolf Point to Frazer Zone 1 3,905 ........... 3,905
Branches....................
Frazer to Porcupine Creek........ 8,346 ........... 8,346
FP Electrical, Meters, SCADA..... 2,114 ........... 2,114
--------------------------------------
Subtotal................... 17,265 ........... 17,265 DRY PRAIRIE (MAIN TRANSMISSION
PIPELINES AND BRANCHES)E Medicine Lake.................. 1,883 595 2,478
ML to Plentywood................. 2,333 737 3,070
Big Muddy to Culbertson.......... 108 34 142
FP Boundary to Scobey............ 7,499 2,368 9,867
DP Electrical, Meters, Easements. 752 238 990
--------------------------------------
Subtotal................... 11,823 3,734 15,557
--------------------------------------
Total...................... 29,088 3,734 32,822
------------------------------------------------------------------------
funding status and needs
As shown in Table 2, the project will be 44-percent complete at the
end of fiscal year 2012 this includes the completion of the regional
WTP. The construction contract for the final phase will be completed in
mid-year 2012. The Project has also completed:
--the extension of the raw water pipeline from the regional intake to
the new WTP;
--the pipeline between the new WTP and the tribal headquarter
community of Poplar;
--the pipeline between the WTP and the community of Wolf Point; and
--part of the project from Wolf Point to Frazer.
TABLE 2.--FUNDING STATUS AND NEEDS
[Dollars in thousands]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Federal funding authority (October 2011).......... $295,719
===============Federal funds appropriated through fiscal year 2012:
Energy and Water Appropriations..................... $83,532
ARRA Allocation..................................... $46,249
---------------
Total............................................. $129,781
===============
Percent complete........................................ 43.89
===============
Amount remaining after fiscal year 2012:
Total authorized (October 2010)..................... $165,938
Overhead adjustment for extension to fiscal year $215,579
2020...............................................
Adjusted for inflation to fiscal year 2020 at 4.54% $261,903
annually...........................................Years to complete....................................... 8Average annual required to end in fiscal year 2020, $32,738
requires amendment to extend...........................
Fiscal year 2013 amount requested....................... $29,088
------------------------------------------------------------------------
While the project has made great strides and efficiently used every
$1 made available to get to where we are, we are still less than 50-
percent complete, which translates into approximately $166 million (in
2010 dollars) of construction that must be completed. Currently, the
project is $13 million underbudget and can be completed within the
authorized construction ceiling if appropriations are adequate to
complete on the statutory schedule of 2015, which we recognize as not
realistic. However, the cost of extending the project construction to
fiscal year 2020, for example, 5 years beyond the authorized ceiling,
is an additional $50 million. We urge the Congress to address the
problem of inadequate budgeting of projects that are well advanced in
construction.
proposed activities
The fiscal year 2013 request ($29.088 million) is needed to
properly utilize the WTP and distribute water to all communities along
the main transmission line within the Fort Peck Indian Reservation and
is within the capability of the project. The fiscal year 2013 funds
will:
Fort Peck Indian Reservation
--complete the main transmission pipelines along the southern
boundary of the project;
--serve the Reservation communities and all rural homes within the
first pressure zone along the main transmission throughout the
Reservation; and
--permit delivery of water outside the Reservation to improve water
quality and operation within the reservation by:
--reducing flushing needs and costs;
--reducing disinfection needs and costs; and
--reducing potential for formation of disinfectant by-products.
Dry Prairie
--initiate construction of pipeline from northern boundary of
Reservation to Scobey; and
--complete the main transmission pipeline and branches from Medicine
Lake to Plentywood.
Jobs
--create an estimated 233 full-time equivalent (FTE) construction
jobs in an area of Montana with low per capita income, high
unemployment, and high underemployment (based on 8 FTEs per $1
million).
administration's support
The project has reached 44-percent completion over a period of 12
years and needs greater funding support to complete the project between
2015 and 2020. Congressional support is needed for the authorized BOR
rural program to complete projects in a more timely manner.
The tribes and Dry Prairie have worked extremely well and closely
with BOR since the authorization of the project in fiscal year 2000.
The Commissioner, Regional and Area Office of BOR have been
consistently in full agreement with the need, scope, total costs, and
the ability to pay analysis that supported the Federal and non-Federal
cost shares. There have been no areas of disagreement or controversy in
the formulation or implementation of the project. As stated above, the
project is under budget currently by more than $13 million.
Cooperative agreements have been developed and executed between BOR
and the tribes and between BOR and Dry Prairie. Those cooperative
agreements carefully set out goals, standards, and responsibilities of
the parties for planning, design, and construction. All plans and
specifications are subject to review by BOR pursuant to the cooperative
agreements. The sponsors collaborate to undertake activities that
assure proper oversight and approval by BOR. Each year the tribes and
Dry Prairie, in accordance with the cooperative agreements, develop a
work plan setting out the planning, design, and construction
activities, and the allocation of funding to be utilized on each
project feature.
Clearly, the Fort Peck Reservation Rural Water System is well-
supported by BOR. The Congress authorized the project based on the
Final Engineering Report that was formulated in full cooperation and
collaboration with BOR, and major project features are successfully
under construction with excellent oversight by the Agency.
______
Prepared Statement of Aurora Water
Dear Chairwoman Feinstein and Senator Alexander: I request your
support for an appropriation for fiscal year 2013 of $8,387,000 to the
Bureau of Reclamation within the budget line item entitled ``Endangered
Species Recovery Implementation Program'' for the Upper Colorado
Region, consistent with the President's recommended budget. Substantial
non-Federal cost-sharing funding is occurring pursuant to Public Law
106-392, as amended. This appropriation will allow continued funding in
fiscal year 2013 for the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery
Program and the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program as
authorized by Public Law 106-392. These two successful ongoing
cooperative partnership programs involve the States of Colorado, New
Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming; Indian tribes; Federal agencies; and water,
power, and environmental interests.
The requested Federal appropriations are critically important to
these efforts moving forward. The past support of your subcommittee has
greatly facilitated the success of these multistate, multiagency
programs. I thank you for the subcommittee's past support and request
the subcommittee's assistance for fiscal year 2013 funding to ensure
the Bureau of Reclamation's continuing financial participation in these
vitally important programs.
______
Prepared Statement of Board of Water Works of Pueblo, Colorado
Dear Chairwoman Feinstein and Senator Alexander: I request your
support for an appropriation for fiscal year 2013 of $8,387,000 to the
Bureau of Reclamation within the budget line item entitled ``Endangered
Species Recovery Implementation Program'' for the Upper Colorado
Region, consistent with the President's recommended budget. Substantial
non-Federal cost-sharing funding is occurring pursuant to Public Law
106-392, as amended. This appropriation will allow continued funding in
fiscal year 2013 for the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery
Program and the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program as
authorized by Public Law 106-392. These two successful ongoing
cooperative partnership programs involve the States of Colorado, New
Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming; Indian tribes; Federal agencies; and water,
power, and environmental interests.
The requested Federal appropriations are critically important to
these efforts moving forward. The past support of your subcommittee has
greatly facilitated the success of these multistate, multiagency
programs. I thank you for the subcommittee's past support and request
the subcommittee's assistance for fiscal year 2013 funding to ensure
the Bureau of Reclamation's continuing financial participation in these
vitally important programs.
______
Prepared Statement of Central Utah Water Conservancy District
Dear Chairwoman Feinstein and Senator Alexander: I request your
support for an appropriation for fiscal year 2013 of $8,387,000 to the
Bureau of Reclamation within the budget line item entitled ``Endangered
Species Recovery Implementation Program'' for the Upper Colorado
Region, consistent with the President's recommended budget. Substantial
non-Federal cost-sharing funding is occurring pursuant to Public Law
106-392, as amended. This appropriation will allow continued funding in
fiscal year 2013 for the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery
Program and the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program as
authorized by Public Law 106-392. These two successful ongoing
cooperative partnership programs involve the States of Colorado, New
Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming; Indian tribes; Federal agencies; and water,
power, and environmental interests.
The requested Federal appropriations are critically important to
these efforts moving forward. The past support of your subcommittee has
greatly facilitated the success of these multistate, multiagency
programs. I thank you for the subcommittee's past support and request
the subcommittee's assistance for fiscal year 2013 funding to ensure
the Bureau of Reclamation's continuing financial participation in these
vitally important programs.
______
Prepared Statement of City of Farmington
Dear Chairwoman Feinstein and Senator Alexander: I request your
support for an appropriation for fiscal year 2013 of $8,387,000 to the
Bureau of Reclamation within the budget line item entitled ``Endangered
Species Recovery Implementation Program'' for the Upper Colorado
Region, consistent with the President's recommended budget. Substantial
non-Federal cost-sharing funding is occurring pursuant to Public Law
106-392, as amended. This appropriation will allow continued funding in
fiscal year 2013 for the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery
Program and the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program as
authorized by Public Law 106-392. These two successful ongoing
cooperative partnership programs involve the States of Colorado, New
Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming; Indian tribes; Federal agencies; and water,
power, and environmental interests.
The requested Federal appropriations are critically important to
these efforts moving forward. The past support of your subcommittee has
greatly facilitated the success of these multistate, multiagency
programs. I thank you for the subcommittee's past support and request
the subcommittee's assistance for fiscal year 2013 funding to ensure
the Bureau of Reclamation's continuing financial participation in these
vitally important programs.
______
Prepared Statement of Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum
Waters from the Colorado River are used by approximately 35 million
people for municipal and industrial purposes and used to irrigate
approximately 4 million acres in the United States. Natural and man-
induced salt loading to the Colorado River creates environmental and
economic damages. The Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) has estimated the
current quantifiable damages at about $300 million per year. The
Congress authorized the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program
(Program) in 1974 to offset increased damages caused by continued
development and use of the waters of the Colorado River. Modeling by
BOR indicates that the quantifiable damages would rise to more than
$500 million by the year 2030 without continuation of the Program. The
Congress has directed the Secretary of the Interior to implement a
comprehensive program for minimizing salt contributions to the Colorado
River. BOR serves as the lead Federal agency in implementing the
program. BOR primarily institutes salinity control through its
Basinwide Program. Funding levels have fallen behind in recent years,
and a funding level of $14.5 million is required in fiscal year 2013 to
prevent further degradation of the quality of the Colorado River and
increased downstream economic damages.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has identified that more than
60 percent of the salt load of the Colorado River comes from natural
sources. The majority of land within the Colorado River Basin is
administered by Bureau of Land Management (BLM). In implementing the
Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act (Act) in 1974, the Congress
recognized that most of the salts in the Colorado River originate from
federally owned lands. Title I of the Salinity Control Act deals with
the United States commitment to the quality of waters being delivered
to Mexico. Title II of the Act deals with improving the quality of the
water delivered to U.S. users. This testimony deals specific with title
II efforts. In the early years of the program, BOR implemented salinity
control in large projects which were funded with specific line item
amounts. In 1995, the Congress amended the act and created BOR's
Basinwide Program. Under this program, BOR funds proposals which will
decrease the salt load to the Colorado River. Most of the received
proposals target off-farm irrigation distribution systems such as
canals and laterals. It is generally more efficient for BOR to perform
the off-farm distribution system improvements prior to Natural
Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) treating the on-farm acres with
salinity control practices (i.e., BOR pipe a canal or lateral prior to
NRCS putting a pressurized sprinkler system on farm). Shortfalls in
recent basinwide funding have led to inefficiencies in the
implementation of the overall program. The funding amount identified
above and in the graph below are required to get the Basinwide Program
back on pace with the overall program implementation.
Concentrations of salt in the Colorado River cause approximately
$300 million in quantified damages and significantly more in
unquantified damages in the United States and result in poor water
quality for United States users. 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 cost of cooling operations 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 cost of
desalination and brine disposal for recycled water.
The Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum (Forum) is composed
of gubernatorial appointees from Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada,
New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming. The Forum is charged with reviewing the
Colorado River's water quality standards for salinity every 3 years. In
so doing, it adopts a Plan of Implementation consistent with these
standards. The Plan of Implementation, as adopted by the States and
approved by EPA, calls for 368,000 tons of additional salinity control
measures to be implemented by BOR by 2030, or approximately 20,000 tons
of new control each year. Based on current cost levels, BOR's funding
under its Basinwide Program needs to be $14.5 million. The level of
appropriation requested in this testimony is in keeping with the
adopted Plan of Implementation. 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.
basinwide program: funding based on controlling 19,763 t/yr beginning
in fiscal year 2013
In summary, implementation of salinity control practices through
BOR's Basinwide Program has proven to be a very cost-effective method
of controlling the salinity of the Colorado River and is an essential
component to the overall Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program.
Continuation of adequate funding levels for salinity within this
program will prevent the water quality of the Colorado River from
further degradation and significant increases in economic damages to
municipal, industrial, and irrigation users.
______
Prepared Statement of the Colorado River Board of California
This testimony is in support of fiscal year 2013 funding for the
Department of the Interior for the title II Colorado River Basin
Salinity Control Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-320). In the Act, the
Congress designated the Department of the Interior, Bureau of
Reclamation (BOR) to be the lead agency for salinity control in the
Colorado River Basin. For nearly 28 years this very successful and
cost-effective program has been 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 millions of dollars per
year due to the River's salinity.
The Colorado River Board of California (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 participates along with the other six Colorado River Basin
states through the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum (Forum),
the interstate organization responsible for coordinating the Basin
States' salinity control efforts. In close cooperation with the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and pursuant to requirements of
the Clean Water Act, the Forum is charged with reviewing the Colorado
River's water quality standards every 3 years. The Forum adopts a Plan
of Implementation consistent with these water-quality standards. The
level of appropriation being supported by this testimony is consistent
with the Forum's ``2011 Plan of Implementation'' for continued salinity
control efforts within the Colorado River Basin. If adequate funds are
not appropriated to BOR's Basinwide Program, significant damages
associated with increasing salinity concentrations of Colorado River
water will become more widespread in the United States and Mexico.
The Plan of Implementation, as adopted by the States and approved
by EPA, calls for 368,000 tons of additional salinity control measures
to be implemented by BOR by 2030, or approximately 20,000 tons of
additional salinity control measures each year. Based on current
program cost levels, BOR's funding under its Basinwide Program needs to
be at least $14.5 million. This level of appropriation requested in
this testimony is in keeping with the adopted ``2011 Plan of
Implementation''.
Waters from the Colorado River are used by approximately 35 million
people for municipal and industrial purposes and used to irrigate
approximately 4 million acres of agricultural lands in the United
States. Currently, the salinity concentration of Colorado River water
causes about $300 million in quantifiable damages in the United States
annually. Economic and hydrologic modeling by BOR indicates that the
quantifiable damages could rise to more than $500 million by the year
2030 without the continuation of Basinwide salinity control measures as
identified in the ``2011 Plan of Implementation''. Significant
unquantified 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.
Some of the most cost-effective salinity control opportunities
occur when BOR can improve irrigation delivery systems in a coordinated
fashion with the activities of the U.S. Department of Agriculture's
(USDA) programs working with landowners to improve on-farm irrigation
systems. With the USDA's Environmental Quality Incentive Program, more
on-farm funds are available and it continues to be important to ensure
that there are adequate BOR funds available to maximize BOR's
effectiveness in addressing water delivery system improvements.
Shortfalls in recent Basinwide Program funding have led to
inefficiencies in the implementation of the overall salinity control
program. The funding amount identified above, and in the following
graph, are required to get the Basinwide Program back on pace with the
implementation schedule identified in the ``2011 Plan of
Implementation''.
basinwide program: funding based on controlling 19,763 t/yr beginning
in fiscal year 2013
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 pursuant to the 1944 Water Treaty with
Mexico. In order for those commitments to be honored, it is essential
that in fiscal year 2013, and in future fiscal years, that the Congress
provide funds to the BOR for the continued operation of current
projects.
The Colorado River is, and will continue to be, a major and vital
water resource to the nearly 20 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. The protection 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 Statements of the Colorado River Energy Distributors
Association
Dear Chairwoman Feinstein and Senator Alexander: We request your
support for an appropriation for fiscal year 2013 of $8,387,000 to the
Bureau of Reclamation within the budget line item entitled ``Endangered
Species Recovery Implementation Program'' for the Upper Colorado
Region, consistent with the President's recommended budget. Substantial
non-Federal cost-sharing funding is occurring pursuant to Public Law
106-392, as amended. This appropriation will allow continued funding in
fiscal year 2013 for the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery
Program and the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program as
authorized by Public Law 106-392. These two successful ongoing
cooperative partnership programs involve the States of Colorado, New
Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming; Indian tribes; Federal agencies; and water,
power, and environmental interests.
The requested Federal appropriations are critically important to
these efforts moving forward. The past support of your subcommittee has
greatly facilitated the success of these multistate, multiagency
programs. We thank you for the subcommittee's past support and request
the subcommittee's assistance for fiscal year 2013 funding to ensure
the Bureau of Reclamation's continuing financial participation in these
vitally important programs.
______
Dear Chairwoman Feinstein and Ranking Member Alexander: On behalf
of the Colorado River Energy Distributors Association (CREDA), I
respectfully request that the subcommittee appropriate $11,387,000 to
maintain capital projects and base funding activities for the Upper
Colorado River and San Juan River Recovery Implementation Programs
(RIP).
CREDA is a nonprofit organization representing consumer-owned
utilities, political subdivisions, State agencies, tribes and rural
electric cooperative utilities in Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, New
Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming, serving more than 4 million electric
consumers. CREDA's member utilities purchase more than 85 percent of
the power produced by the Glen Canyon, Flaming Gorge, Aspinall Unit
Dams, and other features of the Colorado River Storage Project (CRSP).
As purchasers of the power generated at CRSP facilities, CREDA's
members pay more than 95 percent of the costs of these multipurpose
projects. Changes in the operation of these facilities to provide for
the recovery of the endangered fish have resulted in significant costs
to the power users.
CREDA members are willing participants in the recovery programs,
which have been a model of Federal/non-Federal collaboration and
participation. However, the most recent authorization (Public Law 106-
392) to use CRSP power revenues to provide annual base funding for the
RIP expired at the end of fiscal year 2011. There is currently no
legislative authorization to use CRSP power revenues for other than
those activities authorized by Public Law 106-392. However,
stakeholders continue to seek legislation to extend the use of CRSP
power revenues for base funding from fiscal year 2012-2019.
CREDA is extremely troubled by the administration's fiscal year
2013 Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) budget which says, ``In the absence of
legislation to extend this specific authority, BOR may rely on existing
authority to continue the use of CRSP power revenues or use
appropriated funds to ensure full base funding.'' It is inappropriate
for the administration to continue use of power revenues without a
specific authorization, and despite repeated inquiries CREDA has not
been informed by BOR what ``existing authority'' is being referred to
in the budget request language.
To maintain uninterrupted annual/base funding for the RIP, CREDA
supports Federal appropriations in the amount of $11,387,000 to fund
not only the administration's request for capital projects, but an
additional nonreimbursable $3 million for base funding activities.
CREDA requests that, in the absence of a specific authorization, the
subcommittee expressly prohibit the use of CRSP power revenues for
activities beyond those authorized by Public Law 106-392.
______
Prepared Statement of Colorado Springs Utilities
Dear Chairwoman Feinstein and Senator Alexander: I request your
support for an appropriation for fiscal year 2013 of $8,387,000 to the
Bureau of Reclamation within the budget line item entitled ``Endangered
Species Recovery Implementation Program'' for the Upper Colorado
Region, consistent with the President's recommended budget. Substantial
non-Federal cost-sharing funding is occurring pursuant to Public Law
106-392, as amended. This appropriation will allow continued funding in
fiscal year 2013 for the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery
Program and the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program as
authorized by Public Law 106-392. These two successful ongoing
cooperative partnership programs involve the States of Colorado, New
Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming; Indian tribes; Federal agencies; and water,
power, and environmental interests.
The requested Federal appropriations are critically important to
these efforts moving forward. The past support of your subcommittee has
greatly facilitated the success of these multistate, multiagency
programs. I thank you for the subcommittee's past support and request
the subcommittee's assistance for fiscal year 2013 funding to ensure
the Bureau of Reclamation's continuing financial participation in these
vitally important programs.
______
Prepared Statement of the Colorado Water Congress
Dear Chairwoman Feinstein and Senator Alexander: I request your
support for an appropriation for fiscal year 2013 of $8,387,000 to the
Bureau of Reclamation within the budget line item entitled ``Endangered
Species Recovery Implementation Program'' for the Upper Colorado
Region, consistent with the President's recommended budget. Substantial
non-Federal cost-sharing funding is occurring pursuant to Public Law
106-392, as amended. This appropriation will allow continued funding in
fiscal year 2013 for the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery
Program and the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program as
authorized by Public Law 106-392. These two successful ongoing
cooperative partnership programs involve the States of Colorado, New
Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming; Indian tribes; Federal agencies; and water,
power, and environmental interests.
The requested Federal appropriations are critically important to
these efforts moving forward. The past support of your subcommittee has
greatly facilitated the success of these multistate, multiagency
programs. I thank you for the subcommittee's past support and request
the subcommittee's assistance for fiscal year 2013 funding to ensure
the Bureau of Reclamation's continuing financial participation in these
vitally important programs.
______
Prepared Statement of Denver Water
Dear Chairwoman Feinstein and Senator Alexander: On behalf of
Denver Water, I request your support for an appropriation for fiscal
year 2013 of $8,387,000 to the Bureau of Reclamation within the budget
line item entitled ``Endangered Species Recovery Implementation
Program'' for the Upper Colorado Region, consistent with the
President's recommended budget. Substantial non-Federal cost-sharing
funding is occurring pursuant to Public Law 106-392, as amended. This
appropriation will allow continued funding in fiscal year 2013 for the
Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program and the San Juan
River Basin Recovery Implementation Program as authorized by Public Law
106-392. These two successful ongoing cooperative partnership programs
involve the States of Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming; Indian
tribes; Federal agencies; and water, power, and environmental
interests.
The requested Federal appropriations are critically important to
these efforts moving forward. The past support of your subcommittee has
greatly facilitated the success of these multistate, multiagency
programs. I thank you for the subcommittee's past support and request
the subcommittee's assistance for fiscal year 2013 funding to ensure
the Bureau of Reclamation's continuing financial participation in these
vitally important programs.
______
Prepared Statement of Grand Valley Water Users' Association
Dear Chairwoman Feinstein and Senator Alexander: I request your
support for an appropriation for fiscal year 2013 of $8,387,000 to the
Bureau of Reclamation within the budget line item entitled ``Endangered
Species Recovery Implementation Program'' for the Upper Colorado
Region, consistent with the President's recommended budget. Substantial
non-Federal cost-sharing funding is occurring pursuant to Public Law
106-392, as amended. This appropriation will allow continued funding in
fiscal year 2013 for the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery
Program and the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program as
authorized by Public Law 106-392. These two successful ongoing
cooperative partnership programs involve the States of Colorado, New
Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming; Indian tribes; Federal agencies; and water,
power, and environmental interests.
The requested Federal appropriations are critically important to
these efforts moving forward. The past support of your subcommittee has
greatly facilitated the success of these multistate, multiagency
programs. I thank you for the subcommittee's past support and request
the subcommittee's assistance for fiscal year 2013 funding to ensure
the Bureau of Reclamation's continuing financial participation in these
vitally important programs.
______
Prepared Statement of 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 2013 proposed budgets for the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) and the
Western Area Power Administration (WAPA).
IEDA is an Arizona nonprofit association whose 25 members and
associate members receive water from the Colorado River directly or
through the facilities of the Central Arizona Project (CAP) and
purchase hydropower from Federal facilities on the Colorado River
either directly from WAPA 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 in its 50th year 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 BOR budget and found, not unexpectedly, that
it does not address the enormous backlog of needs of the agency's aging
infrastructure. We support the important projects and programs that are
included in the proposed budget. We are especially mindful that the
Yuma Desalting Plant 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 to several
other issues of concern to us and Arizona water and power customers.
First, we are concerned that the Congress has not extended the
Upper Colorado River Recovery Implementation Plan. That Plan focuses on
recovering three endangered fish in the Colorado River and its
tributaries above Lake Powell. It is a three-party agreement:
--Federal agencies with appropriations;
--monies from the four Upper Colorado River Basin States (Colorado,
New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming); and
--power revenues from our members and other Colorado River Storage
Project customers.
Without the extension there are no Federal appropriation dollars to
continue the program. This breaks the ``deal'' that we cut to keep the
Endangered Species Act (ESA) from being used to attack our water and
hydropower. No money, no plan. BOR appropriations should be provided
but, if not, the subcommittee should recognize that the Plan is
suspended and neither the power users nor the States have any
obligation to continue it. BOR shouldn't try to backdoor money for this
use. The subcommittee should hold them accountable.
Second, we continue to be concerned about BOR's spending on post-9/
11 security costs. The Congress gave BOR specific directions on this
subject several years ago. That included adjustments for declines in
the Consumer Price Index and non-reimbursability of certain costs.
However, the Congress did not instruct BOR with regard to how this
program should be implemented. Like many reaction programs, this
program experienced some overreaction. We believe a close review of the
ongoing levels of staffing and other expenses is in order.
western area power administration
IEDA has reviewed the proposed budget for the WAPA. We wish to call
the subcommittee's attention to the limited appropriation for
construction funding proposed for fiscal year 2013. We believe this
shortfall is irresponsible. WAPA has more than 17,000 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 WAPA's Desert Southwest Region, our region, work necessary just to
maintain system reliability will have to be postponed.
The President's budget, once again, assumes that unmet capital
formation needs will be made up by WAPA's customers. We would be the
first to support additional customer financing of Federal facilities
and expenses through the Contributed Funds Act authority under BOR law
that is available to WAPA. However, programs utilizing non-Federal
capital formation require years to develop. One such program that was
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 WAPA customers can develop contracts,
have them reviewed, gain approval of these contracts from WAPA 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. Moreover, scoring and ``cut/go'' rules are
providing major disincentives for WAPA's customers and others in this
regard.
There also are impediments to using existing Federal laws in
facilitating non-Federal financing of Federal facilities and repairs to
Federal facilities and the Congress should examine them. 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 WAPA 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.
However, there is one subject about which we urge you not to
provide funding. On March 16, 2012, Secretary of Energy Steven Chu
announced that WAPA would be participating in a gigantic Energy
Imbalance Market (EIM) in the Western United States. This is an
untested, unanalyzed, unproven boondoggle being promoted to force
utilities in the West to add layer upon layer of bureaucracy over their
existing operations, when doing so elsewhere has only escalated
electricity costs and hampered economic recovery. We urge you to
expressly prohibit WAPA from funding this attack on the West's economy
and require peer-reviewed scientific and economic analysis before any
money is spent to facilitate WAPA's participation in an EIM.
conclusion
Thank you for the opportunity to submit this written testimony. If
we can provide any additional information or be of any other service to
the subcommittee, please do not hesitate to get in touch with us.
______
Prepared Statement of The Jicarilla Apache Nation
Dear Chairwoman Feinstein and Senator Alexander: On behalf of the
Jicarilla Apache Nation, I request your support for an appropriation
for fiscal year 2013 of $8,387,000 to the Bureau of Reclamation within
the budget line item entitled ``Endangered Species Recovery
Implementation Program'' for the Upper Colorado Region, consistent with
the President's recommended budget. Substantial non-Federal cost-
sharing funding is occurring pursuant to Public Law 106-392, as
amended. This appropriation will allow continued funding in fiscal year
2013 for the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program and
the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program as authorized
by Public Law 106-392. These two successful ongoing cooperative
partnership programs involve the States of Colorado, New Mexico, Utah,
and Wyoming; Indian tribes; Federal agencies; and water, power, and
environmental interests.
Jicarilla has been an active participant in these programs since
1992 and the requested Federal appropriations are critically important
to these efforts moving forward. The past support of your subcommittee
has greatly facilitated the success of these multistate, multiagency
programs. I thank you for the subcommittee's past support and request
the subcommittee's assistance for fiscal year 2013 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 2013 request
The Mni Wiconi Project beneficiaries respectfully request $23.137
million in appropriations for construction and $12.224 million for
operation, maintenance, and replacement (OMR) activities for fiscal
year 2012, a total request of $35.361 million:
FISCAL YEAR 2013 TOTAL REQUEST
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Construction............................................ $23,137,000
OMR..................................................... 12,224,000
---------------
Total............................................. 35,361,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The construction request includes $0.960 million for Bureau of
Reclamation oversight, and the OMR request includes $1.447 million for
oversight.
construction funds
Construction funds would be utilized as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Construction
Project area request fiscal
year 2013
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oglala Sioux Rural Water Supply System:
Core................................................ ( \1\ )
Distribution........................................ $13,838,000
West River/Lyman-Jones RWS.............................. 2,231,000
Rosebud RWS............................................. 7,068,000
---------------
Total............................................. 23,137,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Complete.
As shown in the table below, the project will be 95-percent
complete at the end of fiscal year 2012. Construction funds remaining
after fiscal year 2012 will total $23.137 million within the current
authorization (in October 2010 dollars). The funds will not be adequate
to complete the project as originally planned.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Federal Construction Funding (October 2011 $471,300,000
dollars)...............................................
Estimated Federal spent through fiscal year 2012........ $448,163,000
Percent spent through fiscal year 2012.................. 95.09%
Amount remaining after 2012 (estimated 2013 dollars).... $23,137,000
Completion fiscal year (Statutory Fiscal Year 2013; 2013
Public Law 110-161)....................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost indexing over the last 5 years has averaged 4.72 percent for
pipelines and last year was 7.83 percent. Pipelines are the principal
components yet to be completed (see following chart).
rate of construction cost increase for annual and 5-year running
averages since 1992, bureau of reclamation
The extension of the project from 2008 to 2013 did not provide for
budgeting of Reclamation oversight, administration and other
``overhead'' costs, which will total $22.472 million by the end of
2013. These costs have been and will continue to be incurred at the
expense of construction elements. The slow pace of budgeting and
appropriations has caused the diminishment of construction elements to
cover non-construction overhead costs.
The support of the administration to allocate adequate
discretionary funds in fiscal year 2012 and budget adequately for
fiscal year 2013 to enable the allocation of remaining authorized funds
is recognized and greatly appreciated.
The request will create an estimated 210 full-time equivalent (FTE)
construction jobs and 94 OMR jobs in an area of the nation with the
lowest per capita income and deepest poverty.
Poverty is the harbinger of the severe healthcare crisis facing the
Indian people in the Northern Great Plains. The present value of extra
costs of healthcare during the lifetime of each 24,000 members of the
Indian population in the Mni Wiconi Project is estimated at $1.12 to
$2.25 billion (in 2010 dollars). The costs are based on extraordinarily
high rates of mortality due to heart disease, cancer and diabetes. The
Mni Wiconi Project has the direct effect of employing part of our
unemployed and underemployed Indian population and creates the
necessary infrastructure for more employment in indirect commercial and
industrial development. This will reduce poverty, mortality, and the
national cost burden of Indian healthcare.
oglala sioux rural water supply system
Core System
The Oglala Sioux Tribe has completed the core system that serves
all distribution systems of West River/Lyman-Jones, the Rosebud Sioux
Tribe, the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe, and the Oglala Sioux Tribe.
Distribution System
The Pine Ridge Indian Reservation will continue to receive more
water from the Oglala Sioux Rural Water Supply System (OSRWSS) core
system in fiscal year 2012. Major segments of the main transmission
system will be completed across the Reservation and connect many of the
larger communities with safe and adequate drinking water. OSRWSS
pipelines now deliver water from the Missouri River to the communities
of Georgetown, Wanblee, Crazy Horse School, Lakota Fund Housing, and
Potato Creek Community and the large number of rural homes between the
communities. The communities of Hisle, Kyle, Manderson, Red Shirt,
Porcupine, and Wounded Knee can be served with Missouri River water by
the end of 2012.
Fiscal year 2013 will be another historic year, but considerable
work remains to distribute the water supply throughout the Reservation.
More than 40 percent of the project's population resides on the Pine
Ridge Indian Reservation, and only 85 percent of the distribution
system will be complete at the end of 2012. The Reservation public
received its first Missouri River supply in 2009 after waiting 15 years
for construction of core facilities to the Reservation.
Project funds in fiscal year 2013 will continue building the on-
Reservation transmission system. Funding will be used for transmission
and service line development east of Pine Ridge Village between
Wakpamni, Batesland, and Allen and south toward the Nebraska State
line. This area has been deferred in the past due to funding
constraints. The supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA)
facilities will be installed with state-of-the-art electronic
equipment.
As set forth above, activity on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation
in fiscal year 2013 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.
The Oglala Sioux Tribe is supportive of the funding request of
other sponsors.
west river/lyman-jones rural water system
West River/Lyman-Jones (WR/LJ) RWS projects for fiscal year 2013
include standby generation facilities, 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.
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.
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 without State and Federal
assistance.
rosebud sioux rural water system
The Rosebud Sioux Tribe is faced with difficult decisions on how
best to use the remaining authorized construction ceiling for the
Rosebud Sioux Rural Water System or Sicangu Mni Wiconi. It has been
more than 20 years since the tribe completed its Needs Assessment and
engineering plan. There have been significant changes in the tribe's
development plans and their water resources since 1993. The use of the
remaining $7.068 million in construction funding strikes a balance
between recent developments and original plan developed 20 years ago.
The majority of funds will go toward completion of the Sicangu
Village Pipeline. This project extends the water system to the new
housing area being developed in the southern portion of the Reservation
near the Nebraska border. While potential demands for this area were
included in the original plan a pipeline from the north was not
envisioned because it was believed that the High Plains (also known as
``Ogallala'') aquifer was capable of providing a reliable source of
high-quality water. Development of local wells has proven otherwise and
the increased demands have required bringing surface water south to the
area.
While lack of sufficient yield from the aquifer is the primary
problem at Sicangu Village, the problem is exacerbated by high
concentrations of nitrates at two schools north of the housing area.
The tribe is attempting to leverage Mni Wiconi funding with Indian
Health Service and Environmental Protection Agency funds to address the
issue and provide water that meets primary safe drinking water
standards for the schools.
The last major project in fiscal year 2013 will be the replacement
of the treatment facility for the Rosebud well field. This facility was
constructed prior to Mni Wiconi and is ``showing its age''. While the
facility has been used since 1997 as a core component of the Sicangu
Mni Wiconi and even treated water that was exported to the WR/LJ
service area, the Bureau's current policy does not allow for
replacement under the replacement, additions, and extraordinary (RAX)
maintenance program. The project completion plan proposed by the
project sponsors would allow RAX funding under the OMR portion of the
appropriations to be used to upgrade existing system components such as
this and allow construction funds to be used for completion of the
distribution system.
The remainder of the authorized ceiling and fiscal year 2013
appropriations will be used for small additions to the distribution
system and service lines and connections, all of which are constructed
through the Tribe's force account program.
operation, maintenance, and replacement
The sponsors will continue to work with Reclamation to ensure that
their budgets are adequate to properly operate, maintain, and replace
respective portions of the core and distribution systems. The sponsors
will also continue to manage OMR expenses. The administration's budget
for fiscal year 2013 is virtually the same as requested by the
sponsors.
FISCAL YEAR 2013 OPERATION, MAINTENANCE, AND REPLACEMENT
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project area Request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oglala Sioux Rural Water Supply System:
Core................................................ $3,440,000
Distribution........................................ 3,400,000
Lower Brule............................................. 1,560,000
Rosebud RWS............................................. 2,377,000
Reclamation............................................. 1,447,000
---------------
Total............................................. 12,224,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The project has been treating and delivering more water each year
from the OSRWSS Water Treatment Plant near Fort Pierre as construction
has advanced in the Rosebud, WR/LJ, 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
95-percent completion. The OMR budget must be adequate to keep pace
with the system that is placed in operation.
With completion of construction imminent in fiscal year 2013,
emphasis will shift to operation, maintenance, and replacement as the
primary budgeting need. Adherence to a proper level of operation,
maintenance, and replacement funding is manifest. Budgeting by the
United States to ensure that aging features of the constructed project
are protected is not only sensible but properly executes the
responsibilities of the United States as trustee to the Indian people.
While the budgeting by the administration was adequate this year,
budgeting has not been adequate in several of the past years. The
concern is that aging components of critical project facilities will
not be properly repaired and replaced due to budget limitations.
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 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 OM&R for fiscal year 2013 is $1,560,000.
The RSRWS expanded the areas served from surface water
significantly in 2011 and 2012. In 2012 the connections to provide
surface water to the town of Mission were completed. Early in fiscal
year 2013 the pipeline and pumping station delivering surface water to
Sicangu Village will be completed. The new pumping stations increase
operational costs for energy, maintenance, and personnel. In addition,
energy costs increases have significantly impacted Rosebud for
electrical costs and vehicle expenses. With the oldest parts of the
system in service for 15 years replacement costs covered under RAX are
also becoming more significant. RAX funds must be included in the Mni
Wiconi Project appropriations because they are not funded through the
Bureau's RAX program.
OSRWSS will incur costs of replacement and sludge removal at the
water treatment plant in fiscal year 2013. The Reclamation budget does
not provide for routine replacements, which threatens the capital
investment in the project. OSRWSS needs to replace 12 flocculation
drives, 8 effluent valves, 2 pump variable frequency drive pumps,
chemical feed pumps, and numerous other parts that Reclamation only
includes in its RAX account for extraordinary, not routine maintenance.
The replacement costs in our request are $958,000, which will ensure
that obsolete parts are traded out. The balance of the $3.440 million
request is for normal operation and maintenance. Further, OSRWSS staff
will anticipate a salary adjustment to accommodate competitive wages
for South Dakota.
The on-reservation OSRWSS OMR expenses will be substantially higher
with higher pumping rates, unanticipated costs with pump houses repair
and higher water consumption as new systems are built and communities
are connected. On-reservation staff will anticipate a salary adjustment
to accommodate competitive wages for South Dakota as their jobs have
become more technical, which requires a higher base wage. On-
reservation has not received RAX money since fiscal year 2009 so there
is a back log of items that fall in RAX maintenance.
The Mni Wiconi Project tribal beneficiaries respectfully request
appropriations for OMR in fiscal year 2013 in the amount of $12.224
million, which is virtually the same as the President's budget.
______
Prepared Statement of The Nature Conservancy
Dear Chairwoman Feinstein and Senator Alexander: My name is Taylor
Hawes and I am the Director, Colorado River Program. I request your
support for an appropriation for fiscal year 2013 of $8,387,000 to the
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) within the budget line item
entitled ``Endangered Species Recovery Implementation Program'' for the
Upper Colorado Region, consistent with the President's recommended
budget. Substantial non-Federal cost-sharing funding is occurring
pursuant to Public Law 106-392, as amended. This appropriation will
allow continued funding in fiscal year 2013 for the Upper Colorado
River Endangered Fish Recovery Program and the San Juan River Recovery
Implementation Program as authorized by Public Law 106-392. These two
successful ongoing cooperative partnership programs involve the States
of Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming; Indian tribes; Federal
agencies; and water, power, and environmental interests.
I thank you for the subcommittee's past support and request the
subcommittee's assistance for fiscal year 2013 funding to ensure
Reclamation's continuing financial participation in these vitally
important programs.
______
Prepared Statement of the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District
Dear Chairwoman Feinstein and Senator Alexander: I request your
support for an appropriation for fiscal year 2013 of $8,387,000 to the
Bureau of Reclamation within the budget line item entitled ``Endangered
Species Recovery Implementation Program'' for the Upper Colorado
Region, consistent with the President's recommended budget. Substantial
non-Federal cost-share funding is occurring pursuant to Public Law 106-
392 as amended. This appropriation will allow continued funding in
fiscal year 2013 for the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery
Program and the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program as
authorized by Public Law 106-392. These two successful, ongoing,
cooperative partnership programs involve the States of Colorado, New
Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming; Indian tribes; Federal agencies; and water,
power, and environmental interests.
The requested Federal appropriations are critically important to
these efforts moving forward. The past support of your subcommittee has
greatly facilitated the success of these multistate, multiagency
programs. I thank you for the subcommittee's past support and request
the subcommittee's assistance for fiscal year 2013 funding to ensure
the Bureau of Reclamation's continuing financial participation in these
vitally important programs.
______
Prepared Statement of the San Juan Water Commission
Dear Chairwoman Feinstein and Senator Alexander: I request your
support for an appropriation for fiscal year 2013 of $8,387,000 to the
Bureau of Reclamation within the budget line item entitled ``Endangered
Species Recovery Implementation Program'' for the Upper Colorado
Region, consistent with the President's recommended budget. Substantial
non-Federal cost-sharing funding is occurring pursuant to Public Law
106-392, as amended. This appropriation will allow continued funding in
fiscal year 2013 for the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery
Program and the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program as
authorized by Public Law 106-392. These two successful ongoing
cooperative partnership programs involve the States of Colorado, New
Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming; Indian tribes; Federal agencies; and water,
power, and environmental interests.
The requested Federal appropriations are critically important to
these efforts moving forward. The past support of your subcommittee has
greatly facilitated the success of these multistate, multiagency
programs. I thank you for the subcommittee's past support and request
the subcommittee's assistance for fiscal year 2013 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 Chairwoman Feinstein and Senator Alexander: On behalf of the
Southern Ute Indian Tribe, I am writing to request your support for an
appropriation for fiscal year 2013 of $8,387,000 to the Bureau of
Reclamation within the budget line item entitled ``Endangered Species
Recovery Implementation Program'' for the Upper Colorado Region,
consistent with the President's recommended budget. Substantial non-
Federal cost-sharing funding is occurring pursuant to Public Law 106-
392, as amended. This appropriation will allow continued funding in
fiscal year 2013 for the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery
Program and the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program as
authorized by Public Law 106-392. These two successful, ongoing,
cooperative partnership programs involve the States of Colorado, New
Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming; the Southern Ute Indian Tribe; the Ute
Mountain Ute Indian Tribe; the Navajo Nation; the Jicarilla Apache
Nation; Federal agencies; and water, power, and environmental
interests.
The requested Federal appropriations are critically important to
these efforts moving forward. The past support of your subcommittee has
greatly facilitated the success of these multistate, multiagency
programs. The Tribe thanks you for the subcommittee's past support and
requests the subcommittee's assistance for fiscal year 2013 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 Chairwoman Feinstein and Senator Alexander: I request your
support for an appropriation for fiscal year 2013 of $8,387,000 to the
Bureau of Reclamation within the budget line item entitled ``Endangered
Species Recovery Implementation Program'' for the Upper Colorado
Region, consistent with the President's recommended budget. Substantial
non-Federal cost-sharing funding is occurring pursuant to Public Law
106-392, as amended. This appropriation will allow continued funding in
fiscal year 2013 for the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery
Program and the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program as
authorized by Public Law 106-392. These two successful ongoing
cooperative partnership programs involve the States of Colorado, New
Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming; Indian tribes; Federal agencies; and water,
power, and environmental interests.
The requested Federal appropriations are critically important to
these efforts moving forward. The past support of your subcommittee has
greatly facilitated the success of these multistate, multiagency
programs. I thank you for the subcommittee's past support and request
the subcommittee's assistance for fiscal year 2013 funding to ensure
the Bureau of Reclamation's continuing financial participation in these
vitally important programs.
______
Prepared Statement of the State of Utah
Dear Chairwoman Feinstein and Senator Alexander: On behalf of the
State of Utah and Utah's Colorado River water users, I respectfully
request your support for the appropriation to the Bureau of Reclamation
for the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program and the
San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program. These two
programs are provided for in the budget line item entitled ``Endangered
Species Recovery Implementation Program''.
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 have 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 the interstate river compacts and the participating
States' water law.
Since 1998, the two programs, collectively, have provided ESA
section 7 compliance (without litigation) for more than 2,100 Federal,
tribal, State, and privately managed water projects depleting more than
3.7 million acre-feet of water per year. Substantial non-Federal cost-
sharing funding exceeding 50 percent is embodied in both programs.
Each year in support of these two regionwide cooperative recovery
programs, the State of Utah requests the subcommittee's assistance. It
is absolutely essential that fiscal year 2013 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.
On behalf of the State of Utah, I thank you for the past support
and assistance of your subcommittee; it has greatly facilitated the
ongoing and continuing success of these multistate, multiagency
programs vital to providing water for Utah.
______
Prepared Statement of the State of Wyoming
Dear Chairwoman Feinstein and Senator Alexander: I am requesting
your support for fiscal year 2013 appropriations to the Bureau of
Reclamation for the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery
Program and the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program.
These two programs are provided for in the budget line-item entitled
``Endangered Species Recovery Implementation Program''. 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 such that they can each be
removed from the Federal endangered species list. At the same time,
these programs have provided the means for water use and development to
continue in our growing western States.
These two programs are unique efforts involving the States of
Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming; Indian tribes; Federal
agencies; and water, power, and environmental interests. They continue
to achieve Endangered Species Act (ESA) compliance for Federal and non-
Federal water projects and are fully complying with interstate river
compacts and the participating States' water law. Recognizing the need
for fiscal responsibility, I must also point out that the participants
would all be spending much more in ESA-related costs in the absence of
these programs.
Since 1988, these programs, collectively, have provided ESA section
7 compliance (without litigation) for more than 2,300 Federal, tribal,
State, and privately managed water projects that use more than 3.72
million acre-feet of water per year. Substantial non-Federal cost-
sharing, which exceeds 50 percent, is embodied in both programs.
The State of Wyoming requests the subcommittee's assistance in
support of these two regionwide cooperative recovery programs each
year. It is essential that fiscal year 2013 funding be provided within
the Bureau of Reclamation's budget appropriation to assure that the
agency can continue to meet its financial participation requirements,
which were set forth in Public Law 106-392, as amended.
On behalf of the State of Wyoming, I thank you for your
consideration on my request. I also thank you for the past support and
assistance of your subcommittee, which have greatly facilitated the
ongoing and continuing success of these multistate, multiagency
programs that are vital to the recovery of the endangered fish and
providing necessary water supplies for the growing Intermountain West.
______
Prepared Statement of the Tri-County Water Conservancy District
Dear Chairwoman Feinstein and Senator Alexander: The Tri-County
Water Conservancy District Board requests your support for an
appropriation for fiscal year 2013 of $8,387,000 to the Bureau of
Reclamation within the budget line item entitled ``Endangered Species
Recovery Implementation Program'' for the Upper Colorado Region,
consistent with the President's recommended budget. Substantial non-
Federal cost-sharing funding is occurring pursuant to Public Law 106-
392, as amended. This appropriation will allow continued funding in
fiscal year 2013 for the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery
Program and the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program as
authorized by Public Law 106-392. These two successful ongoing
cooperative partnership programs involve the States of Colorado, New
Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming; Indian tribes; Federal agencies; and water,
power, and environmental interests.
The requested Federal appropriations are critically important to
these efforts moving forward. The past support of your subcommittee has
greatly facilitated the success of these multistate, multiagency
programs. We thank you for the subcommittee's past support and request
the subcommittee's assistance for fiscal year 2013 funding to ensure
the Bureau of Reclamation's continuing financial participation in these
vitally important programs.
______
Prepared Statement of the Upper Gunnison River Water Conservancy
District
Dear Chairwoman Feinstein and Senator Alexander: I request your
support for an appropriation for fiscal year 2013 of $8,387,000 to the
Bureau of Reclamation within the budget line item entitled ``Endangered
Species Recovery Implementation Program'' for the Upper Colorado
Region, consistent with the President's recommended budget. Substantial
non-Federal cost-sharing funding is occurring pursuant to Public Law
106-392, as amended. This appropriation will allow continued funding in
fiscal year 2013 for the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery
Program and the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program as
authorized by Public Law 106-392. These two successful ongoing
cooperative partnership programs involve the States of Colorado, New
Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming; Indian tribes; Federal agencies; and water,
power, and environmental interests.
The requested Federal appropriations are critically important to
these efforts moving forward. The past support of your subcommittee has
greatly facilitated the success of these multistate, multiagency
programs. I thank you for the subcommittee's past support and request
the subcommittee's assistance for fiscal year 2013 funding to ensure
the Bureau of Reclamation's continuing financial participation in these
vitally important programs.
______
Prepared Statement of the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe
Dear Chairwoman Feinstein and Senator Alexander: I request your
support for an appropriation for fiscal year 2013 of $8,387,000 to the
Bureau of Reclamation within the budget line item entitled ``Endangered
Species Recovery Implementation Program'' for the Upper Colorado
Region, consistent with the President's recommended budget. Substantial
non-Federal cost-sharing funding is occurring pursuant to Public Law
106-392, as amended. This appropriation will allow continued funding in
fiscal year 2013 for the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery
Program and the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program as
authorized by Public Law 106-392. These two successful ongoing
cooperative partnership programs involve the States of Colorado, New
Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming; Indian tribes; Federal agencies; and water,
power, and environmental interests.
The requested Federal appropriations are critically important to
these efforts moving forward. The past support of your subcommittee has
greatly facilitated the success of these multistate, multiagency
programs. I thank you for the subcommittee's past support and request
the subcommittee's assistance for fiscal year 2013 funding to ensure
the Bureau of Reclamation's continuing financial participation in these
vitally important programs.
______
Prepared Statement of the Utah Water Users Association
Dear Chairwoman Feinstein and Senator Alexander: I request your
support for an appropriation for fiscal year 2013 of $8,387,000 to the
Bureau of Reclamation within the budget line item entitled ``Endangered
Species Recovery Implementation Program'' for the Upper Colorado
Region, consistent with the President's recommended budget. Substantial
non-Federal cost-sharing funding is occurring pursuant to Public Law
106-392, as amended. This appropriation will allow continued funding in
fiscal year 2013 for the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery
Program and the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program as
authorized by Public Law 106-392. These two successful ongoing
cooperative partnership programs involve the States of Colorado, New
Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming; Indian tribes; Federal agencies; and water,
power, and environmental interests.
The requested Federal appropriations are critically important to
these efforts moving forward. The past support of your subcommittee has
greatly facilitated the success of these multistate, multiagency
programs. I thank you for the subcommittee's past support and request
the subcommittee's assistance for fiscal year 2013 funding to ensure
the Bureau of Reclamation's continuing financial participation in these
vitally important programs.
______
Prepared Statement of the Wyoming State Engineer's Office
Dear Chairwoman Feinstein and Ranking Member Alexander: This letter
is sent in support of fiscal year 2013 funding for the Bureau of
Reclamation's (BOR) Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Project--
Title II Program. A total of $14,500,000 is requested for BOR's fiscal
year 2011 activities to implement BOR's Basinwide authorized Colorado
River Basin salinity control program. Failure to appropriate these
funds will directly result in significant economic damages being
accrued by United States and Mexican water users.
The State of Wyoming also supports funding for Salinity Control
Program general investigations as requested within BOR's Colorado River
Water Quality Improvement Program (CRWQIP) budget line-item. It is
important that BOR has properly-funded planning and administration
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 Colorado River water quality
standards for salinity is essential to allow users in the seven
Colorado River Basin States to continue to develop Compact-apportioned
waters.
In addition to the funding identified above for the implementation
of BOR's 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
nearly 33 million people and irrigation water to approximately 4
million acres of land in the United States. The River is also the water
source for some 3 million people and 500,000 acres in Mexico. The high
concentration of total dissolved solids (e.g., the water's salinity
concentration) in the water limits users' abilities to make the
greatest use of this water supply. This remains a major issue and
continuing concern in both the United States and Mexico. The water's
salinity concentration especially affects agricultural, municipal, and
industrial water users. BOR presently estimates direct and computable
salinity-related damages in the United States amount to more than $300
million per year.
The Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) 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
the United States obligations to Mexico to control the River's salinity
to ensure the United States 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
BOR to conduct a basinwide 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 basinwide
program has demonstrated significantly improved cost-effectiveness, as
computed on $1 per ton of salt basis, as compared to the prior BOR-
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 38 years, the seven-State Colorado River Basin
Salinity Control Forum has actively assisted the Federal agencies,
including BOR, in implementing this unique and important program. At
its October 2012 meeting, the Forum recommended that BOR seek to have
appropriated and should expend $14,500,000 through its Basinwide
Program for Colorado River Basin salinity control in fiscal year 2013.
We strongly believe the combined efforts of the salinity control
efforts of BOR, 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 basinwide 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 2013 appropriations.
.................................................................
LIST OF WITNESSES, COMMUNICATIONS, AND PREPARED STATEMENTS
----------
Page
Alexander, Senator Lamar, U.S. Senator From Tennessee:
Questions Submitted by............................56, 115, 201, 219
Statements of............................................3, 65, 125
American:
Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, Prepared Statement
of the..................................................... 241
Geosciences Institute, Prepared Statement of the............. 243
Public Power Association, Prepared Statement of the.......... 244
Society for Microbiology, Prepared Statement of the.......... 246
Society of:
Agronomy, Prepared Statement of the...................... 249
Civil Engineers, Prepared Statement of the............... 221
Plant Biologists, Prepared Statement of.................. 250
APS Technology, Inc., Prepared Statement of...................... 255
ASME, Prepared Statement of...................................... 252
Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Reservation and Dry
Prairie Rural Water, Prepared Statement of the................. 313
Aurora Water, Prepared Statement of.............................. 315
Board of:
Levee Commissioners for the Yazoo-Mississippi Delta, Prepared
Statement of the........................................... 223
Mississippi Levee Commissioners, Prepared Statement of the... 224
Water Works of Pueblo, Colorado, Prepared Statement of....... 316
Carnegie Mellon University, Prepared Statement of................ 257
Castle, Hon. Anne, Assistant Secretary for Water and Science,
Bureau of Reclamation, Department of the Interior.............. 142
Prepared Statement of........................................ 143
Central Utah Water Conservancy District, Prepared Statement of... 316
Chu, Hon. Steven, Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Department
of Energy...................................................... 1
Prepared Statement of........................................ 7
Summary Statement of......................................... 5
City of Farmington, Prepared Statement of........................ 316
Coal Utilization Research Council, Prepared Statement of the..... 258
Coalition of Northeastern Governors, Prepared Statement of the... 261
Cochran, Senator Thad, U.S. Senator From Mississippi, Questions
Submitted by..................................................60, 207
Collins, Senator Susan, U.S. Senator From Maine:
Questions Submitted by......................................61, 208
Statement of................................................. 127
Colorado River:
Basin Salinity Control Forum, Prepared Statement of.......... 316
Board of California, Prepared Statement of the............... 318
Energy Distributors Association, Prepared Statements of the.. 320
Colorado Springs Utilities, Prepared Statement of................ 321
Colorado Water Congress, Prepared Statement of the............... 321
Connor, Hon. Michael L., Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation,
Department of the Interior..................................... 150
Prepared Statement of........................................ 151
Questions Submitted to....................................... 209
Crop Science Society of America, Prepared Statement of the....... 249
Cummins Inc., Prepared Statement of.............................. 263
D'Agostino, Thomas P., Administrator, National Nuclear Security
Administration, Department of Energy........................... 63
Prepared Statement of........................................ 70
Questions Submitted to....................................... 110
Summary Statement of......................................... 67
Darcy, Hon. Jo-Ellen, Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil
Works), Corps of Engineers--Civil, Department of the Army,
Department of Defense--Civil................................... 123
Prepared Statement of........................................ 129
Questions Submitted to....................................... 181
Summary Statement of......................................... 128
Denver Water, Prepared Statement of.............................. 321
Diesel Technology Forum, Prepared Statement of the............... 265
Durbin, Senator Richard J., U.S. Senator From Illinois, Questions
Submitted by................................................... 54
Edison Electric Institute, Prepared Statement of the............. 268
Electric Drive Transportation Association, Prepared Statement of
the............................................................ 270
Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology,
Prepared Statement of the...................................... 271
Feinstein, Senator Dianne, U.S. Senator From California:
Opening Statements of........................................ 1, 63
Questions Submitted by...........................110, 123, 181, 209
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, Prepared Statement of the. 272
Fifth Louisiana Levee District, Prepared Statement of the........ 227
Gas Turbine Association, Prepared Statement of the............... 275
GE Energy, Prepared Statement of................................. 276
Grand Valley Water Users' Association, Prepared Statement of..... 322
Irrigation and Electrical Districts Association of Arizona,
Prepared Statement of.......................................... 322
Izaak Walton League of America, Prepared Statement of the........ 227
Jicarilla Apache Nation, Prepared Statement of the............... 323
Landrieu, Senator Mary L., U.S. Senator From Louisiana, Questions
Submitted by..................................................42, 192
Lautenberg, Senator Frank R., U.S. Senator From New Jersey,
Questions Submitted by........................................43, 197
Little River Drainage District, Prepared Statement of the........ 230
Lower Brule Rural Water System, Prepared Statement of the........ 324
Mississippi Valley Flood Control Association, Prepared Statement
of the......................................................... 231
Murkowski, Senator Lisa, U.S. Senator From Alaska, Questions
Submitted by................................................... 61
Murray, Senator Patty, U.S. Senator From Washington, Questions
Submitted by........................................36, 113, 191, 219
National:
Association for State Community Services Programs, Prepared
Statement of the........................................... 282
Association of State Energy Officials, Prepared Statement of
the........................................................ 279
Carbon Capture Center, Prepared Statement of the............. 284
Community Action Foundation, Prepared Statement of the....... 287
Consumer Law Center, Prepared Statement of the............... 289
Hydropower Association, Prepared Statement of the............ 292
Insulation Association and International Association of Heat
and Frost Insulators and Allied Workers, Prepared Statement
of......................................................... 295
Research Center for Coal and Energy, Prepared Statement of
the........................................................ 296
Nature Conservancy, Prepared Statements of the.................234, 328
Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District, Prepared Statement
of the......................................................... 328
Nuclear Energy Institute, Prepared Statement of the.............. 298
Nuclear Engineering Department Heads Organization, Prepared
Statement of the............................................... 301
Oglala Sioux Rural Water Supply System, Prepared Statement of the 324
Red River Valley Association, Prepared Statement of the.......... 237
Rosebud Rural Water System, Prepared Statement of the............ 324
Sacramento Municipal Utility District, Prepared Statement of the. 303
San Juan Water Commission, Prepared Statement of the............. 328
Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematicsm, Prepared
Statement of the............................................... 304
Soil Science Society of America, Prepared Statement of the....... 249
Southern Ute Indian Tribe, Prepared Statement of the............. 329
Southwestern Water Conservation District, Prepared Statement of
the............................................................ 329
State of:
Utah, Prepared Statement of the.............................. 329
Wyoming, Prepared Statement of the........................... 330
State Teachers' Retirement System, State of California, Prepared
Statement of the............................................... 306
Temple, Major General Merdith W.B., Acting Commanding General,
Chief of Engineers, Corps of Engineers--Civil, Department of
the Army, Department of Defense--Civil......................... 136
Prepared Statement of........................................ 137
Questions Submitted to....................................... 181
Tester, Senator Jon, U.S. Senator From Montana, Questions
Submitted by..................................................44, 199
Tri-County Water Conservancy District, Prepared Statement of the. 330
University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, Prepared
Statement
of the......................................................... 307
Upper Gunnison River Water Conservancy District, Prepared
Statement of the............................................... 331
URS Corporation, Prepared Statement of the....................... 310
Utah Water Users Association, Prepared Statement of the.......... 331
Ute Mountain Ute Tribe, Prepared Statement of the................ 331
West River/Lyman Jones Rural Water System, Prepared Statement of
the............................................................ 324
Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Prepared Statement of the....... 312
Wyoming State Engineer's Office, Prepared Statement of the....... 332
SUBJECT INDEX
----------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL
Department of the Army
Corps of Engineers--Civil
Page
Additional Committee Questions................................... 181
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act........................... 135
Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration.................................... 133
Construction Program............................................. 138
Direct Program................................................... 138
Efficiency and Effectiveness of Corps Operations................. 140
Fiscal Year 2013:
Discretionary Funding Level.................................. 130
New Investments in........................................... 132
Program Budget, Summary of................................... 138
Flood Risk Management............................................ 133
Infrastructure Modernization..................................... 132
Investigations Program........................................... 138
National Defense................................................. 140
Navigation....................................................... 132
New Investments in Fiscal Year 2013.............................. 132
Operation and Maintenance Program................................ 139
Planning:
Improvements................................................. 135
Program Modernization........................................ 140
Program:
Construction................................................. 138
Direct....................................................... 138
Investigations............................................... 138
Operation and Maintenance.................................... 139
Regulatory................................................... 135
Reimbursable................................................. 139
Regulatory Program............................................... 135
Reimbursable Program............................................. 139
Research and Development......................................... 140
Summary of Fiscal Year 2013 Program Budget....................... 138
Value of the Civil Works Program to the Nation's Economy and
Defense........................................................ 140
Veterans Curation Project........................................ 135
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Additional Committee Questions................................... 36
Advanced Computing............................................... 31
Argonne and Supercomputing....................................... 55
Biofuels......................................................... 14
Blue Ribbon Commission Recommendations........................... 34
Bonneville Power Administration.................................. 37
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission......................... 16
Pumped Storage Hydro......................................... 23
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission............................. 16
Coordination With Other Agencies................................. 52
Distributed Wind................................................. 50
Efficient Automobiles............................................ 32
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Increase--Wind Technology. 13
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission--Bonneville Power
Administration................................................. 16
Fermilab and High Energy Physics................................. 54
Fiscal Responsibility and Management Excellence.................. 9
Fuel Cell and Hydrogen Program................................... 39
Fuel Cells....................................................... 22
Follow Up.................................................... 44
Fusion--International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor......... 10
FutureGen 2.0.................................................... 55
Geothermal:
Energy Budget................................................ 48
Heat Pumps................................................... 49
Health, Safety, and Security..................................... 36
High Energy Physics, Fermilab and................................ 54
Hub Questions.................................................... 56
Hydraulic:
Fracking..................................................... 19
Fracturing................................................... 45
Hydro Budget..................................................... 49
Leading in the Energy Technologies of the 21st Century........... 7
Mesoscale........................................................ 10
Nuclear:
Energy and Small Modular Reactors Questions.................. 57
Projects and Waste Clean Up.................................. 12
Reactor Loans................................................ 24
Safety....................................................... 28
Security, and............................................ 9
Waste:
Questions................................................ 57
Storage and Disposal..................................... 30
Office of:
Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability.................. 40
Inspector General Report on the Department of Energy Lab
Contracting Costs.......................................... 46
Science Questions............................................ 58
Offshore Wind.................................................... 33
Oil Prices....................................................... 17
Oil/Gas..........................................................25, 28
Pump Storage Hydro and Power Marketing Administration
Coordination................................................... 52
Renewable Energy Standard........................................ 53
Research and Development Efforts................................. 27
Strategic Petroleum Reserve...................................... 42
Streamlining and Reducing Costs Questions........................ 59
Tech Transfer.................................................... 22
Unleashing U.S. Innovation to Create Jobs and Lead in the Global
Economy........................................................ 8
Waste:
Isolation Pilot Plant........................................ 11
Power Program................................................ 41
Treatment Plant.............................................. 15
Weatherization................................................... 26
Programs..................................................... 20
Yucca Mountain................................................... 24
National Nuclear Security Administration
Achieving the President's Nuclear Security Objectives, Shaping
the Future..................................................... 70
Additional Committee Questions................................... 110
Administrative Costs............................................. 120
American Centrifuge Plant........................................ 108
Construction Projects............................................ 112
Continuously Improving........................................... 73
Doing Our Part................................................... 73
Environmental Management--Technology Development and Deployment.. 115
Fissile Materials Disposition.................................... 117
Life Extension Programs.........................................98, 117
Los Alamos National Laboratory Plutonium Facility................ 99
Major Shift in Second Line of Defense Program..................113, 118
National Ignition Facility......................................89, 110
National Laboratory Costs........................................ 97
National Nuclear Security Administration Workforce Planning...... 115
Nuclear:
Export Controls.............................................. 119
Security Objectives, Shaping the Future, Achieving the
President's................................................ 70
Smuggling.................................................... 104
Weapons Modernization........................................ 105
Oak Ridge Uranium Project........................................ 93
Pit Production................................................... 115
Plutonium.................................................... 97
Plutonium Pit Production......................................... 97
Radiological Cleanup............................................. 108
United States Enrichment Corporation...........................102, 107
Workforce Planning............................................... 120
National Nuclear Security Administration..................... 115
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Reclamation
2011 Accomplishments............................................. 144
Additional Committee Questions................................... 209
America's Great Outdoors......................................... 145
Anadromous Fish Screens.......................................... 215
Army Corps of Engineers--Levee Vegetation........................ 191
Bay-Delta Conservation Plan....................................213, 214
Beneficial Use of Dredged Materials.............................. 195
CALFED........................................................... 211
California Bay-Delta Restoration................................. 155
California Drought............................................... 212
Campaign to Cut Waste............................................ 156
Central Utah Project............................................. 149
Completion Act.............................................154, 218
Central Valley Project........................................... 177
Restoration Fund............................................. 155
State Water Project, and..................................... 210
Chickamauga Lock................................................. 160
Contributed Funds................................................ 187
Delta and Delta Counties......................................... 214
Des Moines River................................................. 175
Feasibility Studies.............................................. 174
Fiscal Responsibility............................................ 145
Fiscal Year 2013:
Budget for Water and Related Resources, Highlights of the.... 152
Priority Goal for Water Conservation......................... 156
Flood Control:
Coastal Emergencies, and..................................... 204
Studies, Ongoing............................................. 163
Growing the Economy Outdoors..................................... 145
Harbor Maintenance:
Taxes to the States Where Generated, Proposal To Return...... 185
Trust Fund............................................158, 184, 206
Highlights of the Fiscal Year 2013 Budget for Water and Related
Resources...................................................... 152
Hydropower.....................................................147, 219
Impact of Panama Canal Expansion on United States Shipping Ports. 164
Indian:
Land and Water Settlements................................... 148
Water Rights Settlements...................................155, 217
Inland Waterways................................................. 193
Trust Fund............................................159, 185, 202
Innovation Through Science....................................... 147
Intake Dam Rehabilitation........................................ 200
Interagency Performance Evaluation Task Force.................... 188
Investing in Our Youth........................................... 146
Klamath Settlement............................................... 211
Levee:
Task Force................................................... 200
Vegetation, Army Corps of Engineers.......................... 191
Louisiana Coastal Area Projects.................................. 167
Missouri River................................................... 176
Authorized Purposes Study.................................... 199
Flood Infrastructure Recovery................................ 199
Modified Charleston Method for Mitigation........................ 168
Natomas Levee Improvement Program................................ 157
New Energy Frontier.............................................. 147
New York-New Jersey Harbor Deepening............................. 163
Odessa Subarea Special Study..................................... 219
Olmsted Lock..................................................... 175
Dam, and..................................................... 201
Ongoing Flood Control Studies.................................... 163
Passaic River Basin.............................................. 163
Performance-Based Budget and Development of Work Plans........... 189
Permanent Appropriations......................................... 156
Policy and Administration........................................ 155
Principles and Guidelines........................................ 205
Project Prioritization........................................... 172
Proposal To Return Harbor Maintenance Taxes to the States Where
Generated...................................................... 185
Regulatory Program............................................... 205
Research and Development......................................... 155
San Joaquin:
Restoration Fund............................................. 212
River Restoration Fund....................................... 155
Section 104 Credits.............................................. 188
Sierra Nevadas................................................... 210
South Dakota Projects............................................ 211
St. Mary Rehabilitation.......................................... 200
State Water Project, Central Valley Project and.................. 210
Title XVI:
Water Reclamation and Reuse.................................. 214
WaterSMART................................................... 216
Vernal Pool Regulations.......................................... 161
Waste, Campaign to Cut........................................... 156
Water:
Banking...................................................... 209
Challenges................................................... 146
Conservation, Fiscal Year 2013 Priority Goal for............. 156
Related Resources, and....................................... 152
Highlights of the Fiscal Year 2013 Budget for............ 152
Resources Modernization...................................... 190
Wetlands Mitigation.............................................. 196
White House Navigation Task Force................................ 190
Work Plans....................................................... 186
Performance-Based Budget and Development of.................. 189
Yellowstone River Corridor Study................................. 199